Bill C-4 (Historical)

COVID-19 Response Measures Act

An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19

Part 1 enacts the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to authorize the payment of the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit to support Canada’s economic recovery in response to COVID-19. It also makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations.
Part 2 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) amend the reasons for which an employee is entitled to take leave related to COVID-19, and the number of weeks of that leave that an employee may take for each of those reasons; and
(b) give the Governor in Council the power, until September 25, 2021, to make regulations in certain circumstances to provide that any requirements or conditions, set out in certain provisions of Part III of that Act, respecting certificates issued by a health care practitioner do not apply and to provide for alternative requirements and conditions.
This Part also makes related amendments to the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act to ensure that employees may continue to take leave related to COVID-19 until September 25, 2021. Finally, it makes related amendments to regulations and contains coordinating amendments.
Part 3 amends the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to limit, as of October 1, 2020, the payments that may be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under that Act to those in respect of specified measures related to COVID-19, up to specified amounts. It also postpones the repeal of that Act until December 31, 2020.

Bill C-59—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

According to the House leader of the official opposition, Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill and therefore he asked the Chair to apply Standing Order 69.1(1), which provides as follows:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

The member relied on Speaker Regan's decision of November 8, 2017, to argue that Bill C-59 should not benefit from the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2). This exception stipulates that section 1 does not apply if a bill “has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.”

The House leader of the official opposition contended that the implementation of measures announced in the economic statement of November 21, 2023, is not enough of a common element to justify grouping them for voting purposes. He also asserted that an economic statement is not, properly speaking, a budget. The member said that Bill C-59 should be divided in 16 for the purpose of voting. He further stated that two of the 16 pieces, which are similar to bills C‑318 and C‑323, should simply not be put to a vote at all, given that the House has already passed those bills at second reading.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader pointed out that Bill C-59 mainly contains provisions implementing measures announced in the 2023 budget, along with some measures announced in the fall economic statement, whose common theme is addressing the affordability challenges facing Canadians. Consequently, he concluded that the measures included in the budget and those announced in the fall economic statement should be voted on together.

The Chair must first determine whether the main purpose of Bill C-59 is to implement the budget and whether it therefore falls within the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2).

The Standing Orders place very specific conditions on the consideration of budgets. For instance, a particular order of the day must be designated. Debate lasts a certain number of days, and votes take place at certain points in time. From start to finish, budgets are an integral part of the business of ways and means.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, defines financial statements as follows on pages 901 and 902:

On occasion, the Minister of Finance makes an economic statement to the House, generally referred to as a ‘mini‑budget’, that provides basic economic and fiscal information that will be the subject of policy review and public debate leading up to the next budget. Unlike a budget presentation, these statements are delivered without notice and do not precipitate a budget debate. Notices of ways and means motions are also tabled on these occasions.

Budget presentations and economic statements are therefore related concepts, but each has its own unique characteristics.

Both the economic statement of fall 2023 and the budget of spring 2023 are very long and complex documents. As indicated in its title, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”, Bill C-59 indeed contains many measures; some stem from the budget documents, others from the economic statement.

However, some measures are not to be found in either. The Chair takes the view that the main purpose of the bill is not the implementation of a budget, and the exception provided in Standing Order 69.1(2) does not apply in this case.

The Chair must now determine whether a common element connects the various provisions of Bill C-59 and, if not, to what extent all or some of the provisions are closely related. A broad common theme is not sufficient. As explained on November 7, 2017, at page 15095 of the Debates, the Chair must decide “whether the matters are so unrelated as to warrant a separate vote at second and third reading.”

In deciding whether a link exists, the Chair may consider several factors. Different measures may have a single objective or common elements, as the Chair found in its decision on Bill C‑4 on September 29, 2020, whose common element was a public health crisis. Cross-references between parts of a bill, or a lack thereof, may also be an indicator.

After completing this analysis, the Chair believes that Bill C‑59 should indeed be divided for the purpose of voting. As my predecessor noted on November 28, 2022, on page 10087 of the Debates, “[t]he objective here is not to divide the bill for consideration purposes, but to enable the House to decide questions that are not closely related separately.”

First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget. Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together.

Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote. Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code. Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.

The remaining divisions of Bill C-59, consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322, and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held. The Chair will remind members of this division when the bill comes to a vote at second reading.

Finally, I would like to remind members of the Chair's ruling on December 12, 2023, which also dealt with Bill C-59. The Chair found that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 can continue through the legislative process.

I thank all members for their attention.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4, which was adopted in October 2020, created three new temporary recovery benefits to support Canadians who were unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. Bill C-9 put in place new targeted supports to help businesses through the pandemic with the emergency rent and wage subsidies. Bill C-12 charted a course for clean growth for generations to come by legislating net-zero emissions by 2050. This is essential to avoid the worst impact of climate change, some of which we have seen in British Columbia, and fully seize the economic opportunities that it presents.

There are concerns that private members' bills may not make their way through the House. The reality is that, in the second session, these were in no way impeded by the hybrid process. There were 46 recorded divisions taken on private members' bills and motions. Six received royal assent, and six of the motions were adopted. Of the private members' bills that were passed, five of the bills were introduced by Conservative members and one by a Bloc Québécois member.

These are just a few examples of bills the House passed by working together, but in a physically distanced way. A total of 28 votes took place on opposition day motions. Of the 24 motions they debated, 16 were adopted. As members are aware, House committees also met in a hybrid format during the second session of the 43rd Parliament. The motion before us today would allow this to continue in the 44th Parliament.

Standing committees also played their important accountability function in our system of responsible government by reviewing government bills and estimates and issuing reports on government policy and actions. All of these functions were carried out in a hybrid format, and would be again under the proposed motion.

There are those who argue that conducting parliamentary business using video conference is too impersonal and that the cut and thrust of good debate is lost. I understand these concerns, particularly as a new MP. However, the reality is that COVID-19 is spreading in our communities, and too many people are still being hospitalized. Case counts are not going down.

Members of Parliament must lead by example. We have the means to be flexible and safe in how we conduct our business, and I believe it behooves us to use them. Technology is not perfect, and there is nothing that replaces in-person engagement, but these are extraordinary times, and we must find ways to adapt and to reflect the realities that we face today. Nothing in the motion that we are debating today would limit members' ability to participate in any parliamentary proceedings, and it would in no way infringe on their privilege.

In fact, this motion would facilitate greater participation in the face of ongoing public health restrictions. Members can imagine a scenario where a member has to isolate at home because of potential exposure to COVID-19. In a hybrid model, that member could still participate in House proceedings.

Canadians did not send us to this place to debate our needs as members of Parliament, and they certainly did not elect us to potentially contract and/or transmit COVID-19 in our home communities. They elected us to address the issues that matter most to them and their families, and the government has an agenda to do just that. I am hoping that all members in the House will work together to pass, before the winter adjournment, the crucial legislation the government has forthcoming.

While Canada has the enviable position of having recovered jobs to a level higher than that at the beginning of the pandemic, there are still sectors that are adversely affected by the pandemic and need support, and the government is bringing forward legislation to provide targeted support to the tourism and hospitality sectors and other hard-hit businesses.

Particularly during a global health crisis, it is vital that federally regulated workers have access to 10 paid sick days, so they do not have to make the difficult choice of whether they should go to work sick or not pay their bills. Frontline workers, many of whom live in Vancouver Granville, always deserve our greatest gratitude, especially during a pandemic. This is why it is so disappointing that there are those who are harassing and threatening frontline workers at their places of work. The government will legislate protections for these vital workers and their facilities.

We are so close to finishing this fight against COVID-19. Indeed, this very week we have further reason to be optimistic. Thanks to the government's efforts, vaccines for children aged five to 11 are arriving across this country. As much as we all want to be done with this pandemic, we now have over a year and a half of experience working within it, and we can draw on this experience during the 44th Parliament.

The second session of the 43rd Parliament showed us that a hybrid Parliament, with members participating in person and online, can produce real results for Canadians. It is the safe and responsible thing to do to keep using this flexible approach. For those of us who were not here, we watched with awe as the House functioned remotely.

I encourage all members to join me in supporting this motion.

Resuming Debate on the Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Outremont.

Since this is the first time that I am standing in the House in the 44th Parliament, I want to thank my constituents of Ottawa West—Nepean for putting their faith, confidence and trust in me once again as their member of Parliament.

I would also like to thank my family, especially my husband Don, my stepdaughter Courtney and my mom Maria, for always being there and supporting me throughout, as well as my volunteers and supporters.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on the government's motion to implement a hybrid sitting approach. The motion is proposing that we adapt our procedures and practices so that all members can fully participate in the proceedings of the House either in the chamber or by video conference. It is an important motion. The pandemic is ongoing and we require the flexibility that a hybrid system would provide.

I would like to paint a complete picture of the government motion.

First, the motion would allow all members to participate in the proceedings of the House in person or by video conference. The members who would attend in person would have to be double-vaccinated or have a valid medical exemption in accordance with the Board of Internal Economy's decision of October 19, 2021.

The motion also proposes certain changes to the Standing Orders of the House to take into account the virtual participation of members. For instance, members who participate remotely would be counted for quorum purposes. All standing orders relating to such requirements as standing when speaking, or being in one's seat in the House, would be amended to allow for participation by video conference.

The motion would also allow documents to be tabled or presented to the House in electronic format. For instance, members participating by video conference could table documents or present petitions or reports to the House in electronic format during Routine Proceedings. However, the documents would have to be forwarded to the Clerk prior to the members' intervention.

With respect to committees, the motion would allow members to participate in committee meetings remotely or in person on the condition that they meet the vaccine requirements set out by the Board of Internal Economy.

The motion proposes a process for recorded divisions in hybrid proceedings. The motion would bring the remote voting application back into use. This application was used successfully for over 120 votes in the second session of the 43rd Parliament. The remote voting application would also allow members to cast their votes safely, securely and conveniently. However, the motion takes a cautious approach. It would direct House administration to carry out an onboarding process of all members, which would be completed no later than December 8, 2021. The remote voting application would be put into use no later than December 9.

Until the remote voting application was implemented, members of the chamber would continue to vote by standing votes, and members participating remotely would be called one by one to cast their votes. The motion proposes measures to ensure the integrity of the remote voting application. Votes would need to be cast from within Canada using a House-managed device. A member's visual identity would need to be validated for each vote. Any member unable to vote because of technical issues would be able to connect to the virtual sitting to indicate their voting intention.

Lastly, the motion also proposes a process for the supplementary estimates (B) for the current fiscal year.

The motion provides that, on a day appointed by a minister of the Crown, consideration of the supplementary estimates shall be taken up by a committee of the whole at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. At the conclusion of the four hours allotted for consideration, the committee shall rise, and the estimates shall be deemed reported. This is the approach that was used at the beginning of the last parliamentary session because the composition of the standing committees had yet to be established.

It is important to note that the motion states that this method of operation would be in effect until June 23, 2022, the last day on the sitting calendar before the summer break.

The government is proposing a reasonable and pragmatic approach to ensure that members are able to participate in House proceedings while respecting public health guidance. This motion supports the fundamental role of members of the House.

The government has always recognized our essential role in representing our constituents and holding the government to account. The government has supported members in fulfilling this role since it came to power. The government has promoted free votes for members of the governing caucus and established the Prime Minister's question period. When the House was adjourned at the beginning of the pandemic, the government sought ways for members to fulfill their roles.

The former government House leader wrote to the Speaker to ask whether House administration would be able to implement virtual sittings. This is because the government wanted to ensure that the House could continue to hold the government to account during the pandemic. The House passed government motions in April and May 2020 to instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study how members could fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House was adjourned during the pandemic.

The committee undertook two thoughtful studies on this issue. In its second report, the committee recommended a detailed set of standing order amendments that would codify procedure for hybrid sittings and remote electronic voting. The committee also proposed guidance for the development, testing and implementation of a remote electronic voting application. The committee's reports provided valuable guidance to the House and to House administration in implementing a hybrid sitting approach in September 2020.

I want to stress this point. The motion does not propose anything new. During the last Parliament, in the face of an unprecedented public health crisis, the House adopted creative and innovative ways to debate, transact business and make decisions using a hybrid approach. From September 2020 to June 2021, the House sat with members in the chamber and members participating remotely. All regular business of the House was conducted, including consideration of government legislation and private members' business.

During this time, 19 government bills received royal assent. This legislation has a real impact on the lives of Canadians. For example, Bill C-4 created three new temporary recovery benefits to support Canadians who were unable to work because of COVID-19. Bill C-9 put in place targeted support to help businesses with emergency rent and wage subsidies. I hope members will come together to support the important economic measures that the government is proposing in Bill C-2 to address the current phase of the pandemic.

Regarding private members' business, six private members' bills received royal assent and six private members' motions were adopted during hybrid sittings. This success shows that it is possible to consider legislation and other important matters in a hybrid approach.

A hybrid parliament would also allow for better work-life balance, especially for members with young children. During the debates on the Standing Orders and House procedure in February 2021, several members from different parties mentioned the importance of work-life balance. Several members also noted that the hybrid Parliament and electronic voting made it easier for them to juggle their various responsibilities during the 43rd Parliament. Allowing members to choose whether to take part in House proceedings in person or remotely would make it easier for them to balance their responsibilities at home and at work.

I certainly hope that all members of the House will pass this reasonable motion so that we can do our work in a safe way for our constituents.

[Rohinton Medhora, President, Centre for International Governance Innovation]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for having CIGI join your discussions on this important and timely issue. I look forward to engaging with you and the other witnesses on an interrelated set of issues that bear lots of scrutiny.

By way of introduction, my organization, the Centre for International Governance Innovation, has been before this committee previously. For 20 years, we have been working at the interface of innovation, international affairs, public welfare and prosperity. In the last two or three years, I've had even more of a window into this through the membership on two international panels on structural change and on global health and new technologies.

The committee has set for itself three main questions: first, Canada's position on the so-called TRIPS waiver; second, ensuring a vaccine supply for Canada; and third, ways to accelerate domestic capacity.

Rather than deal with each of these separately, I would like to speak around the issues that I expand upon with colleagues in the CIGI brief and make three sets of observations.

I'll begin with the issue of the waiver. To echo my colleague Nathaniel Lipkus, who appeared before you representing IP Institute of Canada last week, the TRIPS waiver itself is not so much about Canada; it is about ensuring access to technology and vaccines mainly for developing countries. Whether the waiver is granted or not would not make much difference in Canada. In fact, I'm aware of colleagues who make the point that it wouldn't make a difference anywhere.

I don't take a position directly on the waiver, but the waiver, in and of itself, is not the issue. The question is whether, in times of emergency, the global community has access to the technologies and processes it needs, because we're all in this together. That's because of the important spillover effects that the pandemic and vaccines have. There's a broader arsenal of policy issues in which the waiver might be one element, but it certainly cannot be a sufficient condition. In that arsenal of issues, I point to the COVAX facility and funding for COVAX, which is currently underfunded; the price of vaccines; the public subsidies that have gone to the pharmaceutical companies that have developed the vaccines; and the more basic research that public sectors have funded as a result.

There is the question of the negotiations with vaccine companies and the opacity of contracts, so-called vaccine hoarding and indeed what has become now a commonly used term, “vaccine diplomacy”, in which vaccines are used as a tool of foreign policy rather than to improve global health.

There are different kinds of innovation systems. I've said this before and I'll say it again: If you think back to the 1960s, when global hunger, famine and malnutrition were a major global issue, you'll see that Canada joined many philanthropic organizations in other countries. In 1971 a global network of institutes, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, or CGIAR, was created to work on different aspects of agriculture. That group has, in fact, created new strains of different kinds of grains and food, patents are held in the public interest, and although malnutrition is not behind us, hunger and famine, as we knew it in the 1960s, is behind us.

I simply end my first set of observations by making the point that Canada can contribute and has contributed to global efforts to use technology and harness it to improve global welfare, including in the countries where it is needed the most, and intellectual property regimes are part and parcel of that approach.

My second set of observations has to do with innovation. I make this point in the brief, so I won't spend a lot of time on it. I would simply remind the committee that increasingly, wealth is created through research, intellectual property and the marshalling of big data sets that can be prioritized in a way that yields meaningful results, creating both prosperity and equity.

This set of issues, which we may broadly call “intangibles”, in fact accounts for the majority of the value of companies on the S&P 500 and elsewhere. If we're going to be smart about the way we do prosperity and equity, we have to be playing this field. The fact is that Canada is a middle power, and I cite some indicators of that. We are sixth in the G7 when it comes to R and D and in the late teens when it comes to global innovation indexes. In fact, we're a net importer of IP, so we cannot claim to be using the comparative advantage we have in this field.

Not everything here has to do with federal policies. Some issues lie in the provincial domain—for example, the extent to which universities can participate in the research efforts of their faculties when they sign research contracts with foreign multinationals, who then hold the IP; it's not something the federal government can do.

I do think there is a set of coherent and coordinated innovation strategies that wouldn't perhaps yield results in the immediate term for the vaccine issue and for this pandemic but in the long term are really the only way forward.

I come to my third set of observations. CIGI has appeared before you twice recently, on Bill C-4 and on WTO reform. My colleague Bob Fay appeared before you, and CIGI made points then that the institutions and processes we have today date back 60 or 70 years, when digital was barely a gleam in diplomats' eyes.

We have an architectural problem in some senses, and we're using the wrong instruments to achieve the ends we should be achieving. We're using trade agreements—which are about trade, of course—to deal with issues that have important non-economic dimensions, like data. In a piece in The Globe and Mail today, I cite the example of CUSMA, which pronounces on data localization and the content that digital platforms carry, which is about the health of a democracy and the health of our society much more than about commerce. The WTO's e-commerce negotiations are also grappling with data as if it were a commercial issue, when in fact data has so many other dimensions. We have to think of new ways of doing international relations in this era. My colleagues and I have some thoughts on the kinds of processes and institutions we should be thinking about.

To conclude, I should mention that the digital economic partnership agreement that three countries in the Pacific have entered into, and that Canada wishes to enter into, is one way forward. When this committee turns its attention to that set of issues, I look forward to expanding on that as well.

To conclude, I'd simply say, as a good economist would, that there is the short run and the long run. In the short run, options are always limited and less nuanced, but in the medium term and beyond, there is much that Canada can do to improve global welfare, both internationally and at home.

With those few thoughts I will stop. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

The Bloc Québécois is being very calm and collected about things today. Its position in the House of Commons is clear. Members of the Bloc Québécois vote in the interests of Quebecers, and vote for what is good for them. This bill is not perfect for one reason, and we could have spotted it much earlier. What we're doing now is still debating a matter of procedure.

Not long ago, I voted on a procedural matter. You know what my position is on the substance, and I could go on about it for another 10 minutes. I could tell you about the importance of sickness benefits. People are suffering.

I would go so far as to say that the revision of the employment insurance system is among the commitments set out in the mandate letters, along with other commitments made by the government following the elections. It was also included in the 2015 commitments. Today, were talking about technical details that make it difficult to implement certain measures. Some of the arguments are unacceptable.

The unacceptable situation—that's my reading of the procedure—is having delayed the adoption of the bill, thereby depriving millions of people, men, women and sick people, from the right to regular benefits, all because of a deadline. That's what I condemned in the study of Bill C-4. We were obliged to adopt new measures, which replaced the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, not at midnight minus one, but at midnight plus one, because the deadline had expired.

I wouldn't want us to find ourselves in the same situation. That's why I have been talking about predictability. I commented on a procedure and not the substance. As for the substance of the issue, I'm in favour of expanding sickness benefits by increasing the number of weeks from 15 to 50.

And let's not forget that we voted on a temporary measure that would remain in effect until the month of September, and it needs royal assent as soon as possible. My understanding of the admissibility issue is that if we had adopted what was being proposed, it would have led to further delays.

The Bloc Québécois votes in favour of whatever is the best option under the circumstances, in a non-partisan manner.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's be clear, Minister. We are very much aware of the scope of the bill under discussion and about the fact that it's urgent to take action. You already know that we support the bill, because I said so in the House. However, from my questions and questions from others, you have no doubt understood our concerns about predictability.

I also find that the pandemic is taking the blame for a lot of things. You say that we need to monitor the employment market, but that we already know that our economy will not have recovered fully in September. Some employment market sectors will still be in trouble, and the recovery will be slow. We can anticipate that now, and it was predictable when Bill C-4 was introduced after prorogation.

What worries us is taking ad hoc temporary measures. Were not challenging the fact that they are necessary, but one day we will have to have something both permanent and predictable for our regular system and for the special sickness benefits.

What's your timeline for us to get there?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister.

I'd like to thank you, Minister, and the representatives of your department, for attending our meeting.

To begin with a compliment, we all agree that you were never unemployed this year, with a pandemic that hit everyone hard. You had to respond to the needs of nine million workers who, one year ago in March, found themselves unemployed from one day to the next.

I don't really have any technical questions for you about this bill. When all is said and done, its purpose is twofold: to extend regular employment insurance benefits to 50 weeks, which is until September 25, and to correct the situation with respect to the $1,000 benefit paid under the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit to people travelling for non-essential reasons.

It's urgent to take action, but what we have condemned from the very outset is not the fact that no action was taken, but rather not having shown more foresight. That was what I was worrying about last September in connection with Bill C-4 and that is still my concern today.

You said that you were monitoring the labour market with a view to adapting your programs, but over the past year, one thing has become clear, and that is that the status quo is not the answer. What will happen on September 25, 2021? The employment insurance system as we know it will be unable to meet needs during crises—there have in fact been others in our history—and it's not meeting them in normal unemployment circumstances.

So how do you plan to govern over the coming months to make sure that on September 25, 2021, a permanent program will be in place?

Employment Insurance Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a great day to be debating in the House of Commons. Before I begin, I want to give a big shout-out. I have been in Ottawa for a while, and I think all House of Commons staff are doing an excellent job of keeping us fed and making sure that our system works for the well-being of Canadians. I really felt that this week. They are doing a great job.

Now I will get to Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 would increase the maximum number of weeks available to workers through EI, with up to a maximum of 50 weeks for claims established between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021. It would also change rules for self-employed workers who have opted into the EI program to access special benefits. This legislation would allow them to use their 2020 earning threshold of $5,000, compared with the previous threshold of $7,555. Also, it would fix the Liberal-caused loophole in the Canada recovery sickness benefit for international leisure travellers.

The Conservative Party is supportive of Bill C-24. These changes are necessary and long overdue. We must get help to Canadians in need whose jobs have been eliminated as a result of the government-mandated restrictions and closures in response to the pandemic. Lockdowns are still in place in many parts of the country, and businesses cannot get back to normal even though they are working incredibly hard to do so.

My constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon are frustrated. They cannot go to church. They cannot earn an income the way they want to. They cannot live their lives the way they want to either.

The Conservatives' track record in this Parliament is strong. We have been behind pandemic assistance for Canadians throughout the entire COVID-19 period. We supported Bill C-13 one year ago, in March 2020. It brought in the Canada emergency wage subsidy for small businesses, a one-time additional payment under the GST/HST tax credit, temporary additional amounts to the Canada child benefit, a 25% reduction in required minimal withdrawals from registered retirement income funds, and the Canada emergency response benefit.

Last April, we supported Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, which improved the wage subsidy and implemented the Canada emergency student benefit. In July it was Bill C-20, to extend the wage subsidy. In September it was Bill C-4, for a CERB extension, the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. In November it was Bill C-9, the emergency rent subsidy and wage subsidy expansion.

The Conservatives have been there to support Canadians every step of the way. What we are not supportive of, though, is the Liberal government's blatant disregard for parliamentary process, their lack of respect for Canadian democracy and their incredibly poor ability to manage the legislative agenda of the House to ensure that we can move past the pandemic.

Two days ago, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, popped into the HUMA committee and table dropped a substantive and constrictive motion for a prestudy of Bill C-24. Neither the text of the motion nor its intention was shared in advance. He ignored the proactive efforts of my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who had reached out to him as soon as Bill C-24 was tabled in the House.

The deadline at the end of the month, which the Liberals are trying to beat, is not some surprise that was sprung on them. To further illustrate that the right hand of the government does not know what the left hand is doing, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had to direct the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to pick up the phone and talk to his House leader during committee because the motion he was attempting to ram through was no longer necessary. We had come to an agreement outside of his ham-fisted efforts.

Cross-party collaboration is more than possible. Think of all the time that could have been saved if the parliamentary secretary had attempted to engage himself in that process with committee members.

The Liberals love to complain that the opposition is holding up important legislation, yet here we are, in March 2021, debating necessary updates to legislation from September 2020. The Liberals knew for months that benefits would be expiring, but they failed to act until the last minute. They have repeatedly missed the mark on legislation for emergency supports, leaving thousands of Canadians behind.

A key component of this legislation is addressing the incredibly flawed Canada recovery sickness benefit. Because of the Liberals' disrespect for Parliament and their poor legislative drafting, a loophole was created that allows international leisure travellers to receive the CRSB during their quarantine. This is completely unacceptable. The CRSB is for individuals who must miss work because of COVID-19, not for subsidizing the quarantine period of international leisure travellers. This oversight is a direct result of the government's rushing legislation through Parliament because of its prorogation. It is outrageous that the Liberals waited months to fix their mistake.

If the government tried implementing the transparency it espouses to employ, so much headache would have been avoided. For instance, if the Liberals had tabled a federal budget at the beginning of March, this would have ceased to be an issue entirely. There is even a precedent by the government for including employment insurance updates in federal budget legislation. In 2018, the government proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to implement a number of reforms related to the extension of parental benefits.

We have not seen a federal budget in 723 days. This is the longest period in Canadian history that we have been without one.

Even setting aside our criticisms, we cannot ignore how the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer has repeatedly called out the government for its lack of fiscal transparency. In a PBO report issued on November 4, 2020, on supplementary estimates (B), we found out that the Department of Finance, which under Bill Morneau had been issuing biweekly updates to the finance committee during the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic, stopped providing this information once Parliament was prorogued and Morneau had resigned. We are talking about tens of billions of taxpayer dollars heading out the door under the guise of COVID relief measures, and the government has revealed precious little about where these dollars are going.

From the same November 4 report, the PBO underscored that our role as parliamentarians is being obfuscated and obstructed by the government. As the report notes, “While the sum of these measures is significant”, some $79.2 billion, of which 91.5% was related to COVID spending, “the amount of information that is publicly available to track this spending is lacking, thus making it more challenging for parliamentarians to perform their critical role in overseeing Government spending and holding it to account.”

There is no publicly available list of all federal COVID-19 spending measures. There is no consistency in the reporting on the implementation of these measures. There is less and less information being provided transparently to parliamentarians and the PBO. The government could not do a better job of keeping its finances secret if it provided everyone in the House with blindfolds.

However, to its credit, the government has made some efforts to provide additional financial information. As the PBO noted in its February 24, 2021, report on the supplementary estimates (C), “Notable improvements include a complete list of Bills presented to Parliament to authorize spending for COVID-19 related measures”, which is information anyone could find on LEGISinfo, “and a reconciliation table between the Fall Economic Statement 2020 and the Estimates documents”. Still, as the PBO reminded us in February, “The frequency at which the Government provides an updated list of COVID-19 measures in one central document...and the inconsistency to which actual spending data on COVID-19 measures is made publicly available remain areas of concern.”

These are baby steps, but bigger leaps are needed from the government when it comes to fiscal transparency. We as parliamentarians depend on the government to provide us with accurate and timely information about federal finances. We cannot do our work of keeping the government accountable for its spending choices if it does not respect us enough to provide the necessary information to allow me and all of my colleagues to do our jobs effectively.

Again today, it is up to the opposition to correct the continued mistakes of the government. This is disrespectful to us as parliamentarians, it is disrespectful to this hallowed institution and it is disrespectful to the Canadian people, for whose tax dollars we are ultimately responsible.

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech, as I do with so many of my speeches, with an anecdote. I am privileged to have the opportunity to be here in the House to represent the good people of Calgary Midnapore and be their voice, and I am going to tell one of my favourite stories.

Several years ago, when I was a younger and fitter woman, I won the gold award from the Duke of Edinburgh. I was very excited to achieve and receive this award. I know that many young Canadians from coast to coast to coast strive for this award and the many different levels that can be achieved. I was very motivated by this gold award. It had numerous components. It had fitness, outdoors and community-service components. I undertook going after this award with great vigour and went on to achieve it, and it was presented to me by Prince Philip. It was wonderful to have the opportunity to meet him. I wish him and his family well at this time. That was one of my major introductions to the United Kingdom and all that it has to offer.

Of course, my interest in foreign affairs and diplomacy would continue, and in the early 2000s, when I wrote the foreign service exam and fortunately was accepted, I went on temporary duty to Argentina. I then went on to be the chargé d'affaires to El Salvador, which was a very proud moment for me.

It was a wonderful time to represent Canada abroad. As the chargé, when the head of mission is out of the country, I had the honour to act as Canada's representative. My accreditation ceremony was in El Salvador at the presidential palace. We had taken the motorcade through the nation, and when I received my accreditation along with my ambassador, I was told to always remain behind the ambassador except when she was out of the country. I was very proud to take on that role.

On one occasion I had an interesting bit of fortune. When Bill C-4, the Central American four agreement, was being negotiated with Canada, one round of negotiations was going to take place at a time when the head of mission was out of the country. As such, I became the representative. I was very excited and nervous. I went to the secure room, as a diplomat did back in the day, where a fax was printed out. I took the fax and read the notes over and over again about the positions on pork and sugar. I prepared and prepared.

The big moment came and I went off to the trade minister's office in El Salvador with my papers and my positions ready. The trade minister approached me, took the envelope out of my hand and told me to tell my government that El Salvador would get back to it in two weeks. The big moment I had prepared for had come and gone.

My point here is that diplomats only do what their governments ask them to do. I would later go on to speak about this in the chamber when our current leader of the official opposition asked me to respond to a situation that unfortunately took place at our high commission in India, after the government's administration organized an event and an accused terrorist was there. I went through the process of responding to this in the House. I walked the caucus through what goes into vetting a list of individuals who are invited to an event and what that looks like.

I still remain true to the fact that a diplomat and a trade negotiator only do what their government asks them to do, as was my experience with the Bill C-4 negotiation, which unfortunately did dissolve, and I believe ended up being a unilateral agreement with Honduras. Nonetheless something came out of it.

My sentiments right now in regard to the response of the government on so many things, but also in regard to this agreement as well, is disappointment, because so much more could be done. I think about what could have been the potential response for this pandemic in terms of trade opportunities. Certainly, it has been a very difficult year. We are coming up on the one-year anniversary, when we were all sent home from this beautiful chamber.

When this was occurring and we were seeing world forces shifting, I was considering the fact that it would be an incredible time for Canada to re-evaluate its position in the world. Were I the prime minister, I would have done a complete evaluation of our inventory from coast to coast to coast of natural resources, from energy, minerals, agriculture and textile, and really looked at how markets were changing and emerging, perhaps with less reliance on China and Europe turning inward to evaluate those opportunities.

We see opportunities missed within this legislation. This is a theme, unfortunately, with the government. What I am pointing to with the unfortunate situation that happened in India and with this trade agreement is that the government has had no guiding values for foreign policy. We have seen this time and time again. We have seen this with how it is handling the situation with China and the two Michaels who remain incarcerated. We saw this with the government's lack of will and gumption to stand up to China in regard to the Uighur motion. We saw this with the current deputy minister's tweets regarding Saudi Arabia. We saw this with a stance I wish would have been more firm regarding Venezuela.

All of these indicators have shown that the government has no foreign policy values. Again, this trade agreement is just a by-product of the government's inability to have a coherent strategic foreign policy that looks out for the best interests of Canadians and for Canada.

What makes me the most sad is when I think of the opportunities missed, comparably to the previous administration, of which the previous speaker belonged, and of the greats, of Harper and Kenney and Baird. I was very fortunate at the time to be a policy adviser. I took one year away from my foreign service career to serve the current member for Thornhill who was minister of state for the Americas at the time.

We had principles which guided us. Those included among them, democracy. Are we really standing up for democracy here in Canada and acting as an example to the world currently? I do not think we are. Are we standing up for justice? I do not think we are. Are we standing up for the prosperity of the world and the prosperity of Canadians right now? I do not think we are. I am certainly not seeing it within this trade agreement.

I extend this beyond this trade agreement. As I said, I feel as though the Liberal government has been a government of missed opportunities. We have seen this with the pandemic, the opportunity to prepare better, to prepare Canadians better, to avoid so much of the hardship, illness and death that we have seen as a result of this terrible last year, a result of not preparing better for the economy and missed opportunities here. I would include this trade agreement within this the inability to look forward.

This is the crux of the opposition motion that we have had here today, the inability to think forward for Canada's economic prosperity. Finally, it is the opportunity missed for foreign policy, to stand up for strong values, Canadian values, and that includes with this trade agreement.

Employment Insurance Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Prairie for his speech.

He spoke about the government's procrastination. I think he gave a good summary of the facts. This bill was hastily drafted in January but it did not completely remedy the problem. As the great René Lévesque would say, two wrongs do not make a right.

My colleague gave us an account of what happened because history tends to repeat itself. Bill C-4 was also hastily passed because the government had prorogued Parliament. With Bill C-4, $17 billion would be spent by December 31, 2020.

Can our colleague tell us whether he thinks the government's approach is providing certainty and what he thinks of its style of governance?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 has two main parts. The first extends the employment insurance benefit period to 50 weeks. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville explained that well.

The second makes tourists who travel south or anywhere around the world ineligible for the $1,000 benefit for people who have to quarantine. I would like to focus on this second part and confirm for anyone still wondering that we will support Bill C-24.

The word that comes to mind in a conversation about denying tourists and vacationers the $1,000 they might otherwise have collected is “finally”. We finally have a bill that puts an end to that ridiculous situation. If we look back at what happened, everything started last September with the unanimous passage of Bill C-4, which gave people with COVID-19 or in mandatory isolation $500 per week for two weeks, for a total of $1,000, to make up for lost income. Those people were doing what was best for society by self-isolating so as not to put public health at risk.

Bill C-4 came into force on October 2, and the problems started after that. If we look at what happened next, we got nothing but equivocation from this government, which has been flying on autopilot since the beginning of this pandemic. Actually, it is not even flying on autopilot, because that would require having a system in place. This government has been flying blind from the start, and I do not know how it can tell where it is going. We are waving flags to warn the government about the challenges ahead. However, this government is neither active nor proactive, but passive.

In a serious crisis like this, we need leadership and a government that is firing on all cylinders. In the past, great crises have produced great leaders. For example, the Great Depression gave us John Maynard Keynes, one of the greatest economists in history, who completely changed our way of viewing life in society.

In a crisis like this, the government should have been vigilant. In other words, when this legislation came into force, the government should have monitored what was happening with the $1,000 benefit to see whether it was being used properly and ensure that there were no issues. That is what governing is all about. The government should have been monitoring its actions and their consequences, but it did not.

Émile de Girardin said that governing means looking ahead. Unfortunately, this government is flying blind, as I was saying. Unfortunately, it is woefully lacking in foresight. If it had been vigilant, it could have protected the economy better. If it had been vigilant, it could have protected public health better. If it had been vigilant, it could have saved more jobs. If it had been vigilant, it could have saved more lives. That is what we must not forget about this government's unfortunate perpetual inertia.

I am not saying that as a member of an opposition party that thinks it can do better. Unfortunately, I am only noting that what seemed like a good idea at first later proved to be a very bad idea. With the emergence of variants like the U.K. variant, the government should have closed the borders promptly. Instead, the government waited and gave sanctimonious lectures, asking people to stay home and not travel anywhere.

The government told people that it would be best if they did not go abroad, but, if they did, it would give them $1,000 so they could spend two weeks at home when they got back. There was a contradiction in this message. The government should have been vigilant, noticed the contradiction and fixed it. Instead, journalists pointed it out on December 31. Journalists were the ones to point out that there was a problem.

We then saw the leader of the government claim that the Liberals had just realized there was a problem and that they had decided to end it as of January 3.

The Bloc Québécois immediately gave its unconditional support to the government. Actually, there was one condition. We promised the Liberals that if they wanted to move forward, we would do so quickly. Our only condition was that the measure was to be retroactive to October 2. As for the rest, we agreed with them, because we felt that it was important and that we needed to act quickly.

We did not get anything resembling a bill until January 20, when the government deked à la Mario Lemieux and almost, but not really, gave us something. Once we were able to get a look at the bill, we immediately noticed that it was not retroactive to January 3. We asked to rework the bill and make it retroactive to October 2.

The government panicked and immediately pulled back. For nearly two months, the opposition parties called on the government to bring its bill back. I know; I was there. I am my party's House leader, and I could see that the other parties wanted to help the government. I rose today and said that we supported the bill. It did not take long.

I told the government that we would go along with it if the bill were made retroactive to October 2, if it were done right. It took nearly two months for the bill to make a reappearance.

This bill fixes a mistake that was made. The government has often said that all of the parties were in agreement. Indeed, the parties have agreed on the principle of the bill from the beginning, but we do not manage the public service. If the Liberals do not want to govern, they should step aside.

The Bloc Québécois wants the government to be able to move forward, but carefully. In times of crisis, it is important to remain vigilant. Unfortunately, the government did not do that.

If we are in favour of this bill, it is because it should have been passed days ago, if not sooner. However, this will do. It is fine. We agree.

I would like to stress one thing. We have moved motions about this before, and my esteemed colleague spoke about them earlier. It is extremely inhumane to grant 15 weeks of EI benefits to someone who is fighting for their life, when people in other circumstances are given 50 weeks. It is unconscionable that this is accepted and tolerated when it means that, rather than focusing exclusively on healing and recovery, people who have been struck down with a serious illness that prevents them from working also have to worry about making ends meet. That does not make any sense.

Those who are listening to me speak know that I am right. If I were to speak one-on-one to my colleagues in the House about this, I cannot imagine that any of them would say that 15 weeks of EI benefits are enough for someone who is suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment. That does not make any sense at all.

All that is needed to remedy the situation is to amend this bill. That would remedy the situation until September 25, 2021. Then, if we wanted to make the change permanent, the solution would be to vote in favour of Bill C-265, which was introduced by the valiant Bloc Québécois member for Salaberry—Suroît.

We need to change history. We need to show some humanity. We need to be good.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I have been in regular communication with workers in the automotive and manufacturing sectors and across multiple sectors on many issues important to them, including the SUBs, the supplemental unemployment benefits.

We have committed to modernizing EI. We have committed to increasing, for example, sickness benefits to 26 weeks. We have committed to looking at all of these issues, and in fact there is a study currently taking place in the HUMA committee that is looking holistically at the entire EI system.

However, the focus today is on addressing the urgent fact that EI benefits will cease for many workers by the end of this month. I would ask the member to come together in the spirit of collaboration, as we did in the fall when we passed Bill C-4, to protect workers and their families across all sectors. This really is an urgent matter, and it requires our focus today.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we put in place Bill C-4 at the end of September 2020, we built in the regulatory ability to increase the number of weeks on recovery caregiver and sickness benefits. Obviously we did know at the time that if we wanted to increase the number of weeks available on EI, it would have to be done through regulation.

We believe we have given sufficient time. We have been very clear with our intention to continue to support Canadians along this journey. I just hope the member is with me on the necessity to pass this legislation quickly. With 11 clauses, I am sure we can do this together.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I just think that for many of the members we see sitting here, we all knew, as we've indicated, that they were essential programs that were helping Canadians each and every day, like the CERB and all of these benefits that were helping businesses, and they were all coming to an immediate stop. The government introduced Bill C-2, which then became Bill C-4, and now we're back and having to do another bill. I think it might be Bill C-20, but I know that it still hasn't been tabled.

There continue to be these bills that need to be introduced because of the lack of programming or planning on this. I'm not saying that it's an issue because of bureaucrats, but these are some issues.

My last and final question for you is this. When we talk about the writing of the speech—and you indicated the first two paragraphs are always done by the Governor General—was it the work of the senior bureaucrats or the work of the PMO that finalized the speech?

Canada Labour Code

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in today's debate on Bill C-220, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code for compassionate care leave. I want to thank the member for Edmonton Riverbend for putting this bill forward to allow caregivers to take additional days off when a loved one dies.

During the course of this pandemic, we have become even more sensitized to the important role of caregivers, whether they are family members or close friends. I have personally watched my mother, Myrna, be a caregiver for my dad, David.

I have seen first-hand the emotional and physical toll on caregivers. I have seen it all over my riding in drop-in centres, where caregivers drop their loved ones off to gain respite, and at long-term care centres. The love, tenderness and caring that is shown by those who take time off to play this role is commendable.

I first became very aware of caregivers when I was the mayor of Côte Saint-Luc and our local regional health board decided to close a drop-in centre that provided respite for caregivers. Along with members of my council, groups of stakeholders and the Cummings Centre in our riding, we managed to work together to put a drop-in centre at our aquatic and community centre. Then, as a member of Parliament, I was able to achieve financing for that centre from the government. Even today, that centre is open, providing drop-in care for people with dementia and their caregivers.

As my friend from Edmonton Riverbend points out, we need to take care of the mental health of caregivers as well. Ensuring them additional leave after the death of a loved one is completely in line with the government's commitment to providing mental health supports. As such, I am very pleased to say that the government supports Bill C-220, with some amendments, and I look forward to working with my friend from Edmonton Riverbend, and all members of the HUMA committee from all sides of the House. This is a bill in which I am confident we can achieve consensus.

Before I dive into the details of Bill C-220 and the proposed amendments, I would like to talk about some of the steps our government is taking to protect and support Canadian businesses and workers during the crisis.

In March, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Canada took a number of extraordinary but necessary steps to help Canadians get through this incredibly difficult time. Nearly nine million Canadians received assistance through the Canada emergency response benefit, and more than 3.5 million jobs were funded through the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

These and many other measures were implemented to help workers affected by COVID-19 support themselves and their families, as well as to help businesses continue to pay their employees.

Additionally, the government introduced a new leave under the Canada Labour Code to ensure that employees in federally regulated workplaces would be able to take time off to deal with situations related to COVID-19. A number of other job-protected leaves are also available to employees covered under part III of the Canada Labour Code.

For example, the five-day personal leave can be used to address urgent matters concerning an employee or their family member, including treating an illness or injury. Another example is the compassionate care leave, which currently provides up to 28 weeks of job-protected leave for employees who need to provide care and support to a family member who has a serious medical condition with a significant risk of death.

In addition, the leave related to critical illness provides employees with up to 37 weeks of job-protected leave to provide care or support to a critically ill child, and up to 17 weeks of leave to provide care or support to a critically ill adult.

The government knows how important it is to ensure that workers do not return to work if they have COVID-19 or are showing symptoms. The new Canada recovery sickness benefit, introduced through Bill C-4, helps workers who are sick or need to comply with public health measures. It provides $500 per week for up to two weeks for workers who are unable to work for at least 50% of the time they would have normally worked because they are sick or must self-isolate for reasons related to COVID-19, or have underlying conditions that would make them more susceptible to COVID-19.

The Canada recovery caregiving benefit provides $500 per week for up to 26 weeks per household for a worker who needs to take unpaid leave to care for their child under 12, or a family member who needs supervised care, who is unable to attend their school or regular care facility due to COVID-19.

Taken together, these benefits create a social safety net to help Canadians bridge the time between last spring's lockdown and the cautious reopening of our economy in future.

Bill C-4 also amended the Canada Labour Code so that federally regulated employees could continue to take leave with job protection if they were sick, had to self-isolate or care for someone due to COVID-19.

With these changes, federally regulated workers can access both the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit without fear of losing their jobs.

Let me get back to Bill C-220. Currently under federal labour standards, caregivers can take a total of 28 weeks off work within a year to provide care and support for a family member who has a serious medical condition with a significant risk of death. Through Bill C-220, the member for Edmonton Riverbend is seeking to amend the current federal compassionate care leave to allow extended time off following the death of a loved one.

Basically, the bill would provide employees on compassionate care leave with additional leave under the code in situations where the family member who is being cared for dies. The amount of additional leave would vary depending on how many weeks the employee has been on leave. An employee who has been away from work for a period of 27 weeks or more would not be provided with any additional weeks of leave.

I stated that the government supported Bill C-220 with amendments. I will now say a little bit more about this.

The goal of the amendments we would propose is to help ensure that all employees, including caregivers, who have suffered a loss have more time to grieve and focus on practical necessities such as funeral planning.

We currently have, in the Labour Code, five days of bereavement leave. We are proposing to extend that bereavement leave by an additional five days, to 10 days, to ensure that employees who are taking care of a non-immediate family member, such as an aunt or nephew, while on compassionate care leave or leave related to critical illness are also covered. Not only would the existing people who are able to get bereavement leave because a close family member had died get the leave, but all of these caregivers would now be entitled to the 10 days of bereavement leave.

We believe that by doing this we would make Bill C-220 fairer and more consistent in how the government supports employees who experience the death of a family member. This would ensure that all federally regulated employees, including these caregivers, are provided with additional time off in the event they lose a loved one, regardless of what leave they are taking at the time or whether they are on leave at all.

We all agree that the death or possible death of a family member is one of the most difficult situations anyone can face. Our government believes that at such times Canadians should not have to choose between keeping their job or taking care of their family.

The Government of Canada is continuously improving policies, programs and services to meet the needs of Canadian workers and to better reflect the realities of the 21st century workplace. Our government agrees with the member for Edmonton Riverbend that we need to care for our caregivers. We made a commitment to improve the lives of caregivers and their families, and by joining with the member for Edmonton Riverbend in supporting Bill C-220 with these proposed amendments, we will be doing just that.

It is heartwarming to see that this is something we can all get behind, and I want to thank my friend from Edmonton Riverbend for putting the bill forward.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

There was obviously no time for anyone on the federal side to meaningfully liaise with the provinces when Bill C-2 became Bill C-4, rewritten at the eleventh hour in September as a result of the confidence vote concessions to the NDP, which included the two-week paid sick leave. I've heard concern in recent weeks from some Ontario small businesses that the paid leave provisions are so broad, they fear—they haven't yet experienced it, or at least no one's told me they have—possible future unwarranted absenteeism.

Have the provinces accepted specifically the two-week paid sick leave, which overrides some provincial private sector sick leave provisions, or are you leaving provinces to decide whether or not it applies to the private sector?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you.

I think that's an important thing for the committee to consider as we move forward, perhaps as part of our recommendations, with respect to the situation that Mr. Clark just outlined.

Ms. Lowther, thank you so much for joining us this morning. I can't begin to appreciate the work you've done and the stress you have been under over the course of the last several months.

I know that you did receive funding in the latest announcement—from the passing of Bill C-4—to the tune of somewhere around $850,000. Is that correct? In a year, what money would VETS Canada typically receive from Veterans Affairs Canada to facilitate its operations and the great work you do for veterans?

Veterans Affairs

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, we fully intend to address the homeless issue with veterans. There are a number of groups who we did support with Bill C-4, in order to make sure that they had appropriate funding.

It is part of what helps to make sure that we have organizations with boots on the ground that find veterans who are homeless and out of work. Perhaps they need an emergency fund. There are a number of avenues for them to use, but of course the organizations themselves have to have appropriate funding. That is why we made sure that they have funding: so we can deal with the housing problem for veterans in this country.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I thank you very much, Luc.

You agree somewhat with what we're doing because we all agreed with the funding for the veterans' organizations. It was so vitally important. Bill C-4 was so important in order to access the 350 employees, plus the 180 employees that would be added with it. That will will be over 500 employees who will be directed specifically to deal with the backlog.

Of course, I very much appreciate what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to say, I always do, as it's always constructive. He also indicated that the new employees would be a big help. He did not address the digitization of the files or the coordination of the staff. Luc, that is, in fact, what has happened up to now. The new staff are in training and will be ready to tackle the backlog after Christmas, when they will be on it. We have lowered the backlog, but will lower it more.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, William.

Bill C-4 came about with a lot of consultation with the Legion, ANAVETS, VETS Canada, True Patriot Love and many other people across the country to make sure you and I and everybody on this call and many people right across the country understand how vitally important these veterans organizations are.

They are the lifeblood of many communities. In fact, where I live, that's the meeting place and it's so important. Also I will tell you that—pray God, it doesn't happen—if this virus continues we have to look at this again as a Parliament. The House of Commons would have to look at it again to see what more needs to be done. It's essential; they're much more than just meeting places, which are important for social events, but these organizations work so hard as you've heard on this committee today. People are concerned about people filling in applications, helping out veterans, delivering meals. All of this work is done by these veterans organizations right across the country.

It's our responsibility to make sure that they do survive because the reason why you can say what you like to me here today is because of those veterans. That is essential and that is what makes Canada such a great place to live.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You know, there's difficulty filling out forms. I might not be great at it myself. You need people who know how to fill out the forms. The problem with forms is that something vitally important could be missing from them, and you have to make sure that it is all there.

Since the pandemic emerged we have put out over half a billion dollars in funds for veterans, which is vitally important—and they must have it. If there is a spike afterwards.... As I always said, our job is to make sure that we provide the benefits for veterans. We have a problem with the backlog. We're going to address it. You helped us in the House by supporting Bill C-4 to put the 350 new employees, plus the 180 we're training, in place. We will do that. Along with the changes in the department, we will make sure we address that backlog.

There's one thing about the department; we have no idea what's coming in, but we do know one thing, that we have to address it.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Rachel, first of all, I truly know that you care. You're dedicated to the task, and I appreciate that. The fact is that we have no control over what comes in. The only thing we can deal with is what comes in. The health and safety of veterans and their families is vitally important, and during the pandemic we did that.... That's essential to make sure that the virus does not spread.

But, you're well aware of, and you supported in the House, Bill C-4, which provided $20,000 for the Legion, ANAVETS and other organizations right across the country. These organizations do so much. It's vitally important that they stay up and running. I know you know that.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I fully understand what you're saying, but the process has to be put in place. We have to have a process to deal with applications.

There are applications. Let's say we are dealing with a paratrooper who has bad knees or with a gunner who has hearing loss. We're going to make these very quick or automatic. But there are very complex cases that we have to deal with, also considering that there are a lot of cases, period.

Once we get it under control, which we will do and are doing at the moment.... And it is going down. The thing we had to do with government is to put the appropriate process in place, and that's what we did. We got the funding to do it through Bill C-4, which you supported, and I appreciate that. That will help us hire the people. They will be trained, and there will be the French.... The languages will be well addressed. We will make sure that these people are trained specifically to deal with the backlog. With that, we will be able to address the backlog.

That is the priority. That's what we have to do.

Also, if there's a veteran or anybody at all who hears there's a veteran in dire need, we have the emergency fund, which can certainly address these issues.

I would ask my deputy if he could expand on the emergency fund. It's very important.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today to take part in the debate on Bill C-220.

However, before I begin, as we are in Veterans' Week and today is red Friday, I would like to take a moment to thank those who have served, those who are still serving, and the parents and family members of military across the country for their service. I also want to say how, as a military mother, I was disappointed this morning to read about Whole Foods. I hope it will do the right thing.

It is essential for us to talk about compassionate care, so I am happy that my colleague across the way brought this private member's bill forward. It is an important issue for Canadians, especially in these times when we can all use a little extra compassion.

Chances are that many of us will find ourselves in the position of caring for someone close to us at one point in our lives. It is a difficult and sometimes lonely journey. Caregivers deserve our greatest respect and gratitude. In 2018, approximately one in four Canadians aged 15 and older provided care to a family member or close friend with a long-term health condition, a physical or mental disability, or problems related to aging.

Unpaid caregiving provided by family and friends has become increasingly recognized as an important role in society. Reports by Statistics Canada have demonstrated that caregiving reduces the social costs associated with health services and institutionalization. In addition, those who are cared for have a much greater quality of life when they are able to remain at home.

My home province of Quebec has been devastated by COVID-19. I question whether we should be caring more for our family members, rather than institutions, so this is a very timely piece of legislation.

We understand the essential role of caregivers. We also understand the need to ensure that they have the support that they need. That said, let me begin by providing a brief overview of Bill C-220, first introduced by my hon. colleague on February 25, 2020.

The goal of Bill C-220 is to amend Part III of the Canada Labour Code to allow an employee using compassionate care leave to have more time off following the death of a loved one for whom they were caring.

The bill breaks down that extra time as follows: Employees would receive an additional three weeks of leave past the death if the employee has taken fewer than five weeks of leave, an additional two weeks of leave past the death if the employee has taken between five weeks and 19 weeks of paid leave, and an additional week of leave past the death if the employee has taken between 20 and 26 weeks of leave. An employee who has been away from work for a period of 27 weeks or more would not be provided with any additional weeks of leave.

The one question I have for the member for Edmonton Riverbend is why he did not include additional leave to employees who experience a sudden death of a family member. However, I am hopeful that when this piece of legislation gets to committee, that can be discussed as well.

I know I am talking a lot about numbers, but when taking care of a loved one, people are immersed in the day to day. When they lose that loved one, they do not have the time to grieve because they are in the business of death. They are filling out the papers. They are doing what they have to do. They are going through the motions. Having that extra time to grieve and not worry about going back to work when they are not ready is crucial.

It is our responsibility to address the difficult but real societal issues such as end-of-life care. Those things make us think of our loved ones and our own futures. While our government has taken many steps to set up a system that is just, compassionate and fair, I do believe we can do more.

We have made great progress in recent years to modernize the Canada Labour Code to ensure that it reflects the realities of today's workplaces and meets the needs of both employers and employees, now and into the future.

Last year, we implemented a comprehensive suite of significant amendments to the Canada Labour Code, including a new right for employees to request flexible work arrangements, additional leaves and other protections for employees following the death of a family member. We introduced amendments that give federally regulated workers the right to request flexible work arrangements such as flexible start and finish times and the ability to work from home.

Studies show that flexible start and finish times, the ability to take time off from work to deal with family obligations, and other types of flexible work arrangements can help employees find better work-life balance. By giving employees the flexibility to reduce the amount of time they spend at work, we are helping to ensure that those with intensive caregiving responsibilities have more time with their loved ones.

Recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code also include improvements to bereavement leave and additional leaves that could also be used by caregivers. Bereavement leave has been increased from three days to five days, but that is not enough. We have also provided for greater flexibility, so that the leave may be taken during the period that begins on the day on which the death occurs and ends six weeks after the latest of the days on which any funeral, burial or memorial service of that immediate family member occurs.

Employees are now entitled to five days of personal leave per year, including three paid days if they have worked for three consecutive months. Employees may take this leave for a number of reasons, including to carry out responsibilities related to the health or care of any of their family members or to address an urgent situation, such as the death of a family member.

In addition, the eligibility for the medical leave was improved so that every employee who was unable to work due to health reasons, including psychological trauma or stress resulting from the death of a family member, could now take up to 17 weeks of unpaid leave. We also eliminated the length of service requirements to be eligible for the leave related to critical illness, which provides employees with up to 37 weeks of job-protected leave to provide care or support to a critically ill child and up to 17 weeks of leave to provide care or support to a critically ill adult.

While these new and improved leave provisions and flexible work arrangements came into force on September 1, 2019, COVID has also taught us more.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Canada has put Canadians first, providing the support they need to continue to make ends meet, while staying safe and healthy. Earlier this month we passed Bill C-4, the COVID-19 Response Measures Act, to create new benefits. Together with temporary measures to help Canadians access employment insurance benefits more easily, these recovery benefits will help workers affected by COVID-19 and requiring income support.

To ensure federally regulated employees have access to job-protected leave, the Government of Canada amended the Canada Labour Code so these employees can access the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiver benefit.

These are temporary measures to help Canadians overcome the many challenges they are facing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, we have changed. We are not where we were a year ago. The member opposite talked about not being able to see his grandma, and having to make that choice. Yes, while there may be a few days of leave available, if someone does not have the financial means to take that leave, then she or he is making that decision, and those are decisions we all regret.

This month, it will be two years since my mom died suddenly, and most of the House knows that I did not get to say good bye. I wish I did, but after, we have a chance to help people get through it. I had the luxury of being able to take some time off to plan my mother's funeral, but not everybody does. Therefore, I want the member to know that I hope his bill passes and goes to committee, because this is the right thing to do.

Veterans Affairs

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it has always been my priority to ensure that we provide financial support for organizations that do so much for our veterans, and that is exactly what we included, $20 million in Bill C-4 to do just that.

I have worked with some of these groups over the years and I can assure my colleague that we will always be there to support the groups and veterans right across the country. We owe that to our veterans and this government will continue to support them.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's concern too. Of course that is why it has always been a priority for me personally to make sure the organizations that work hard for veterans are helped. As I indicated previously, that is why we included the $20 million in Bill C-4.

I have worked with these organizations. All I can do is make sure all my colleagues and Canadians across the country support these vitally important organizations that help the people who stood for our democracy around the world.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern. It has always been my priority to provide support for organizations that do so much for veterans, and that is exactly why we included $20 million in Bill C-4 to do just that.

I have worked for some of these groups over the years, but I also want to encourage Canadians to support the poppy programs, legions and other veterans organizations across the country. They are having difficulty throughout COVID. We all need to help, and our government will too.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, the well-being of our veterans and their families is a top priority. We fully understand the vital role that legions play in supporting veterans and their families in all communities. That is why I am proud to share with the House that Bill C-4 was passed in the House a few weeks ago. It includes $20 million to support organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion and other partners.

Our response to the pandemic is ongoing, and we will ensure that our partners who support veterans will continue to have what they need to continue to do their great work.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Health

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the motion moved by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, for whom I have great respect.

Committee work is essential to the proper functioning of our parliamentary system and our democracy. As the last parliamentary session drew to a close, I was able to participate in the Standing Committee on Finance's examination of the last budget of the 42nd Parliament. I was also a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We worked very hard to adopt a number of extremely important reports.

I firmly believe in the role of parliamentary committees and I also believe that the motion before us deals with a subject that warrants the attention of the Standing Committee on Health. However, I must admit that I have some concerns and reservations about the details of this motion, which I could almost describe as an omnibus motion, since it contains 28 clauses.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, I make a point of looking at every proposal, every motion, including the motion that is before us today, from the perspective of our business owners, of our SMEs.

As the members here know, the motion lists 16 areas of study within 28 different clauses. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, I will focus on the areas of the motion that I believe will impact our Canadian businesses, as well as areas of international procurement.

The motion proposes to study the availability of paid sick leave to those in quarantine and voluntary isolation. I believe this is an absolutely critical aspect of our government's response to COVID-19. We all know how important it is to continue to keep our businesses open and running, while protecting the health and safety of one another. We know that the balance between the two is certainly a hard one to manage.

The thinking behind the government’s proposal with respect to paid sick leave is rooted in the belief that nobody should have to choose between staying home because they have symptoms of COVID-19 and being able to pay for groceries or rent. That is why we introduced Bill C-4, which included the Canada recovery sickness benefit that provides $500 per week, for up to two weeks, to Canadians who are either experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, are in self-isolation because they have COVID-19 or have underlying conditions that would make them more susceptible to the virus.

As we all know, the bill received the unanimous support of the House and I believe it also passed royal assent within three days. This is an extremely good example of the speed and efficiency that is possible when we all work together.

The sick leave benefits that the motion proposes to study in committee fulfill the Government of Canada’s commitment under the safe restart agreement with provinces and territories. Already now, Canadians have been able to apply for the benefit since October 5, and as of this past Monday, October 12, Canadians who are not eligible for employment insurance have been able to apply for the Canada recovery benefit.

We know that right now our business owners cannot afford to pay for new benefits. We also know that Canadians were asking for this support. It was up to our government to respond. We will continue to respond to the needs of Canadians throughout this pandemic.

I would now like to approach the motion from the perspective of employers. We know that our workers and our businesses are facing a lot of uncertainty right now. There is not as much money coming in and our business owners cannot afford to provide additional benefits even if they wanted to.

The Canada recovery sickness benefit is there for employed individuals who are unable to work because they are sick. The $500-a-week benefit for two weeks not only supports our workers, but it is also essential for our businesses.

We have all seen schools, offices and factories forced to close due to outbreaks of the virus. This benefit helps employers protect their teams without having to face the impossible decision of determining whether one of their employees is too sick to come to work.

The federal government is there for them and will cover two weeks of paid leave. This is a first for Canada. The program provides a win-win solution for our SMEs and our workers while also limiting community transmission of the virus.

I have to be honest. It is not clear, on the basis of the motion before the House, what aspect of paid sick leave is being proposed for study. The motion refers to the availability of sick leave, but as the House knows, this benefit has already been available to hard-working Canadians for two weeks now. It is therefore perhaps a bit late to study whether or not this measure should go forward, and as I have explained, I believe this program to be absolutely critical. I would assume, on the basis of the fact that the bill in which this measure was included was passed unanimously by the House, that every member of the House agreed with that.

If the motion is proposing to study how well the benefit is working, with only two weeks of usage I would suggest that it is perhaps premature to study its effect at this time. It might be more useful to study this issue independently in a stand-alone study once a longer period of usage exists and more data can be evaluated by committee members.

Let me now turn to another aspect of the motion that touches on international procurement, including the proposal in the motion to study the procurement of vaccines. While I understand the spirit of what is being proposed here, when I read the fine print of the motion, included therein is a requirement to disclose all documents concerning the purchase of these life-saving drugs. The motion would therefore effectively make us hand over details of our negotiating positions and considerations for deals that are not even yet complete.

I cannot emphasize enough how this would jeopardize our ability to compete and procure what Canadians need in order to survive this pandemic. If other countries find out the good prices that Canada was successful in negotiating with suppliers, they could try to buy the order out from under us. Let me detail this a little further.

We could be forced to reveal the pricing and sales terms we obtained in our international vaccine procurement process. This would expose us to two very serious potential problems.

If another country finds out our terms, it could decide to outbid us and hijack our order.

In addition, this information could undermine the Canadian government's credibility with our suppliers. The last thing we need right now is for our suppliers to decide that Canada is not a reliable partner and sign an agreement with another country that does not require them to disclose information about their terms and conditions. This is a real risk. There are quite a few other potential customers looking to procure these same vaccines.

The last thing I believe we want to do in the House is to endanger hard-fought procurement deals that will ensure that Canada has the best possible set of vaccine supply contracts. We need companies to feel confident that the Canadian government will remain a reliable partner and not look to publish reams of sensitive information regarding the company's pricing, conditions or scheduling.

We know there are real risks in this ultracompetitive bidding environment. It is a global pandemic impacting countries all over the world. The competition, therefore, on the international stage is incredibly fierce. We must continue to be competitive in our bids. We must continue to be a country that vaccine suppliers wish to partner with, and our priority must continue to be to ensure that Canada has access to vaccines against COVID-19.

These are just a few of of the problematic issues I see in the very large motion before us. I therefore cannot support the motion as it is currently written, and Canadians cannot afford to have us jeopardize our ability to procure a vaccine to COVID-19.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Right.

Since I have the floor, I am going to read these notices of motion into the record in advance of their going into subcommittee.

Motion number one is “That pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the committee undertake the study of the Supplementary Estimates (B) 2019-2020, and that the committee invite the Minister of Veterans Affairs and departmental officials to appear.”

I will note as well that the estimates, as I said earlier, were tabled September 30, and that pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) and the order made on Monday, April 20, each committee may consider and report or shall be deemed to have reported the same back to the House no later than Friday, November 27, 2020.

Therefore, I think it's important that we pursue the supplementary estimates in advance of that timeline of November 27, 2020.

The second motion for which I'm giving notice is “That as its first order of business and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee conduct a study of the backlog of pending veteran disability benefit applications at Veterans Affairs Canada, and that no fewer than four meetings be devoted to this study.”

I want to commend Ms. Blaney for her question to the PBO on the backlog and the subsequent report that was issued last week, outlining that we are now upwards of 50,000 cases of veterans and their families not receiving adjudication or decisions on their claims. I think that is an extremely important study. We need to have witnesses and have the PBO come in, and I want to thank Ms. Blaney again for that.

The third notice of motion is “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Royal Canadian Legion and other veteran organizations and their financial health during and after the COVID-19 crisis.”

The situation involving veterans' organizations such as the RCL has come to the attention of all Canadians. I know that Bill C-4 addresses some of the issue, but this is not a “just now” issue. It is going to be a long-standing problem across this country for these service organizations, including Dominion Command and the Royal Canadian Legion, to help veterans and their families as we move forward, because many of them are facing financial hardship. It's important that we look at these organizations and the impact of many of these service organizations not being able to function in their proper fashion. We need to study the impact on veterans and their families and on those organizations.

The final motion—and I'm glad to see Mr. Casey sees this as important—that is on notice is “That as the fourth order of business and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of (a) the efficacy and use of psychiatric service dogs by Canadian Armed Forces veterans to alleviate the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, (b) the resources required by Veterans Affairs Canada to implement access to psychiatric service dogs, (c) the challenges faced by veterans with psychiatric service dogs, and (d) what should constitute minimum national standards for the training of PTSD psychiatric service dogs, and that no fewer than three meetings be devoted to this study.”

As Ms. Casey indicated, this study was being done in a previous session of Parliament. We feel it is extremely important, and now is the time to continue that study.

Those are the notices of motions, Mr. Chair, that are in front of the committee. I'll be glad to speak to them as we move to subcommittee and figure out what the agenda is going to be, going forward.

Thank you for your time.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate Mark's comments, but I think public trust is what was lost on August 18 in the first place. I think if we're going to use those lines, we should reflect on the government's actions prior to that. Let's not talk about public trust as though we've lost it fully, especially on the Conservative side.

I can tell you that back in the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, on this motion put forward, I had people calling me saying thank you, saying we need to hold this government to account. Perhaps they're not calling you in Kingston, but I can tell you that the constituents in Elgin—Middlesex—London are saying bravo and that we need to hold them to account.

There are a couple of things we're talking about. First of all, there is the mandate of this committee. We understand that under Standing Order 32(7), this issue will be coming to the procedure and House affairs committee. As indicated, in some committees people will do a little prestudy. Now, a lot of times that may be moot if this is voted on and doesn't come to the procedure and House affairs committee, but this will not be voted on. We know that this will be referred to our committee. It's not voted on in the House of Commons. It is automatically sent to us at procedure and House affairs. There's not a vote to say that our prestudy is going to be a waste of time.

Actually, when we're talking about documents, well, these are documents that were requested, as I recall, back in July. I wouldn't want to put anyone at risk, but let's not kid ourselves: They've been working on these documents since July 1, when they were requested, and we're now into October.

“Paralyzing of government” is a terrible choice of words. Perhaps it was the paralyzing of Parliament, because that is exactly what this government did with prorogation on August 18. It's fine to say that the government will not be able to do any work because we'll be paralyzing this committee, but I will remind the honourable member that 338 members of Parliament were paralyzed on August 18 due to the prorogation in the first place.

With all of these things, I understand that it took eight days. I understand that this motion was very complex, but we do know that it will be coming to this committee. We are expecting lots of documents, because that is what we've asked for. Prorogation in the middle of a pandemic was absolutely not in the best interests of Canadians. We saw that last week, as we voted at 2:30 in the morning. We needed to have Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 passed. We knew that all of the programs had stopped the weekend before. There is a gap in these programs, and people will only be able to apply on October 11 for these programs. I find it very rich of this member to think that we paralyzed it. The only one who paralyzed the government was the Prime Minister and his staff. I'm very concerned with this.

When we're looking at this, all we're asking is to be able to prestudy the information that will be coming to our committee anyway. I'll also remind you that the only way we're not going to be debating this is if the government decides to prorogue before October 28. Really, at the end of the day, it's either coming to us or it's not. It seems like you're just trying to say no to the inevitable. It's going to happen.

The fact is that if on August 17 and 18 you had asked Canadians why they thought the government prorogued.... I will tell you that in my riding, I had maybe one person who did not think that it was over some of these issues that we have brought up and to do with the WE scandal. We know through finance and ethics and languages that there were lots of issues coming up because of WE. At that time, with the pressure and the heat that was happening in the PMO, that is why government was shut down.

I shouldn't say that is why; maybe prove me otherwise. I shouldn't say that, because obviously some members of the government believe that was not the case and that the prorogation happened because they were resetting.

I'm laughing because we're coming back to Bill C-6, to Bill C-4. We're coming back to a bunch of bills that were actually on the table and were going to start to be debated. There's nothing new from this reset. We are coming back to medical assistance in dying. We are coming back to conversion therapy. We are coming back to things that the government had already pre-tabled in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. We are rehashing what happened in the first session of this Parliament. There is nothing new. Perhaps the member can share with me that we actually had a reset, that we actually did a 180.

That's not what happened. We are starting with the same old, same old. By closing the door on August 18 for the parliamentary committees to ask these tough questions, the government was able to have a break and hope that Canadians had a break and would move forward.

I recognize that none of us wants to put staff members at risk. That is not the plan. We also know that they've been working on these for three months, so let's not use that.

On the cost to produce these things, it's the first time I've ever heard the government say “the cost to produce”. We're asking it to produce documents on a billion-dollar program that was announced—a billion dollars—so don't talk as if this is nickels and dimes here. We're talking here about big dollars that this government was wasting. Being held accountable is exactly what should happen.

I appreciate that the member thinks this is out of order, but at the same time, according to Standing Order 32(7), it is the mandate of this committee to study the prorogation when it comes to procedure and House affairs.

Thank you.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-4 was a piece of legislation the government introduced, and it was flawed. It was the NDP who went to the table and worked hard to get the government to make the necessary changes to ensure that the amount of money for CERB was not cut to $400 per week, which the Liberals wanted to proceed with, but rather that it honoured the required amount, which is $2,000 a month or $500 a week. We pushed forward to ensure people could get sick leave, but even then, Bill C-4 is not a perfect piece of legislation. Much work needs to be done. The government could have easily made those programs permanent if it wished to, but it chose not to. That is what the NDP did.

With respect to the throne speech, it—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always encouraging when MPs on both sides of the House are focused on the issue at hand, that being the pandemic, and coming up with ideas. I appreciate the fact that the NDP will be supporting the throne speech and the many fine initiatives within it. That is a very strong positive, and shows that even though we might disagree at times, we can come together in a time of need for Canadians.

We have introduced Bill C-4, which passed, that reinforced the importance of the CERB program being brought into EI and the wage subsidy program.

I wonder if the hon. member would provide some thoughts on that particular piece of legislation and how it complements the throne speech.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on the subject of the throne speech. Looking around makes me think of how much things have changed since February and March, when this pandemic hit, and how we have had to adjust our ways with the need to be cautious.

I would not call this pandemic an adjustment, annoyance or inconvenience, although it is all of those things and we feel them every day. It is not an economic shock like we had in the 1970s with the rising price of oil. A more apt word for what we are living through is “disruption”. By that I mean that this pandemic is going to cause transformational change in our society in the same way that World War II caused transformational change. We know that World War II was followed by a baby boom, economic and technological development, mass production, television, the expansion of the suburbs, a new consumer culture that drove the economy, the birth of the youth culture and the quest for the moon. This is a pivotal moment in history, the same way that World War II was a pivotal moment in history.

We are at a crossroads, and I cannot predict what the long-term effects of this pandemic will be. I am no Alvin Toffler, author of the well-known book Future Shock, but I have a few ideas that I think are realistic.

For example, I think that we are now going to put a higher priority on family, community and neighbours. We are going to take better care of our seniors. Perhaps there will be more interest in medical and other health care professions.

Perhaps we will also be more aware of the benefits of nature. We took going out for walks for granted, but all of a sudden we realized that we might not always be able to do that and that we had to pay attention. We now take great pleasure in taking a walk in a park and enjoying the freedom that we always took for granted before.

Perhaps we will see the social safety net in a different light, because we realized how much we have to help one another. We give each other that help through social programs like the ones our government announced over the course of this pandemic. Perhaps we will also realize how easy it is to get into financial difficulty. Even if everything is going well for us in life, all of a sudden we might find ourselves in a serious financial difficulties through no fault of our own. In some ways, we are moving to a new society.

The throne speech and Bill C-4 recognize that we are at a transformational moment. They seek to ensure that Canadians are not left behind by this transformation and, in fact, evolve with it, through the support measures that are required to ensure that we can maintain our standard of living and can continue to have a productive economy. There are investments in, for example, green technologies and even blue technologies, as the throne speech did mention water, a topic that I have been interested in for quite a while.

The throne speech is visionary in the sense that there is a short-term component and a long-term component. It announced a series of goals and objectives that are intended to bring us into this new era with all the right policies in all the right areas.

World War II had grave fiscal consequences. In a similar way, this pandemic has changed the financial picture for governments, not only here in Canada but around the world. For sure, Canadians are concerned about the fiscal impacts of this pandemic. I speak to constituents who ask me about the deficit and the debt. However, I think it is important that we put these things in perspective, not to minimize or discount them, but to ensure that we have an enlightened and informed discussion on the best path forward.

We will have a projected deficit in 2021. We said that it was going to be $343 billion, but the PBO disagreed and said that it would be $328 billion. Members cannot accuse the government of fudging numbers.

Coming out of World War II, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 100% and the deficit-to-GDP ratio was 21%. Today, the PBO forecasts that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be under 50%. What was the debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of the Mulroney Conservative era? It was 66%, so we absolutely need to put things in perspective.

We know there is a rule that has been taught to us by indigenous peoples. It is the seven generation rule and it generally applies to decisions that impact the environment. The rule says that if we pose an action that impacts the environment, we should think of the next seven generations to see how that decision will impact the environment for the next seven generations. I think we should apply this to our financial decisions as well.

How will the financial decisions we are making today impact future generations? We talk a lot about future generations in the context of the budget deficit. Let us think for a moment. What if we had not taken the measures that we took? What would that have meant for future generations? What would that have meant for the young person who could not get their career started, who could not find a job, who could not earn money to pay for their education? Those young people would form what we might call a lost generation. We are very fortunate that we are at a time in history when interest rates are very low and, if interest rates remain low and the growth rate exceeds interest rates, we will be able to bring down the deficit.

I would like to quote from Michael Smart in an article in The Globe and Mail, who talks about the relationship between economic growth rates and interest rates:

After major economic depressions in our past, economic growth exceeded interest rates for decades at a stretch, allowing past governments to gradually reduce the debt without undue hardship for Canadians. In fact, in historical terms, the fiscal crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s was an aberration—the only period since 1900 when interest rates exceeded growth rates for an extended period.

I know that on the other side of the House members try to paint a picture of doom and gloom and say we are on the cusp of financial ruin, but who do we believe? Do we believe a political party that is creating a narrative for the purpose of political gain, or do we believe those who are invested in the economy, who have invested billions of dollars in the economy and who watch the government's moves very closely? At the first sign of bad economic policy, they will abandon markets and give us a lower credit ratings. Do we listen to them, or do we listen to the Conservative opposition?

Let us hear what those who have invested in the economy and keep a close eye on economic decisions by governments are saying about Canada. This was in Bloomberg News, and I will quote what Standard and Poors said:

While fiscal and debt metrics will worsen due to the size of the unprecedented government response, we believe that the government's use of its policy flexibility will likely help the economy and labour market to recover. The largely temporary deviation of the government's fiscal profile does not offset Canada's structural credit strengths, in our view.

I rest my case.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting when the member for Timmins—James Bay, an NDP member of Parliament, said that the throne speech is the NDP election platform. Do not get me wrong, I appreciate the support from the NDP. There are a lot of socially progressive things within the throne speech, and no one owns a good idea. I am glad the NDP supports a lot of the initiatives that are within the throne speech. There is nothing wrong with that. I suspect even the Conservatives support different aspects of the throne speech.

The other night we were surprised when NDP members voted to support Bill C-4, which is really a vote of confidence for the Government of Canada as to how we are managing through this pandemic.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to rise on behalf of the people of Barrie—Innisfil to speak in reply to the throne speech.

Before I begin, I would very much like to thank all first responders, not just in Barrie—Innisfil but right across those country, those who have been on the front line, health care workers. As a former firefighter in 2003, I recall the SARS crisis and the anxiety that was felt by myself and others who I worked with in the paramedic and police services in dealing with that crisis. That anxiety was heightened by the fact that we did not know if we would get the virus and take it home.

I really appreciate the first responders and front-line health care workers. They deserve our greatest respect.

I also want to thank the administration staff in the House. I know Gaétan is keeping all our desks clean so we do not take the virus back to our ridings.

Six weeks ago, the government prorogued Parliament. At the time, we were at the height of a scandal that was becoming more emboldened as new information became available. The Prime Minister said that the reason why he would prorogue Parliament was to come up with a bold and ambitious new course for the country. I would suggest that the ambition was on the part of the Prime Minister to save his political skin at that time.

Members will recall that the government was becoming more embroiled in the scandal. More information was becoming available. There were more indictments of individuals who were involved. Therefore, the Prime Minister and the government simply decided to prorogue Parliament so they could make it go away. It is not going away.

Let us look at the Prime Minister's bold and ambitious plan. If any of us looked back to the 2015 election platform of the Liberal Party, “Real Change”, we would see that much of what was promised back then was recycled or rehashed in this throne speech. Many of us will recall that at the beginning of the current government, in 2015, Liberals were big on “deliverology”, but we have seen very little in that regard, except for this rehashing and recycling of promises.

At the beginning of this crisis, all of us were working together in a team Canada approach. I said this the other night when I spoke to Bill C-4. Many MPs were on the front lines. We became the front line voice of the government, because in many cases Service Canada offices were closing. People were calling our offices because they were anxious. The level of anxiety was heightened as a result of the fear, the unknown and the uncertainty of what was going to happen next.

All of us worked together. Many programs that were announced initially became woefully inadequate, and were found to be that. The Canada emergency wage subsidy, for example, started off at 10%. If it was not for the opposition, all opposition parties, and I am sure the government heard about it as well from business, then that wage subsidy would not have been brought up to the level it was.

There were problems with the CERB. People were falling through the gaps. Maternity benefits is an example of where people were falling through the gaps on CERB. It was the same with the CEBA, the Canada emergency business account. A lot of businesses did not qualify for that benefit.

We all parliamentarians worked together to ensure that these programs were in place. Of course, they were meant to be temporary.

Now as we enter into a new wave of COVID-19, clearly we as parliamentarians and the government need to be there to help Canadians. However, we need to be there in recovery as well, not so much as an issue of dependence on the government but to create a recovery plan. What I fail to see in the throne speech is that recovery plan.

What does recovery look like?

We have to ensure the government gets out of the way of recovery and allow the power of the free market, allow the power of Canadian businesses, the people they employ and the products they produce to do that. It comes in every sector of our economy.

The other thing we did not see in the throne speech was any sense of investor confidence in those sectors of our economy that have been decimated as a result of government policy, legislation and regulation.

Clearly the natural resources sector has been impacted has been impacted as a result of the government. We hear many stories of Alberta being on its knees as a result of the legislation, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, regulation and taxation policies that have been imposed on the sector. We want to ensure we move from dependance to recovery, and there was very little in the throne speech that spoke to this.

With respect to recovery, the other area we really need to focus on is the issue of rapid testing. I find it curious that just yesterday the government approved a rapid test for which an application had been filed with Health Canada just 24 hours before. It is amazing how rapidly the government and Health Canada will move when there is a tremendous amount of anxiety on the part of Canadians who are standing in line for COVID-19 testing. The fact is that rapid testing has been around in other countries. Twelve countries around the world have approved rapid testing, many of them our allies. We have trade pacts and trade agreements with them. Many rapid tests have been put in front of Health Canada, so why the delay? Why the delay that further causes problems for Canadian families that have to wait in line for testing and then for the results?

Rapid testing is going to become critical for us in out recovery. I was glad to see the rapid test approved, but the government needs to do more to ensure that it is there.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the longer the spending plan goes on it will become unsustainable: $343 billion in deficits, approaching $1.2 trillion in debt. That is on the expenditure side of the ledger. We will need to ensure that we create revenue to pay for these types of programs. We have to allow the power, as I said earlier, of the Canadian economy to do that through less legislation, less regulation, fewer policies, less taxation and create investor confidence that will provide us with the revenue we need to pay for those programs.

October 1 is a troubling day for many businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises. Rents are due today, yet the commercial emergency rent assistance program that business owners have relied on, though not many of them because it is a deeply flawed program, will cause those business owners problems.

The last thing I want to talk about are veterans. In its boldness and ambitiousness, the one thing that was neglected in the throne speech were veterans. Not one word of veteran was in the throne speech. Earlier this week, we heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer about case loads approaching 50,000 that had to be adjudicated and they had yet to be processed. That means 50,000 veterans and their families are living with additional anxiety. I would hope the government would announce a plan to help fix that.

Two years ago the NDP suggested a plan to help alleviate some of those backlogs, and we supported it. The government needs to ensure that is fixed. As shadow minister for Veterans Affairs, I will do everything I can to hold the government to account to have those backlogs fixed.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure to appear before the House today to speak to our government's Speech from the Throne and why I believe it presents the best plan possible for Canadians who need support during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Our government's plan will ensure not only that our economy can rebound once COVID has been beaten, but that we come back as a stronger, greener, more inclusive Canada.

I am proud of the great solidarity and resilience that the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle have demonstrated during this difficult time. From the beginning of the lockdown, many volunteers and community groups stepped up to help those who were most affected by the health crisis. Terrific organizations such as Sourire sans Fin in Saint-Rémi and the Centre d'action bénévole du grand Châteauguay provided services, such as much needed food to local families, and the coordination of personal outreach calls to seniors confined to their homes. I was very pleased to see our government sent supplemental funds out to these and other groups in our regions that were providing emergency relief.

I also want to take this opportunity in the House to thank the front-line health and essential services workers in our region who worked tirelessly to ensure our health and safety and for their continued dedication to the public good.

With the sudden lockdown, many people found themselves, through no fault of their own, without work or the possibility of finding work. Providing income replacement to the unemployed, self-employed and gig workers was our top priority in March 2020.

With the rapid rollout of the emergency relief benefit, Canadians could breathe a sigh of relief. Many in my riding called and wrote me to tell me how much the CERB helped them and their families cope with the financial insecurity of this crisis. It helped them to do what they needed to do to keep themselves and their families safe during the first six months of this crisis.

I do not have to tell members that the COVID-19 lockdown was a huge shock for businesses. In my region, my team and I worked with farmers, manufacturers, restaurants and retailers who had to adapt to the COVID reality. Very quickly we were able to collaborate with our regional development agencies, whether municipal, provincial or federal, as well as our chambers of commerce to identify needs and facilitate access to programs, such as the Canada emergency business account and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. These and other programs were greatly appreciated in my riding, and our government's commitment to extending these programs is welcomed.

We have weathered the first wave of this pandemic and we are now beginning the second. We know this will not be easy, but with the plan that our government has outlined in the Speech from the Throne, we have a pathway forward to take bold action on health, the economy, social equality and the environment to build a more resilient and sustainable Canada for everyone.

The throne speech presents the four foundations of our action plan presented to Canadians to respond to COVID-19 and recover from the consequences of this pandemic.

The first foundation is to fight COVID-19 and save lives by doing everything in our power to protect Canadians, especially the most vulnerable. We need to work together to ensure the health and safety of our citizens and to beat this virus. We will do so by guaranteeing Canadians that they can be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is ready. We will also support our provincial partners and ensure that we have adequate supplies of protective equipment and testing materials.

The second foundation of our plan is supporting people and businesses through this crisis as long as it lasts, whatever it takes. Contrary to what some say, this is not the time for austerity. The strength of our actions now will determine the quality of the world we will leave our children and grandchildren. The best thing we can do is to support Canadians during this health crisis.

Why did our government take extraordinary, but necessary, measures during the first wave of the pandemic? Canadians should not have to choose between their health and their job, just like Canadians should not have to take on debt that their government can better shoulder.

This will be our guiding principle from here on out.

I thank members from all parties for their unanimous support of the measures in Bill C-4, which passed in the House the other night. These important measures, including a more flexible EI program, paid sick leave and a caregiver benefit, will allow us to continue helping Canadians and their families.

By extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account, we will help companies stay in business, create jobs, support women in the economy and ensure our financial sustainability.

The third foundation in our government's plan is to build back better to create a stronger, more resilient Canada. One thing we have seen is that this pandemic has laid bare unacceptable inequalities in our society. We need to do something and bridge the gaps in our social systems, invest in health care and strengthen our workforce.

Today is the International Day of Older Persons, and I want to say that our government remains committed to increasing old age security once a senior turns 75 and to boosting the Canada pension plan survivor’s benefit.

The fourth pillar of the plan is standing up for our Canadian identity and values. Canadians take care of one another, as we have seen from coast to coast to coast in recent months.

I am proud of the solidarity the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle have demonstrated. For example, a group of girls organized a Black Lives Matter rally with help from our Kahnawake Mohawk neighbours. Since then, a number of initiatives have sprung up in my riding to raise our community's awareness of racism and to support people demanding an end to violence and discrimination.

I would like to take a moment to note the tragic death of Joyce Echaquan, which occurred under deplorable circumstances, and to express my deepest condolences to her family.

We must keep working together to gain ground in the fight against systemic racism and achieve gender equality and reconciliation.

We are proud to champion the values that define our country. This pandemic is the worst public health crisis Canada has ever experienced. The past six months have exposed fundamental flaws in our society and around the world.

We must tackle today's problems and prepare for tomorrow's. Now is the time to remember who we are as Canadians. Now is the time to seize the opportunity to contain the global crisis and rebuild better together.

Veterans Affairs

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, veterans' issues are of the upmost importance to our government. Like other departments, Veterans Affairs was quick to adapt to the pandemic to ensure that veterans and their families would keep receiving the services and benefits they count on.

For months, the minister actively consulted Veterans Affairs representatives through the ministerial advisory panel. He also spoke to many veterans about how they and their families were managing during the pandemic and the support that the department could provide. Since the beginning of this crisis, Veterans Affairs Canada has made many changes to ensure that veterans can access the support they need.

Coverage has been extended to include telehealth and virtual health services, which has allowed veterans to gain or maintain access to mental health treatments, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and other treatments, while respecting social distancing measures. The need for renewed prescriptions required to obtain health care services was temporarily waived and the cost of personal protective equipment needed to receive treatment can now be reimbursed.

Throughout the pandemic, our message to veterans did not change, and indeed it was the same as before: We are there for those who did so much for Canada.

In fact, we have now delivered over half a billion dollars in benefits directly to veterans since the pandemic began.

This includes continuing our efforts to reduce delays and manage the volume of applications for disability benefits. In June, we presented a strategy to reduce wait times for veterans. This strategy includes transforming how teams are organized, making better use of technology and streamlining the process by eliminating certain steps.

I am very proud that we recently invested nearly $200 million in additional funding to speed up and support the disability decision-making process. The PBO's report shows that the new hires made as part of this investment will have a significant impact on reducing the backlog, but it does not take into account the many steps that Veterans Affairs has taken to make this process even faster and more efficient. These steps include streamlining the decision-making process on benefits and programs so that less complex cases can now take less time. Claims for disability benefits are also now being triaged so that the department can expedite applications for those of higher risk. Of course, there is the hiring of hundreds of new employees, including case workers and other workers, directly to support veterans to process disability applications and to administer pension-for-life benefits, which came into effect on April 1.

I want to point out that Bill C-4 provides $20 million for these organizations that support veterans.

As a result, during this pandemic, Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and their families continue to receive the assistance they need while VAC continues to take the steps needed to reduce the wait time.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I am most pleased to speak on the throne speech. I do believe this throne speech, and the legislation and policy that will flow out of it, will put Canada on the right track going forward.

We are in a pandemic that seems to be gaining ground again. This is the time for leadership. The Prime Minister has shown leadership day after day. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said, the Prime Minister and his government were in communication with all members of the House, and having meetings at night in conference calls with the bureaucracy. Everybody put in ideas, but the government showed that it was willing, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, to make changes that would improve policies for individuals, businesses, organizations, provinces and territories, day in and day out since the pandemic began.

The Prime Minister developed the programs. He worked with the provinces, and the provinces have congratulated the Prime Minister, time and again, on his willingness to work with them during this pandemic.

He has certainly shown leadership in terms of working with all Canadians. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he only wanted to work with some. No. The Prime Minister has worked with all Canadians, with all organizations and with all provinces. The Prime Minister is showing he is the leader that is needed in this time for this country to move forward. This is the direct opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say.

This throne speech sets out a blueprint for where we need to go in the future. There really is no shortage of ideas. The purpose of a throne speech is to lay out the blueprint in the House of Commons and to have other ideas and criticisms come forward, certainly. I believe that, in the way that Parliament is structured, other ideas can come forward to improve on the blueprint that the government has laid out, although it is a very good blueprint.

The finance committee, in fact, heard hundreds of suggestions from Canadian organizations and individuals between April 3 and the end of June. I want to qualify that. This was a criticism that I do not believe was valid. I want to qualify that a key point made by witnesses before the finance committee is that, while future spending is essential, it must be done in a fiscally responsible way, and the Minister of Finance should certainly, at the earliest opportunity, lay out an economic growth plan. That is what witnesses were saying. I agree with that approach, and I think that would show Canadians how we are going to get there in terms of meeting the needs of the pandemic but also meeting the needs of the economy going forward.

Witnesses before the finance committee, and in my own riding and across Canada, spoke very favourably about several programs that will be continued as a result of the throne speech and the legislation flowing out of it.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy offered a 75% subsidy for businesses, and it will be extended right through to next summer. Although it is a wonderful program, I would note that it needs some tweaks. Many new businesses, start-ups, or expanding businesses that are buying out other businesses and therefore have different business account numbers with the CRA, do not qualify for the program. We have to fix that problem. Those businesses are important to our economy. They are the backbone of our economy, and we need them.

The second major program announced in the throne speech is the Canada emergency response benefit. It was very important to ensure that families had the funds to put food on the table, and had some security for their families, after jobs were lost as a result of COVID-19.

That program is rightly being rolled into an improved EI program, and is absolutely necessary, going forward. That is a commitment made by the Government of Canada in the throne speech. In fact, legislation has already been put in this House through Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 that ensures that the benefits of CERB will remain as we work to restart our economy.

For those in the tourism industry who were only able to find limited work this summer, the reduced hours, as announced, that will be required to gain EI is extremely important. The throne speech mentions it and legislation passed through here once on the Canada recovery benefit to support workers who are self-employed or not eligible for EI, the Canada recovery sickness benefit for workers who must self-isolate due to COVID-19, and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit for Canadians who must take care of a child and are unable to work. That is extremely important for people, moving forward, to help them out.

Another area we heard a lot of positive feedback and comments on is CEBA, the Canada emergency business account. The throne speech states:

This fall, in addition to extending the wage subsidy, the Government will take further steps to bridge vulnerable businesses to the other side of the pandemic by:

Expanding the Canada Emergency Business Account to help businesses with fixed costs;

Improving the Business Credit Availability Program;

And introducing further support for industries that have been the hardest hit, including travel and tourism, hospitality, and cultural industries like the performing arts.

It is important we do that, and we welcome that program, but I want to also put a slight caveat on CEBA. A number of us from all parties have been saying that the Canada emergency business account must allow personal accounts to qualify, not just business accounts. When I was farming I did not have a business account with a bank; I had a personal account and I was running about a $2-million operation. I can give an example of an individual in my riding. This construction guy with a $900,000 operation puts out three T4s and can show income tax going back years, but he does not qualify for CEBA. That is wrong. It should not just be through the bank business account. We had to fix that so that the people with a personal bank account qualify as well.

As an aside, there was the regional relief and recovery fund, established through the regional development agencies, that is basically the same as CEBA but is in the rural areas for businesses that may not qualify through the banks system. That program has run out of money. I am asking the Minister of Finance and the government as a whole to put some more funds into that RRRF so that people who actually deal with those agencies can qualify. That needs to happen.

I understand time is running down for my remarks, but I want to say I am looking forward to the work of the Government of Canada in accelerating the universal broadband funding. This is critical. We have seen through the pandemic that it needs to be done.

I am encouraged by what the throne speech said about the Atlantic loop in terms of energy between Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and how that may flow throughout the system.

We really used Canadian resources to help Canadians and build Canadian industries. I am really pleased on the environmental side that the throne speech outlines a number of opportunities for retrofitting homes and businesses, and more.

We have learned through this pandemic that we have to supply ourselves locally, and we need to move forward on that as well.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be here today and to take part in the second session of the 43rd Parliament.

It is extremely important to be able to debate the throne speech, which, I believe, lays the foundation for success for the years ahead.

There is no question that we had to look at the areas faced with this pandemic to know how we could make sure Canadians were protected and safe. That was the most important thing. The second was how we could help them get through this pandemic, which is extremely important. The third was how we could make things better, because the turf underneath our feet has changed because of the pandemic. There are certain things we must look at and change, and others we must ensure we put forward as soon as possible. Then we have to look, as a country, at what the areas are where we can support more people and make Canada even greater, which is essential.

There is no question about protecting Canadians. Nova Scotia has done an outstanding job. Premier McNeil was outstanding in guiding us through the pandemic. At one point, he said, “stay the blazes home”, which went viral. I am sure members have heard that one already.

I also want to thank Dr. Strang, our chief medical officer, who guided our government through this. We were then able to work with Atlantic Canada, and I want to praise all of Atlantic Canada. Today, it is the safest bubble in North America. We have zero cases in three of the four provinces, and I think one active case in the other province, and we are tracking that. Atlantic Canada is the safest place in North America. That is impressive. As far as a bubble, we have done our part, and I hope we can learn from that experience.

How do we protect Canadians? We protect them with PPE. It is extremely important that we have the equipment and tools necessary to help Canadians. That is why our government moved forward quickly and asked businesses to come forward with ideas and to put forward proposals that would help find equipment that would help Canadians, including face masks, gowns and hand sanitizer. We all needed those things in this country because we knew globally it would be a challenge to get that equipment. We had over 1,000 companies come forward and many across this country. A company in my riding called Stanfield's produced over 300,000 gowns.

The next important thing is the vaccine. We have now invested and secured candidates to move forward and we have agreements with six countries. I am hopeful, as all members are, that we will find this vaccine for Canadians within the next six to 12 months, which would be extremely important.

How are Liberals helping Canadians through this pandemic? That is an extremely important question. The CERB is the first program we put out. Almost 9 million Canadians accessed the CERB. That is how important it was for us to come forward and help Canadians as quickly as possible.

We then moved into the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which provided 75% of workers' wages. In my riding, I spoke to the owner of Boondocks and he told me that he had laid off all his workers and then, shortly after we put the program out, he was able to bring them all back. That is why this was such an important program, as was the program to help businesses.

We were quick to support seniors because it is extremely important to do so. We used a top-up through GST. We then increased it by $300 tax-free for those on the OAS, along with an extra $200 tax-free for those on the GIS. I do not know if members know how much money that is, but in Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook it was $7.3 million. To multiply that by 338 MPs is approximately $2.5 billion to support seniors in this country. That is very impressive.

Initially I was doubtful that young people would have summer jobs. We were not sure how things would unfold, but companies stepped up and opened their doors again. The students went to work supporting their communities, the businesses and the organizations.

I spoke to the Lake & Shore Recreation Society in Forest Lake. Its representatives told me if they shut down, they would never have reopened if it had not been for student summer jobs. They were able to offer the summer camp once again, which is a very important program.

Another is our veterans. It is extremely important that we were able to support veterans quickly as well. We approved almost $200 million to move forward on the backlog, which was extremely important so veterans could get services they deserved. On top of that, we included in the veterans disability payment $600 and that cheque should come soon for disabled veterans, which is extremely important.

We have also added a question in the census to identify veterans. It has not been there for 51 years. How will we help veterans if we do not know who they are? That was extremely important. Yesterday, we passed Bill C-4, which allows for $20 million to help veterans through organizations that work closely with them on the ground, and that was extremely important as well.

We are moving forward on early learning and child care. We have been talking about it for years. It is essential. We have to get it so that both spouses who are work know that their kids have child care and early learning. Now with the pandemic, we need to accelerate that much faster.

Here is where building better is extremely important. Not only do we help move forward, but we also create other types of opportunities. Investing in the social sector is crucial. We are creating jobs and also systems that are necessary to move forward. Investment in housing to eliminate chronic homelessness is very important.

My colleague spoke about broadband. It is essential. We have seen the gaps. It became evident very quickly in this pandemic. If people do not have broadband and connectivity, they will not be able to contribute as much they should. If we want people in rural communities, we need to do that ASAP.

We also have to up our game in skilled workers. The throne speech announced the greatest investment ever in skilled workers and training. David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, stated clearly that this was probably the most important thing we could do to support Canadians.

Health care needs universal pharmacare. We have talked about it and we will deliver it. We are moving it forward and we are going to begin negotiation with the provinces. There are a lot of them ready to go and they will be quick to the door to accept that challenge. This will show all Canadians, including the Conservatives, that it is doable.

We have also seen the gap in long-term care. That is why we are bringing forward national standards, which is crucial to ensure that seniors from one coast to the other will have the same services in health care.

The opposition leader gave a very good speech. For a while, I though he was describing the Liberal philosophy, but he never talked about climate change. It is real and he will have to add that to his next speech.

I also want to talk about what we will do for climate change. We will legislate net-zero emissions by 2050. We will exceed our 2030 targets. We will invest in green retrofits for businesses and clean energy funds. We have the Atlantic loop.

I am very proud of a business in my riding, which is a leader in open mapping. It received $361,000 to retrieve and dispose—

Health

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government only has two speeds: turbo and park. It used turbo speed with Bill C-4 to offer a uniform approach that will unfortunately leave many businesses and Canadians behind. When it comes to health transfers, however, it is in park. Quebeckers do not want the government in park, they want it in turbo mode. We support stable, predictable transfers with no strings attached.

When is the government going to start taking action?

COVID-19 Response Measures Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

As I mentioned earlier, it is very important that members' cameras remain on for the duration of the vote. Members' cameras must be on from start to finish.

I will finish and we will then proceed to points of order.

The bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, is deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed)

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that the signature, eloquence and passion of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not diminished one bit even at 1:50 in the morning.

I very much appreciate the comments the member shared at the beginning of her speech when she emphasized the collaboration and the real, true team Canada approach, which is really the signature of this piece of legislation and how it came about. It is a common theme that I noticed, and was also in the comments that were made by my colleague, the MP for Edmonton Strathcona as well as the MP for Vancouver East. They acknowledge the fact that this bill really is the product of the government and the opposition working together, listening to each other. I think that is the particular strength of Bill C-4, that it is undergirded and supported by the fact that this was a tremendous listening exercise.

We listened not just to each other, not just to members across the aisle, but we also listened to our constituents. We listened to workers, Canadians, families, unions and businesses. That really is that particular strength, the collaboration, that listening and working together, for Bill C-4.

As the member pointed out as well, moving forward, the legislation is going to evolve. This legislation that is being brought forward is not going to preclude other changes. In fact, the evolution has always been the signature of our response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that we adapt to it.

I would ask the member to comment on that sense of collaboration and team work that really undergirded the design and development of Bill C-4.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbour. I can see the beautiful Mount Maxwell on Salt Spring Island from my house, and that is part of the riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I want to thank her for expanding the conversation we are having tonight on Bill C-4, to talk about how this really is a first step. I think many Canadians are seeing this as a moment in time where we have the ability to reimagine what Canada's full potential can be.

We have heard a lot of discussion today. Part of the discussion has centred on the cost, and I will agree that it has been a significant cost, but I am really glad that in the course of her debate she also started touching on the cost of institutionalized poverty and how that continues to be such a drag on so many of our communities right across this great country. I look, in the Cowichan Valley, at how the opioid crisis is ravaging the downtown core of Duncan right now. That is traced back to institutionalized poverty. These are individuals who have suffered multiple forms of trauma.

Whether it is mental health, physical abuse or the ongoing trauma of everyday lived experiences in poverty, those have real costs to our society. They have costs that the member mentioned in incarceration rates and in our health services.

I just want to ask her to again comment on how investments in things like a guaranteed livable income are actually, in the long run, going to make our country a better place, not only socially and in terms of health, but also economically, to put us on a path for the better.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are truly reflecting on their actions today, then they really should ask themselves why they did not follow what the New Democrats said and brought in a universal direct income program. If they did that, people would not have to fight continually for the government to fill the holes and gaps that it created. The Liberals should truly reflect on that and understand the implications of what it means. Going forward, what can we do and what can the government do to do better?

In this debate on Bill C-4, why not put in the legislation that it would be a permanent program so that we do not need to have this debate over and over again? Who among the Liberals said to the Prime Minister that this is not acceptable and that they want to see a permanent program? I challenge the—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate tonight. We have heard all through the night from members of Parliament about the issues around the impact of the pandemic and what it is like for their constituents, for the people in their community. The impact has been significant. There is no question.

It is no less significant in my community of Vancouver East. Right from the get-go, when the pandemic was on the horizon, New Democrats got up on the floor to call on the government to act. Members will recall that the government's response was that it was going to waive the 10-day waiting period for EI. That was the extent of what the government was going to do.

New Democrats said that was absolutely unacceptable, because some 60% of Canadians do not qualify for EI. Through all of that process and driving the issue, New Democrats would have ideally liked to see a universal direct payment or a livable basic income. The government resisted that, and it came in with the CERB program.

The CERB program is an important program, but let us be honest with ourselves. Even the Liberal members know this. The CERB program excluded a lot of people. As soon as the government announced that program, we had to fight like crazy to drive the issue, to bring forward the voices of the people who were left out and to say that we could not leave them behind.

The Liberals left seniors behind. They left people with disabilities behind. They left students behind. They left self-employed individuals behind. They left so many people behind, part-time workers, migrant workers, and on and on the list went. New Democrats went at it like there was no tomorrow to drive home the message that we had to do better, that it was our obligation to do better.

We did get there. The government slowly, bit by bit, fixed some of those programs. Even with that, there are still people who did not get the support they should have gotten. Here is one example, and I raised this directly with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Single parents who are reliant on child support, as a result of COVID-19, lost that income. The Canadian government did not see that as income and, therefore, they did not qualify for CERB. I raised that directly with the minister, who indicated that she understood that she had to be there and that the government had to be there to support women. However, to this day, that has not been fixed.

That has been the pattern of the Liberal government to date, quite frankly, and it has been the NDP's job to consistently go after the government to do better. Bill C-4 is exactly just that, because we went after the government to do better.

I know some people will say that the NDP is in bed with the Liberals. Let us be clear about that. We are not in bed with anyone, with the exception of Canadians who need help. Our job is to make sure that we deliver support to them at this most critical time, a time when we are faced with a pandemic.

The government decided to prorogue the House and it was a shameful act, to be honest. It left people in the lurch in the middle of a pandemic and wondering what was going to happen to them. Before the government left, it said it was going to end the CERB program, but it was going to come in with another measure that reduced the amount of support. It was going to reduce the amount from $2,000 a month to $1,600, leaving so many people behind.

New Democrats never gave up. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, and our critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, just went after it relentlessly, saying that we needed to do better and demanded better. The result is Bill C-4. We actually got the government to change the program, to move towards what it needed to be, which was to provide $2,000 a month in support for people in need, for all the people who were left out. This is why we have Bill C-4 before us today.

Right from the get-go, New Democrats have said there is something wrong with our labour standards, in the sense that somehow people who fall ill are not eligible for paid sick leave. What is wrong with this picture? It was particularly evident in the middle of the pandemic when this occurred.

The government was not really going to move on that. It was the New Democrats who continually drove that issue to where we are today, with the changes we see before us in Bill C-4, so that people could get the sick leave they need.

All of that said, these measures are a patchwork approach. That is the reality of what we have today, and it is better than nothing, but the government claims that it wants to build back better. It should give some meaning to those words and make these programs permanent. We should not have to fight this every single time we are in a situation where we do not know what the future may hold. People should not have to worry about their future. People should be treated with the kind of respect and dignity that we all deserve. That is what the New Democrats will continue to fight for.

I think this highlights a very clear issue for us with respect to what needs to be done. My very good colleague, the member from Winnipeg, put forward a guaranteed livable income motion. We should be debating that. We should be talking about how to implement that to make sure that nobody gets left behind.

The government talked about the great work it is doing with respect to housing. I listened intently to the throne speech and was looking to hear from the government about real, concrete action to deliver housing to people in the middle of a pandemic. Just before the throne speech the government announced 3,000 housing units. It was a rapid housing response, it said. Let us put this in context. From a homelessness count that was recently done, we know there are over 2,000 homeless people in Vancouver alone. Three thousand units are not going to do it.

My colleague, the member for Nunavut, just took a tour of her region, and it makes my heart weep to hear the testimony she shared with me and my colleagues about what she saw, about the experiences of people who are homeless and living in “mouldy boxes”. These are houses so infested with mould that it is making them sick. People are losing their children because they do not have proper, safe, adequate, affordable housing. Families are breaking up. She called it the modern-day colonization. That is the reality. What is wrong with this picture when we have this situation today and the government brags about 3,000 units as though that is the solution?

Today I say it is not good enough. This is a start, and the New Democrats are doing their level best to drive forward this issue with the government. We have to do more than just talk. It is incumbent on all of us as elected members in the House to do that job, not to play games, not for partisan politics and not to point fingers. At the end of the day, we must ask what we are delivering to the people who elected us to represent them.

For those in Vancouver East and all the people in my community, people in the Strathcona encampment who are homeless today, people struggling with the opioid crisis, seniors who need standardized national long-term care support and people and families who need support from the Canadian government, we need to be a real partner at the table. We need to deliver, not just talk. It is enough already. This is a heads-up to all Liberal members to stop patting themselves on the back. They should ask themselves what they are going to do today to do better.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really wish we had that opportunity to debate, but because we have run out of time, I do not want to go back to the people of Edmonton Strathcona and tell them they have to wait. I spoke to a woman on the phone who burst into tears when I told her that we were fighting to have the CERB extended. I have talked to artists who do not know what they are going to do. I have stood on people's doorsteps and the one thing they have said to me is that they need to know how they are going to be taken care of because they cannot go back to work.

It is not about us in the House, or what we do in the virtual or the real House. It is about what Canadians need right now, and they need the support they are going to get from Bill C-4.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I am delighted to be able to join today. I am delighted to be able to virtually participate in our discussion on Bill C-4. I have enjoyed listening to all the members speak and I do miss being able to be in the House, but there is some benefit because it is a little bit earlier in the day in Alberta where I am at the moment.

I am going to talk about Bill C-4 and I am also going to take a moment to talk about what COVID-19 means in Alberta and how Bill C-4 will help in Alberta. I was certainly moved by the words we heard from the member for Calgary Nose Hill and I would like to add to that, if I may.

I first want to say that Bill C-4 is a good first step. I am so proud that because of what the NDP fought for, including the paid sick leave and for supports for Canadians who cannot return to work, Canadians, Albertans, Edmontonians, people in Edmonton Strathcona, will not be as anxious about they will deal with the second wave of COVID-19 we know is coming.

People will worry about their health and safety, and the health and safety of their family, but they do not need to worry about their bills or how they are going afford to meet their needs. Extending the supports until summer and keeping the support at $2,000 a month means that people impacted by this pandemic can pay their rent and can put food on their tables in the coming months.

Paid sick leave means that Canadians who are sick or Canadians whose children are sick, can stay home and do the right thing to protect themselves and our communities without worrying about losing income.

I would like to congratulate the government on listening to the NDP and recognizing that Canadians need sick leave during a global pandemic. Of course, Canadians need sick leave at all times, but we will keep fighting for that. Canadians also need to know that they will have adequate support until they go back to work.

We know that this bill would provide help to millions of Canadians and I am proud of that. I appreciate the collaborative way that some, certainly not all, parliamentarians have worked to help Canadians during this pandemic. I am particularly proud of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and the members who have been fighting for Canadians since the very beginning of this pandemic. We are ensuring help for people out of work through no fault of their own, seniors, students and recent graduates, small businesses and people living with disabilities, all those who were forgotten by the Liberals in their initial plans. I am proud that we were able to improve on almost every single proposal by the government and I am proud to say we will continue to fight for Canadians and we do not think that our job is done.

I do want to focus on Alberta for a moment. Even before the pandemic was declared six months ago, Edmonton had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Our economy was in free fall. The provincial government had done cuts that were leading to layoffs. The post-secondary institutions we needed for innovation and diversification were dealing with deep cuts to support. Women were facing higher levels of violence than in other regions of the country. We were also already facing a homelessness crisis.

I recall standing in the House and asking what the government's plan was to support Alberta workers facing a decimated oil and gas sector and the desperate need for us to help to diversify the Alberta economy. I pleaded with the government then to create a plan and solution to the economic crisis that is gripping my province. A plan for an economy that will support Alberta now and into the future. That was in February. I stood up in the House and said those things in February and then COVID-19 hit and that has made it worse.

While some provinces are beginning to see a recovery, in Alberta, we are not. In my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, CERB has been a lifeline for tens of thousands of constituents and constituents need the support to keep their homes, to pay their rent, and to put food on the table for their families.

I have personally spoken to hundreds of Albertans who have used CERB to survive. I am not sure if members heard in the news today, but not a single one of those people I spoke to used that benefit for Cheezies, cartoons or drugs. I am appalled that a Conservative in my province thinks that 1,062,640 Albertans did not need the support they received during this unprecedented global health pandemic.

I live in Edmonton Strathcona, the heart of the creative sector. It is where we have the fringe festival, the Edmonton Folk Music Festival, theatres and restaurants that work with those theatres. Those artists, musicians, venue operators and restaurant owners were all so worried about what would happen and how they would survive at the end of CERB. I am so pleased that I can offer them support with the CRB.

I have spoken to small business owners, to parents and to recent graduates struggling with debt and a lack of income. I have spoken to people with disabilities who are desperate to know when they will be supported. I cannot say it enough that people in Alberta are dealing with the triple blow of an economic catastrophe, a provincial government that has implemented a cruel regime of cuts and layoffs, and a global pandemic unlike anything we have ever seen. Those people in Alberta need the support that the bill would provide, but it is not enough for Alberta. Albertans will need all of us, all parties, to fight for them in the coming years ahead.

We know that the supports in Bill C-4 are good, but they do not go far enough. If it was not apparent before COVID-19, we know that so many people in Canada, so many people in Edmonton Strathcona, have precarious employment. They rely on part-time work and gig work. They are contract workers or self-employed, and they are not covered by EI benefits. It is critical to recognize that the EI system is inadequate for our needs with or without a pandemic. We need to make these temporary emergency fixes permanent, because all workers need to be protected, not just some.

We know that at the beginning of the pandemic my NDP colleagues and I pushed for an emergency basic income that would have gotten support out to everyone who needed it. Instead, the government relied on the EI system. We asked for something that would go out to everyone, but we did not get that. What we got instead was a system that was based on exclusions. Dozens of students did not qualify for CERB. Expectant mothers lost their EI benefits. People living with disabilities facing enormous challenges were left out. What we have to do now is to make sure that those people are not left out going forward.

I am pleased that the government is extending emergency support beyond basic EI into the summer. I am pleased that the government has adopted our recommendation not to cut the benefit to Canadians from $2,000 a month. I am happy to see the Canadian recovery child care benefit and the Canadian recovery sickness benefit, but I have concerns. These things have to become permanent. Sick leave has to become permanent. Things like child care cannot be limited to children who are under 12 years old. I am the mother of a 12-year-old child. If that child has COVID or is ill, I cannot leave them at home. We need to do better. We need to look at what is in Bill C-4, recognize the value in it and improve it.

I am happy to support Bill C-4 for what it does for Canadians, but there is so much more we must do. We must extend the moratorium on student loan payments. We must provide support for students and graduates who cannot find work. We have to ensure that there is accessible, reliable, universal child care. We need to make sure that our seniors are protected in long-term care centres that are not driven by profit, but rather have national standards that protect all seniors. We need to invest in our public health care system with things like pharmacare, mental health care and dental care.

We must identify the people who are left behind, and we cannot let them fall through the cracks again.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-4. A debate is fine, but it would have been nice if the government had observed the rules of democracy from start to finish.

Near the end of her speech, my colleague said that the government could have prorogued Parliament for just 24 hours, rather than the five weeks. Like all bills, this bill may contain flaws that we might not notice at first glance, which is why the parliamentary process is useful, as it allows us to study the bill properly and hear from witnesses. That will all be impossible, unfortunately. We have to accept it, since now the government wants to fast track this bill, ignoring the need for rigorous, thorough analysis.

Not that the situation is not urgent; far from it. As we have been saying from the outset, a work incentive should have been included in the CERB way back in April. The lack of any incentive may have gone unnoticed when we were in lockdown, when virtually everything ground to a halt. That said, over the summer, Quebec tried to lift the lockdown and get the job market moving again. It was an extremely difficult situation.

Let's be honest. The CERB is not the only factor causing problems for employment. In times of uncertainty and fear, it is easy to imagine that many workers are afraid or do not really want to go back to work.

Let's get to the heart of the matter. As we know, the Bloc strongly favours workers. For that reason, as we have said, we support Bill C-4 in principle. We are naturally in favour of the idea of benefits that incentivize going back to work and that support people who have to stay home from work because they are sick or self-isolating. We are naturally in favour of providing support to those who would be putting themselves at risk by going to work. We are naturally in favour of supporting caregivers. That goes without saying. There is no problem there.

Furthermore, the bill will probably help unemployed workers, whether they are salaried or self-employed. Capping the benefit at $500 a week is entirely appropriate because under this new program, if an employer brings rehires an employee on a part-time basis, the employee does not lose the $500. My beloved riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is very reliant on agriculture and agri-food and is heavily dominated by the service sector. The coming into force of Bill C-4 will certainly do it some good. It will have a positive effect. While the CERB was rigid and vanished as soon as workers earned more than $1,000 a month, Bill C-4 adjusts the benefit in proportion to income. No worker will lose their income because they want to ply their trade. That is what the Bloc has been calling for since the spring. So much the better.

We are also in favour of support for caregivers. However, we think it would have made more sense to extend the benefit to parents of children aged zero to 16, instead of 0 to 11, purely because school is mandatory up until the age of 16. It is as simple as that.

We hope to be worthy of speaking for Quebec workers. Two days ago, Pierre Céré, from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, said that these benefits will ultimately support the economy as the second wave begins. These benefits will help people pay their rent or mortgage and bolster consumer spending. These benefits will help keep the economy operating at a certain level during these difficult times.

Yesterday I also spoke about this with Mouvement action chômage in Saint-Hyacinthe, a partner of my office. This organization thinks the bill is worthwhile, which is similar to our position. We think the bill is worthwhile, but woefully inadequate, and we think it contains some grey areas. Some other aspects are worthy of mention, such as the single eligibility criterion, which we have not seen since 1977; the elimination of the waiting period until October 25; the 26-week minimum; the reduction of hours to 120; and the reduction of sanctions for terminations that are deemed invalid. In addition, the benefits system is much more flexible. The bill does contain all kinds of good ideas. As members know, the Bloc would prefer that Quebec be allowed to administer its own program and its own EI fund.

The fact remains that this bill contains many of our long-held ideas and requests, along with several things that unions and lobby groups have been calling for for decades.

It even makes good on some election promises that the Liberals made in 2015 but did not keep.

Some may say that all that is fine and dandy, but that is precisely the problem. Why did it take a pandemic for this to happen?

The pandemic did not create the difficult conditions for unemployed workers. It simply exacerbated a situation that has existed for a long time. The major difference is that all of the demands and proposals that I shared with the House, our own and those of the unions and lobby groups, centred on an overhaul of the EI system, not a temporary fix. It almost seems as though the Canadian parties are leaving some wiggle room so that they can go back to the way things were as soon as the opportunity arises.

What will happen when the pandemic is over? Will we go back to the old EI system, or will Bill C-4 be the basis for real, lasting change?

Over the last 20 years and more, the EI system has been slowly but thoroughly dismantled. Fewer and fewer people qualify for benefits. Only four out of 10 unemployed workers have access to the program.

I remember that when I first became involved in politics about 10 years ago, during the election campaign, there were already posters asking who had stolen money from unemployed workers. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. Employment insurance has been altered so drastically that it can almost be seen as more of a tax than an actual assistance program. That says it all.

The National Assembly has adopted several unanimous motions calling on Ottawa to stop making changes that negatively impact Quebec workers. The story is always the same, no matter which party is in power in Ottawa or which party is in power in Quebec City. We are being accused of engaging in constitutional squabbling. I am not afraid to talk about the Constitution. The Constitution applies to us until proven otherwise, so we should be talking about it.

Ever since 1996, Ottawa has orchestrated an outright misappropriation of money from the employment insurance fund. Surpluses have been transferred to the federal government's consolidated revenue fund. In 2014, the real government of Canada, the Supreme Court, overturned Quebec unions' case against Ottawa for misappropriating nearly $60 billion from the fund. Canada's highest court, which some see as the government of judges, allowed that money to be diverted. Then, in 2008, the Supreme Court found that surpluses were illegally diverted in 2002, 2003 and 2005, but it did not require the government to pay back what it took. What kind of a lesson is that? In all, workers were stripped of several billion dollars. All that shows a consistently predatory approach to employment insurance.

To sum up, we are not happy with the way Bill C-4 was imposed, but we do support, to an extent, much of what it contains. Here is the real question: Is this a major step on the path to concrete, long-term change, or is this a temporary change that will evaporate the moment the crisis is behind us?

It would be good to ask the parties seeking to govern Canada about this. If the past is an indicator of the future, we have good reason to be worried—quite worried. Luckily, the Bloc will not give up the fight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I am extremely pleased to be here tonight to debate Bill C-4 on behalf of the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Before I begin, I would like to address a somewhat sensitive subject. I think that my colleagues were shocked and saddened by the same news as I was today. An indigenous woman died from an overdose of morphine administered by nursing staff in a Joliette hospital who did not listen to her when she said she was allergic to the drug. Staff were uttering racist and violent remarks as she lay dying, a horrible death.

Apart from Bill C-4 and the government's response to COVID-19, I think that it is going to take a lot more than a prorogation. The government can no longer hide behind that tactic to infringe on other jurisdictions. It is also going to take a lot more than a law instituting a national day for truth and reconciliation with indigenous people to fight systemic racism in Canada.

Now I am going to talk about Bill C-4. Earlier today, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons insinuate that the reason opposition parties wanted to prolong the debate was probably that they did not understand what it was about.

I can assure all members that we know exactly what this is about. We know it so well that we have already noticed the problems with this bill and want to fix them now, not when it is too late or when most individuals will already be involved in the program.

I would note that hundreds, if not thousands, of people have called their MPs to say that they did not think they were entitled to the CERB but that it was so easy to get that it must have been fine. Now many of them no longer have enough cash to pay that money back.

Those people could have stopped collecting the CERB at some point during the crisis when it was time to go back to work and do their bit to restart the economy. Unfortunately for our businesses, the lack of incentives to work meant that people were making more just staying home than they would have made going back to work.

This is the type of flaw that we must take the time to shed light on today in Bill C-4 even though the government wants to speed up the process. We owe at least that much to the people who elected us.

I will take this opportunity to make suggestions to the government to ensure the well-being of the people in my riding and those in Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois presented its recovery plan yesterday and I invite the Liberals to read it carefully and use it as a guide because it reflects the needs and demands of the people of Quebec.

I am from Amqui, a small town in the Matapédia region in eastern Quebec. I am deeply attached to my region and the success and survival of all the regions in Quebec. I am sure that the economic future of Quebec lies in these regions and only Quebeckers should decide how to use public funds.

The role of Canada, as long as we are part of it, is limited to the authority it is given under the Constitution. We talk about this Constitution a lot, probably because of the very centralizing Speech from the Throne that was delivered last week. What does the Constitution say? It says that the federal government must transfer to Quebec money to which it is entitled according to its areas of jurisdiction.

Since Ottawa is going to continue to pump huge amounts of money into the programs set out in Bill C-4, it is imperative that this be done properly. Yes, we need to support those most in need, those who have lost their jobs or have to stay home because of COVID-19. However, before it can start talking about creating thousands of new jobs, the federal government must ensure that existing jobs are protected. We need to support businesses that are struggling to stay afloat after the first wave.

One such business that comes to mind is Marmen, in Matane, a leader in the development of wind power in Quebec. This company is an expert in its field and is doing the Lower St. Lawrence region proud. Yesterday Marmen had the difficult task of announcing that it will have to lay off 55 employees on November 22 and another 100 or so the following week. When we hear news like that, we really need to hear the government say it will take the bull by the horns and make investments to support not only our people, but also our expertise.

We need a government that will once and for all stop investing directly in western Canada's fossil fuel industry through subsidies and tax breaks. We need a government that will invest in the energy transition instead, in wind power, forestry, innovative technologies and research and development. That is also what we need to hear. We also want to hear the government stand up for sectors that have been falling through the cracks since the crisis began.

I am thinking in particular of travel agencies, which have been hard-hit from the beginning of the crisis. Ms. Labrecque is the owner of a travel agency in Maria, in the Gaspé, which is in my riding. Unfortunately, she thinks that she will not be able to keep her doors open for more than a few weeks for lack of funds. One of the problems is that she does not qualify for the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program and her business is considered to be a risk. Given that the travel industry is paralyzed, she no longer has access to credit.

For some businesses in Quebec regions, the summer of 2020 set records for visitors, but not for those agencies trying to survive on only 3% to 4% of their usual revenue. More than 200 agencies in Quebec have already closed their doors permanently. From the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has criticized the commercial rent assistance program as being ineffective and a poorly designed program that has failed miserably.

Bill C-4 is unfortunately not enough to help the travel industry. It is a dying industry. The Bloc Québécois proposed a refundable tax credit of 50% of recognized fixed costs. I am very interested to hear what the government has to say about that.

I now want to talk about seniors, a topic that is very close to my heart. I am fortunate in that my four favourite seniors are still living. I want to take this opportunity today to acknowledge Noëlla, Florent, Lorraine and Jean-Marc, from the bottom of my heart. No matter how old I am or how old they are, I will always call them grand-maman, grand-papa, mamie and papi. I am fortunate in that they are in good health.

It is difficult for me to restrict contact with them during the pandemic, but it is even harder for them and for all seniors in Quebec and Canada. They have been isolated for months, without support from the federal government, aside from a single, paltry cheque. It was a pittance.

Seniors have been hit hard by the crisis, as has their physical and mental health. We need to help them by immediately and permanently increasing the old age security pension, starting at age 65. Yes, I said age 65 and not 75. The guaranteed income supplement is in urgent need of being adjusted so that no one is penalized. We are calling for the federal government's health transfers to be increased to 35%, without any conditions. We will be repeating this many times.

The tragedy that struck long-term care facilities and seniors' residences in Quebec during the pandemic is the result of many years of underfunding, particularly on the part of the federal government. The situation in many facilities in Quebec is still difficult.

To date, over 5,800 people have died in Quebec. Of those, 4,000 died in long-term care facilities and 976 died in private seniors' residences. Those numbers are growing every day. We must not kid ourselves. The storm is not over yet.

I would like to take a brief moment to talk about the health care workers who care for seniors. Personal support workers and registered practical nurses work under extremely difficult conditions and they deserve our respect and admiration.

Canada needs people like Ahmed Aouad who works in a seniors' residence in Mont-Joli in my riding. This man does vitally important work, particularly in the current context. For months, he has had to work seven days a week because of a labour shortage. Mr. Aouad is seriously considering leaving Quebec but it is not because he does not like his work, his home or his new country. On the contrary, he would like to live in the Lower St. Lawrence area. The reason he is considering leaving is that his wife lives in Morocco and it is practically impossible for her to come join him in Canada. The situation in Morocco is troubling, not only because of COVID-19, but also because of the political situation. All steps taken with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to help her come to Canada faster have been blocked indefinitely. I would have liked to send more time talking to this man, but I am sure I will have the opportunity to do so soon.

In closing, I want to point out that the government could have prorogued Parliament for 24 hours but decided to prorogue for five weeks. As a result, we are being asked to rush Bill C-4 through without hearing from witnesses, even though that would have enabled us to identify and correct problems in the bill. That all happened because the Prime Minister wanted to sweep the WE scandal under the rug. Although we wanted to do whatever it took to serve our constituents' best interests, we deplore the government's approach. The government introduced Bill C-4 at the last second and is now asking us to pass it without conducting a thorough analysis because there is not enough time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a passionate plea on behalf of those who are falling through the cracks during this pandemic.

I may digress a little from the main topic, Bill C-4, to speak on the same issue. In the middle of a pandemic, the Bloc suggested amendments to the throne speech, to make sure it did not leave out seniors aged 65 to 75, for example. We suggested immediate health transfers so that no one in Quebec's health care system would fall through the cracks. However, the Conservatives voted against our amendment.

Does my colleague think that the government is letting other people fall through the cracks right now?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her question and comments.

In my opinion it is important is to demonstrate adaptability despite the uncertainty of these times. At the start of the pandemic, we truly wanted to help Canadians who had lost their jobs or could not work. The CERB supported millions of Canadians.

We are going to transition to the EI system. We will improve our EI system by developing these supports. With Bill C-4, we will give Canadians and Quebeckers ways to obtain support so they can subsequently return to work.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his concern about his constituents.

We know that we are all working to find solutions and help workers and businesses during this pandemic. From the start, as we have seen, the emergency wage subsidy was a very important solution that allowed more people to continue working.

This bill, Bill C-4, will also allow workers and Canadians to continue to be supported during this crisis. We know that their health and safety are a priority during this period. In addition to providing this support to Canadians and Quebeckers, we will continue to work hard to create more than one million jobs, returning us to pre-pandemic levels. We will also work with the provinces, territories and parliamentarians to find ways to—

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, dozens of businesses in my riding of Beauce are at risk closing down or are being forced to slow down production due to a labour shortage. It is not that they cannot sell their products, it is that the labour shortage is a serious problem locally. Factories are not the only ones with this problem. In my riding, Giovannina, a restaurant in Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce, has to close three days a week because they are short-staffed.

How will Bill C-4 help in this case?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening in support of Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

This is a very important bill. It will allow us to build on the measures already set out in Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan so we can protect Canadians during the next wave of the pandemic and, more importantly, continue to support them as the economy reopens.

A number of my colleagues have already spoken eloquently about the new measures this bill proposes, such as the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. I will also talk about them in a few minutes, but I would first like to talk about the importance of passing Bill C-4 quickly. Time is running out.

As we know, the legislation we are debating here today would, among other things, extend the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to the end of this year. It is a very long title for a very important act that is otherwise set to expire. As hon. members may recall, it was enacted in March as part of Bill C-13, adopted by the House. It allows the government to spend the money needed to protect Canadians and address the public health crisis of the global COVID-19 pandemic. It has been a cornerstone of Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan, a plan that has been critical to supporting Canadians and Canadian businesses.

I know I have spoken about this many times, but I cannot understate the extent to which Canadians have relied on our economic response to get them through these extraordinary times. Through this plan, our government has delivered on programs, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, that have helped millions of Canadians. The CERB has ensured that millions of Canadians have not had to make impossible choices between putting food on their tables and paying their bills when they have lost their jobs or seen their incomes reduced as a result of the pandemic.

The CERB has helped nearly nine million Canadians since March.

Given how many Canadians lost their jobs this year, it quickly became apparent that many of them would need financial support until they could get back to work. However, the existing income support programs were not designed to deal with a crisis of this magnitude. That is why we created the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, and made sure that many Canadians would be eligible, for instance by allowing workers to earn up to $1,000 per month while still receiving the CERB.

The Canada emergency response benefit has been a key program, supporting millions of Canadians unable to work because of COVID-19. It has had a tangible impact on the quality of life of millions of families from coast to coast to coast, in every constituency in this country, and that is thanks to the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act. The Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act also paves the way to support businesses across this country, especially our small businesses.

Canadians have worked their whole lives to establish businesses that serve their communities and provide good local jobs. Small businesses not only are the backbone of our economy, but define our neighbourhoods. They give our main streets their character, owners become community leaders and they become the places we rely on to connect to one another.

The list goes on. It is largely thanks to the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act that we are able to help Canadians, support our businesses, and protect everyone's health and safety. However, there is still more work to be done. The increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and the arrival of the second wave clearly show that we are still grappling with the pandemic. We must not let our guard down. We must continue to protect the Canadians who need us most. We must continue to support them, but first we must give ourselves the means to do so, and we must do it now. When Parliament passed the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act in March, the date of repeal was set for September 30, 2020. This means that the act will expire tomorrow, but COVID-19 will not expire. We must extend the act. We owe it to Canadians.

The limited extension of this act would allow the government to continue to do a lot of the things we have been doing to support Canadians and businesses that are most in need. For example, this act would allow the government to keep buying the necessary personal protective equipment to help essential workers. It would also crucially continue support for the public health, social and economic response in indigenous communities. We understand that indigenous communities are vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19, which is why we acted quickly to provide nearly a billion dollars to support public health and community-led responses in these communities.

Extending the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to December 31 would ensure that there are no needless interruptions to several programs, especially since a second wave of the pandemic is imminent and has already hit some regions. The extension would enable the government to continue to support the provinces and territories and improve the capacity of our health care system. Take, for example, the federal government's investment in testing and contact tracing. We are talking about a legislative framework that has been essential to our assistance plan.

Extending the act would also enable the government to help small businesses and maintain support measures for farmers, food companies and food supply chains. It would ensure that there is no interruption to the final payments under existing programs, such as the CERB, while we begin to transition to the new assistance programs.

We are now six months into the worst health and economic crisis in Canadian history. COVID-19 has affected all aspects of Canadians' lives, from their health to their livelihoods. We will overcome this pandemic, but this will require the work of every order of government, every community and every one of us. For our part, we will support people and businesses through this crisis as long as it lasts. Let me be absolutely clear with the House and with all Canadians: We will do whatever it takes to get through this pandemic.

We are trusting science to lead the fight until a safe, effective vaccine becomes available. Until then, we must remain vigilant and use the tools available to us, such as testing, treatment and physical distancing. The government will continue to be there for Canadians, just as Canadians are there for each other. We will do whatever is necessary.

Canadians are counting on their government to be there for them when they need it. We know that too many are still unable to work because of COVID-19, including many women, many newcomers to Canada and many people who are self-employed. As we have said previously, and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion said earlier this evening, we will continue to support these vulnerable Canadians. Those who have been receiving CERB will be supported by the employment insurance system. Let me be clear on something: We will not let down those who do not qualify for EI.

Bill C-4 would ensure that the workers impacted by COVID-19 have the support they need by creating three new transitional benefits to ensure that Canadians can continue to support their families and make ends meet.

First, under the Canada recovery benefit, $500 per week for up to 26 weeks could be available to those individuals not working due to the pandemic and who do not qualify for EI, including the self-employed. This would also be available to those individuals working reduced hours who have lost 50% or more of their income due to the pandemic.

Second, the Canada recovery sickness benefit would provide $500 per week for up to two weeks to workers who are unable to work for at least 50% of the time they would have otherwise worked, either because they contracted COVID-19, think they might have it or because they isolated because of the virus.

Third, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit would be available to those who cannot work because they are caring for a close relative or because their child cannot go to school or day care because of the pandemic. These Canadians could receive $500 per week for up to 26 weeks.

These transitional benefits are proposed as part of the government's plan to support Canadians, as we work to build a stronger, more resilient economy. All three would be available for one year. We know this crisis will not pass this week or next.

This pandemic is the worst public health crisis Canada has ever encountered. Canadians of all ages everywhere in the country have been hit hard. Millions of Canadians lost their jobs or had their hours cut along with their income. Job losses may be the most obvious effect of the global economic shock we have all had to withstand, but the shock also highlighted a whole range of quality-of-life issues, such as mental health, family violence and social ties.

We firmly believe that policy development must be guided by prosperity and quality of life for all Canadians. That is what will help us build a stronger, more resilient country, and that is what guides us as we develop the pandemic recovery plan.

This is not the time for austerity. As Canadians continue to weather the consequences of the pandemic, we must maintain certain assistance program and launch others. Bill C-4 will enable us to round out many of the existing measures. It will also help us make our COVID-19 economic response plan more effective. In the medium and long terms, we will also have to recover from the pandemic by building a stronger and more resilient Canada.

Canada entered this crisis in the best fiscal position of its peers. For the past six months, the government has been using that fiscal firepower so Canadians, businesses and our entire economy have the support needed to weather the storm. The same firepower can also help us to overcome this crisis and build back as a stronger, more resilient country.

It is critical to ensure that the Canadians who need it the most continue to receive the support they need. It will help to ensure that Canadians and the businesses where they work continue to receive the support they need.

I will end by saying this. Our government's first priority is addressing this pandemic and ensuring Canadians are healthy and safe. We are getting them the help they need today, while finding solutions which will improve their quality of life over the months and years to come.

Our government's priority is to fight this pandemic and make sure Canadians stay healthy and safe. We will give them the help they need now, and we will come up with solutions to improve their quality of life in the months and years to come.

The measures contained in this bill would help us to do exactly that. I urge every member of the House to do the same.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Beauce, dozens of businesses are at risk of closing down or are being forced to slow down production.

This is not because they cannot sell their products, but because they are in need of workers, and factories are not the only ones with this problem. For example, Giovannina Pizzeria in Sainte-Marie has been a family-owned business for over 50 years. It has to close at least three days a week now.

How will Bill C-4 help in this case?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as others have said, the reality we have been dealing with for the past six months has plunged workers in Quebec and Canada into a climate of unparalleled uncertainty.

Week in and week out, our constituents have been calling us and reaching out to us for answers to their questions. The government has loosened the purse strings to support people during this difficult time, and that is great. Now the plan is to transition CERB recipients to special recovery benefits outlined in Bill C-4. The bill includes three benefits and measures to make EI more flexible.

As an aside regarding EI, it is important to remember that, over the past 25 years, successive governments have robbed the EI fund of $59 billion to balance their budgets. Those governments, Conservative and Liberal alike, used their discretion to redirect those billions towards other budget priorities of the day.

With the EI fund having been plundered, COVID-19 certainly required a robust, costly measure that would have to be implemented quickly. That was the CERB. In terms of public finances, one can imagine that the support scenario might have played out differently if the EI fund had not been plundered so badly. Many women and young people have suffered because of this.

The CERB was good, but it had what I would call some design flaws. It helped a lot of families, and with all the uncertainty and the second wave, the Canada recovery benefit is very welcome, especially as it puts a renewed focus on the employment insurance system and more specifically the stabilizing role it plays for the economy. That is the role this system must play.

We were elected by people who are close to us in our ridings. We have responsibilities to them. Even though, as an opposition party, we did not introduce Bill C-4, it is still our duty to point out to the government the inconsistencies in some of the measures or some of the rules. It is also our duty to act with kindness and integrity in the hope that we will be heard. That is how we give a voice to our constituents, regardless of their political stripe. However, are our voices heard when they are conveyed by elected members?

I want to share with this assembly a specific case that is certainly not unique in Canada: the parents of critically ill children benefit EI program. That program came into effect in 2017 with a remarkably compassionate objective.

In the summer of 2019, an evaluation was done. The evaluation noted that there were just over 15,000 recipients, 80% of whom were women earning around $40,000 a year. The conclusions and recommendations section of the evaluation stated, and I quote:

...the Parents of Critically Ill Children benefit was effective overall in meeting its policy objectives. The benefit:

-was effective in easing financial pressures on parents in order to allow them more time to provide care to their...child;

-provided adequate temporary income support;

-helped keep claimants attached to the labour force; and

-contributed to positive social impacts....

These objectives seem quite similar to the objectives of maternity benefits, in that they allow parents to take care of children. Unlike maternity benefits, these special EI benefits for parents of critically ill children were not factored in when calculating eligibility for the CERB, even though the objectives are very similar.

I bring this up because my office has been devoting considerable time and effort to the case of Ms. Beaulieu, from Repentigny, since April. We have written letters, held Zoom meetings and made phone calls to two departments, including calls to the ministers themselves, a deputy minister and regional assistants. Ms. Beaulieu is one of the people who was left out of the CERB. Her four-year-old son has a critical illness. Ms. Beaulieu will likely never be able to hold a full-time job again.

Because of COVID-19, she lost her part-time job, the first job she had been able to hold in two years. As a result of the design flaw in the CERB that I mentioned earlier, parents of critically ill children do not qualify for the special benefits. This woman's eligible earnings fell less than $3,000 short of the threshold to qualify for the CERB.

The report indicated that, from 2013 to 2017, the period that was assessed, 15,300 people were eligible to receive the benefit. That is only 15,300 people in four years. When someone is taking care of a sick young child and then COVID-19 suddenly strikes and they lose their income, what are they supposed to do? The options are nothing short of heartbreaking.

How is it possible that no adjustments have been made to these measures after five months of lobbying? How is it that the government took advantage of this new bill to make changes to EI, but it did not listen to these people? Very few people are applying for this benefit, and they can easily be identified based on the seriousness of the child's health status or medical condition.

The government was quick to offer the CERB to other segments of the population. Why did it not listen to this legitimate request on behalf of caregivers of critically ill children? There were simple solutions; they only needed to be deemed eligible. If the government is going to review the terms of the EI program at all, why not do it properly? I just summarized a situation for which solutions could easily have been found.

I have another example. A few weeks before the pandemic eroded our parliamentary democracy, the House voted by a wide margin in favour of a motion moved by the Bloc Québécois to increase EI sickness benefits to a maximum of 50 weeks. This would also have been a great opportunity to align EI with a majority decision from the House. What does this failure to act say to the elected members of the House who voted overwhelmingly in favour of this motion and whose views on the changes were not considered? It is pretty disappointing that the government is refusing to listen.

We know full well what the deployment of programs like the CERB represents. Nothing is perfect, but our job is to work on improving what is introduced. The changes that should have been made to the CERB were delayed or non-existent. In the case of Ms. Beaulieu, we presented a solid argument. We did so diligently and respectfully in the appropriate forums. Eligibility for the special benefits for parents of critically ill children was never considered. To date, no official answer has been provided on this issue. One minister's staffer even refused to let me contact a deputy minister who was designated as the lead on this issue. Obstacle after obstacle was thrown up.

Ms. Beaulieu would have to wait. Two departments spent months passing the buck back and forth and telling us what we already knew. All we could do was watch as time ran out on the CERB program, without any benefits for critically ill children. Still today, because we continue to fight, we are told that an analysis is under way that will look into the rationale for treating earnings from these benefits the same as maternity benefits. From what I understand of the analysis, this has nothing to do with the issue; it is about determining whether Ms. Beaulieu is eligible. However, that is not what we want. We want this for everyone affected by this matter.

We support the new recovery benefits proposed in Bill C-4, but what are we supposed to think of the past six months and the approach that was taken? How should we interpret the complacency and lack of consideration for such a serious case? The government gave itself extraordinary powers through Bill C-13. Today I will not mention the files that have been overlooked for the past few months, but on the flip side, I do have to criticize the political reasons behind the Liberals' decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks. Opportunities have been missed, as this bill would have been put through its paces.

To the MPs who watched time run out without doing anything or even responding to the communications from various ridings regarding cases like the one I talked about today, I have just one word to describe how people perceived it. That word is indifference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for his speech. I particularly appreciated the part about parliamentarians' role in a debate.

We can agree with the principle of Bill C-4, but everyone knows that the devil is in the details. This bill has a potential lifespan of one year and will have significant consequences for workers, businesses and the economic recovery.

Using a gag order that the NDP has been kind enough to support, the government is forcing us to pass a bill very quickly because it wants to protect itself from difficult questions about WE Charity. However, this bill would have benefited from support from the people it is intended to help. Workers and businesses could have testified in committee on ways to improve it, since we do not know everything.

Does my colleague agree that this gag order is an affront not only to parliamentarians, but also to the people we represent?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered this evening on unceded Algonquin territory.

Bill C-4 has three parts. Part 1 creates three benefits to support Canada's economic recovery in response to COVID-19 and makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and regulations, part 2 amends the Canada Labour Code to extend worker protections corresponding to these benefits, and part 3 amends the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to provide ongoing financial support to Canadians.

I will focus my comments on part 1 of Bill C-4.

During my term as employment minister, I have seen the unemployment rate go from the lowest in recorded history in January of 2020 to the highest. That, of course, means I have been presented with a big challenge in this role of serving Canadians. As employment minister, I am required to ensure that workers are supported in times of job loss and job transition. I also work to ensure that workers are well prepared for the job opportunities of the future.

I know the pandemic has had a devastating impact on individuals and families and that every lost job jeopardizes a household's financial security. That is why our priority has been supporting workers and their families ever since the pandemic started.

We created the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, during the time in the pandemic when we were telling people to stay home in order to flatten the curve and keep Canadians safe. We knew we are asking a lot from working Canadians, and that is why we worked tirelessly to get the CERB out of the gate in record time.

I want to take a moment to thank the incredible public servants in my department of ESDC and the Canada Revenue Agency, who worked day and night to ensure our systems could deliver the CERB effectively and efficiently for Canadians and their families.

We swiftly followed the CERB with the Canada emergency student benefit, or CESB, for students facing uncertain or non-existent job prospects over the summer.

It was clear from the beginning that the pandemic was disproportionately impacting some Canadians, including women, seniors and persons with disabilities. That is why we also provided extra support for families with children, a one-time $300 payment per child, in May and an increase to the maximum yearly Canada child benefit to keep up with the cost of living. This is in addition to the one-time payment for seniors and, coming this fall, the one-time payment for persons with disabilities. We stepped up and took action.

We also created thousands of jobs and training opportunities for youth and ensured that the not-for-profit sector received support so organizations could continue to help their communities.

To provide certainty and continuity, we recently extended the CERB by an additional four weeks, from 24 to 28 weeks. For Canadian families that rely on the CERB, our government supported them as they figured out what was happening with school and day care for their kids. In addition to this extension, we made changes to the EI program so more people could access EI benefits.

Since March 15, almost nine million people have received the CERB, helping millions of Canadians and their families avoid catastrophic household income loss, while at the same time helping to keep our economy afloat. While many Canadians have returned to the labour market, either through the Canada emergency wage subsidy or as a result of regions and sectors safely reopening throughout the summer months, we know that we need to continue to be vigilant and nimble in our efforts to support people as we continue to work together to stop the spread of the virus.

We are still in a crisis situation. We estimate that millions of Canadians still need some level of income support. People are still living in uncertain times, and our government will continue to be there for them. The new benefits in this bill are an important investment in workers and families.

This legislation reflects our vision laid out in the Speech from the Throne last week. We have a plan for a stronger and more resilient Canada. It is a plan that puts the health of Canadians at the core of government decision-making. It is a plan for equality of opportunity. It is clear and simple and leaves no one behind.

This legislation makes good on this promise. If you have lost your job, we have your back. If you cannot work because you are sick with COVID-19, we have your back. If you have to stay home to take care of a loved one for reasons related to COVID-19, we have your back.

We are here tonight to debate legislation that would create a suite of three new benefits: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

Before diving into these new benefits, I would like to say a few words about the employment insurance program and the recent measures put in place to help Canadians.

There is no denying that this pandemic has highlighted the tremendous need for a modernized EI program in Canada. I have spoken about this before. It is vital that we create an employment insurance system that reflects how Canadians work and that is flexible in its ability to respond to major changes in the Canadian labour market.

Despite the imminent need to reform EI, this program is the best tool we have right now and it surpasses any new system that could possibly be brought in quickly during a pandemic. That is why in August our government announced temporary changes to the EI program that would allow more Canadians to access it this fall once the CERB ended. These changes, which have already been made through regulations, will help millions of Canadians meet the eligibility criteria in three ways.

First, with these changes, people can qualify for EI with as few as 120 hours of work. To do this, we are providing all EI claimants with a one-time credit of insurable hours; that is 300 hours for regular benefit claimants and 480 hours for special benefit claimants. This credit will boost people's insurable hours and help them qualify for EI benefits. Furthermore, the hours credit is available for one year and is retroactive to March 15.

This is of the utmost importance for women who, as we all know, have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. The credit of 480 insurable hours means that any woman who has had a baby since March 15 can retroactively apply for EI maternity benefits if she did not previously have enough hours to qualify prior to these new measures. This is really important. This also includes expectant mothers who received the CERB over the course of the last 28 weeks. They will now be able to transition seamlessly into EI to access their maternity and parental leave benefits.

The second way we are helping people to meet EI eligibility requirements is by setting a national unemployment rate of 13.1% across all regions of the country. This is providing a uniform requirement of 420 hours for people to qualify for EI. This adjustment will help boost the number of weeks people can receive benefits, thus providing the support Canadians need and expect.

I also want to assure Canadians in EI regions with a higher rate than 13.1% that their benefit entitlement will be based on the higher of either 13.1% or their regional rate.

The third measure we are undertaking with the EI system is to freeze the EI premium rate for two years, which will help both employees and employers.

Our changes are allowing more Canadians to access employment insurance and its associated tools and resources, like working while on claim, training, work sharing and supplemental unemployment benefit plans. All these things connect people to the workforce and provide incentives to work.

That said, many workers are still not eligible for employment insurance, even after these changes. Examples include self-employed workers, workers in the entertainment industry and workers with dependants who are forced to stay home because of school or day care closures.

That is why our government is proposing to introduce a suite of three new benefits via the legislation we have before us now. As I mentioned earlier, they are the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

The Canada recovery benefit will support workers who have stopped working or who had their income reduced by at least 50% due to COVID-19 and who are not eligible for EI. It will provide Canadians with $500 per week for up to 26 weeks between September 27, 2020 and September 25, 2021.

As with EI, workers must be actively looking for work. They must place no undue restrictions on their availability to work and must not decline a reasonable job offer. Just like the EI system, this new benefit will allow people to earn income from employment and/or self-employment while still receiving the benefit. We have designed a process modelled after EI's working while on claim.

Individuals who have a net income greater than $38,000 in 2020 or 2021 will be required to repay the benefit at a rate of 50¢ for every dollar earned above the threshold up to the full amount of the Canada recovery benefit received.

Our objective is to ensure that it is always in a person's interest to work when it is reasonable for he or she to do so. The Canada recovery benefit aims to accomplish just that. It balances the need for income support, while incentivizing work, and ensures that we continue to target Canadians who need the support the most.

The new recovery benefits will be subject to rigorous checks from the outset to ensure that they are paid only to those who are eligible. Unlike the CERB, the benefits will be retroactive and will be taxed at the source.

The second benefit is the Canada recovery sickness benefit. It will provide $500 per week for up to two weeks if workers are ill, are susceptible to becoming ill or must self-isolate for reasons related to COVID-19.

We want Canadians to stay calm if they are sick or maybe sick. We also want Canadians to not have to choose between making this choice and paying their bills. We want the choice to be immediate at symptom onset or advice and for Canadians to err on the side of caution. We do not want Canadians to wait for a confirmed diagnosis or a doctor's note. As much as this benefit is about the individual health of workers, it is vital to Canada's successful economic recovery. We have to ensure that workers do not go to work if they have COVID-19, or are at a high risk of contracting COVID-19 or are showing symptoms of the virus. It is in all our best interests that workplaces are safe and healthy.

Finally, while schools, day cares and day program facilities are working to safely reopen according to public health guidelines, we know that closures can and will happen. This is where the third benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, comes in. It will provide $500 per week per household for up to 26 weeks for workers who cannot work for more than 50% of the time because they have to care for a loved one due to a school, day care or day program closure.

The benefit will also be available to workers forced to stay home because a person in their care is deemed by a health care professional to be at high risk or has lost access to their usual caregiver because of COVID-19.

Finally, the benefit would support workers who have care responsibilities for a child or family member who is sick, in quarantine or at high risk of serious health complications due to COVID-19.

In order to ensure that federally regulated employees have access to job protected leave, the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code in part 2 of the legislation ensure access for these employees to the Canada recovery sickness and the Canada recovery caregiver benefits.

Taken together, these measures will help Canadians to safely bridge the gap between the major lockdown we had last spring and a cautious reopening of the economy this fall and winter.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the government's determination to build a stronger workforce and create jobs.

As is laid out in the throne speech, we have a unique opportunity to unlock the full potential of every Canadian. We cannot afford to leave anyone behind. Our plan is about fortifying the jobs we have, filling the jobs that are available and developing strategies to create new jobs with appropriately skilled workers.

At the core of these commitments will be the largest investment in Canadian history in training for workers. As a first step, the bill outlines an investment of $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories to support on-the-ground training services for Canadians. This initial investment will be done through the existing workforce development agreements and labour market development agreements.

We are digging in to ensure we continue to support Canadians, because we are still in a crisis. If we want to get to the point where we build back better, we first need to ensure that the foundation to do so is solid. I encourage my hon. colleagues to support this legislation to help provide that much needed solid foundation for Canadians.

I want to conclude by thanking all our front-line workers who are fearlessly looking after our health and safety in these unprecedented times. I also want to thank all the parents, teachers, teaching assistants, child care workers and support staff who make it possible for our students to return to school this fall.

As a mother of four with two still in elementary school, I know they are going above and beyond every day to keep our kids safe. We all need to stay vigilant and keep up the efforts we have been doing to stop the spread of COVID-19. I know it is not easy, but we are in this together.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved that Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, be now read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, the great part of my answer is that we are very likely going to be supporting some of the measures within Bill C-4, because we do believe in support for Canadians during a crisis.

The member across the way has had many words in this chamber, so I feel honoured to be able to reply to his question again tonight. We agree with some of the supports. The key part of this problem is that we have to have a sustainable economy afterward. I think most Canadians understand that too. That would require being supportive of our resource sector and making sure that impediments to those sectors are out of the way so we can get the economy firing on all cylinders again.

I think that is the key difference between the two parties. Conservatives want to teach people to fish, so they can catch fish for themselves and get back to their jobs and provide for their families. The member across the way would prefer to give out handouts, and as the PBO has already said, that is unsustainable.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect the hon. member across the way. We have worked together in the past and what I am trying to do is make the case that if Bill C-4 is going to pass and every party in this building wants to help Canadians, but I want to provide the other argument that if this is going to get a yes to supporting the bill we need to explain to Canadians how we are going to pay for it. That is what I am trying to do right now.

I am talking about indigenous companies in my neck of the woods and the signals that the government does not give in the Speech from the Throne, and we see this increase in protected areas. Again, that is not really favourable to any resource sector. If anything, it restricts the resource sector a lot. It is tightening the resource sector up when we need to be giving it our blessing to keep going. We need logging companies to keep logging. We need the oil and gas sector to keep going, in a good way, but to keep going.

I know my time is short, but an article in the Macdonald-Laurier Institute talks about how indigenous people should be allowed to make their own decisions. In a response to the Speech from the Throne, Chief Theresa Tait-Day from the Wet'suwet'en says, “Most unusually, the intervention of the Governments of Canada and British Columbia have made a difficult situation much worse. The two governments [the Liberal government and the NDP government in B.C.], perhaps to avoid an escalation of environmentalist-led conflict, opted to negotiate only with some of the Hereditary Chiefs.”

She continues, “The communities were not consulted, and the negotiations were not endorsed or supported by the Wet'suwet'en Nation.... Remarkably, the governments chose to meet only with a self-selected group of Hereditary Chiefs, even though any final agreement must be ratified by members in...[a] transparent and inclusive manner by Wet'suwet'en members”.

The governments could have talked to 99% of the Wet'suwet'en community to see this project go ahead, but instead they only talked to the ones who were against the project. Again, we are talking about signals here. Are they really going to get one million jobs going while all the efforts and the Speech from the Throne signal the exact opposite?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight talking about Bill C-4. I have the document in front of me; it is fairly thick. The government wants to ram it through after only four hours of debate. This is unfortunate because there is a lot there. I guess we are supposed to speak to it, so I will speak to it a bit.

A highlight for me is the repayment part of it, where it says:

If a person has income of more than $38,000 for 2020 or for 2021, the person must repay an amount equal to 50 cents for every dollar of income earned in that year above $38,000 of income....

That is a credit to the Conservatives, who really wanted to make sure that those repayment amounts were not just dollar for dollar, that people were not penalized for working more. To me, that is a credit to us as Conservatives.

A bigger conversation that my constituents are having is whether this is affordable. The Liberals are trying to make it sound like we do not want to help Canadians. Absolutely we want to help Canadians. We know there is help that is necessary in times of crisis, such as what we are in and what we saw in March. There is no question that we support that.

I will use a logging company as an example. My son works for a logging company as a heavy-duty mechanic. If those particular owners, Wayne and Marie Harder, and I just saw her on the plane on the way out here, are going to buy a bunch of trucks for their business, they need to make sure they have a business afterward to pay for those trucks.

Likewise, when we have such massive expenditures from the current government, unprecedented amounts of money with $400 billion this year alone in deficit spending, we have to ask what our ability to recoup that money for Canadian taxpayers is. It is all taxpayer money. Even our Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, speaking about the current Liberal government, said:

It's without a doubt that we cannot afford deficits of over $300 billion for more than just a few years.... So if the government has plans for additional spending, it will clearly have to make difficult choices and either raise taxes or reduce other areas of spending. Because it's clear that we cannot afford to have deficits of that magnitude for even the medium term.

Again, we support expenditures, but it is the Liberal government that wants to just hand people the fish and not help them to get fishing again. That is the great analogy. The Conservatives have compassion. We would do it in a different way, but ours is sustainable; theirs is not.

This is from John Ivison today. It is not just Conservatives who are saying that we need to have fiscal responsibility to taxpayers. He said, “This points out an inconsistency that is even more apparent - the [current] government's concern about the impact of climate change on future generations but indifference about the threat of massive debt.”

Again, this is what my constituents ask questions about. They see in their own lives that unsustainable deficits and debt are exactly that. They are unsustainable. Even the PBO said it can go on a couple of years, but if we keep doing this we are in big trouble.

I had hoped to see a signal in the Speech from the Throne that would speak to the revitalization and the million jobs, which was quoted by the other side, that they were going to re-establish and get those million jobs back.

Typically in the past, Canadians have had resource development to get revenue to pay for health care and all these other programs that we so value in Canada. Resource development has always been the anchor of our Canadian economy, but did we see any resource development in the Speech from the Throne?

This is all we got: “Canadians need good jobs they can rely on.” I agree with that. It is on page 11 of the Speech from the Throne. The speech continues, “To help make that happen, the Government will launch a campaign to create over one million jobs, restoring employment to previous levels.” That sounds great.

I will speak to this is a bit. Unemployment in my neck of the woods in northern B.C. is about 13.7%. It may be higher in certain sectors, obviously, but that is the average. Usually we are record-setting in my part of the province. We have been down to four per cent even. It is almost unseeable, the employment rate is so low. Everybody has a job. We are quite the opposite right now.

If the Liberals are talking about bringing employment back, how do we re-establish that? We have to do it through resource development. However, this is the Liberals' answer: “This will be done by using a range of tools, including direct investments in the social sector and infrastructure, immediate training to quickly skill up workers, and incentives for employers to hire and retain workers.”

There is nothing about resource development. It sounds good if we are training apprentices such as my son, who is a third-year apprentice, if that is what the initiative is. It is absolutely supportive, but there is nothing specific to resource development as being the answer to getting us out of this huge debt and deficit spending that we are in.

Then we see quite the opposite. On page 24 of the Speech from the Throne, rather than signalling this is a government that really wants to get that resource economy firing on all cylinders again, we hear, “This pandemic has reminded Canadians of the importance of nature. The Government will work with municipalities as part of a new commitment to expand urban parks, so that everyone has access to green space.”

I love it. I was fishing on the weekend and I do not get much time to do that, but I absolutely love the idea. It is a great idea, but then it continues, “This will be done while protecting a quarter of Canada’s land and a quarter of Canada’s oceans in five years”.

That is 25% of ocean closures and 25% of land closures within five years. Can the members guess where we are at right now? I am sure there are a few dozen Canadians watching us here tonight. Right now we are around 11%. We set the goal at 17% and we are only at 11% now. To get where the government wants to go, those protected lands and oceans would have to double.

What lands are the Liberals trying to protect? It is areas in northern B.C. like my own, and the caribou closures, where there is not really any scientific basis for making these closures, but they are closing out mines, closing out logging and so on. It is all done on the basis of hitting this target.

Now we are going to double that, so where they are going to get all this land from? All those areas where normally those from indigenous communities find jobs in the resource sector. I have many indigenous friends with indigenous companies. They are finding it hard to find work right now with some of the closures that are already being implemented—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

Although I did start out to speak to Bill C-2, which has the same name, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4. I certainly agree with the ruling the Speaker just made. It is an improved bill and better addresses the needs of citizens affected by COVID-19 either directly or indirectly.

The bill, or at least some of the issues and policy flowing out of the bill, shows that this place, the Parliament of Canada, can work well for Canadians through discussions, compromise and a willingness to accept the fact that not any one party has a lock on good ideas or good policy approaches.

While this bill looks forward, I do believe it is important to take a moment to recognize how far we have come since this place basically closed down in March, when we were sent home to try to operate Parliament in a different way. A lot of programs have come out to help people and businesses weather as best they can the financial and health difficulties caused by the pandemic.

Regardless of political stripe, I believe we have to say the government acted quickly. It introduced programs that made a huge difference for the economy, for families and for businesses. It did so quickly. In terms of CERB. I do not think we would have thought it possible that the public service and the government could actually come up with a program that could handle 10,000 applications a minute. That is a pretty phenomenal feat, and I think we should be proud of that.

I went through them today and by my count there are slightly over 100 programs that have been introduced. Liquidity has been provided to the lending institutions, coordinated planning has been established with the provinces and territories, and programs have been flowing out of the Government of Canada based on discussions with the premiers, and in fact with all parties in this House. Roughly $19 of every $20 have come from the federal coffers. Some of my colleagues on the former finance committee will talk a lot about the deficit. However, it is a fact that the federal government is better positioned to carry some of that debt rather than transferring it to individuals, businesses or indeed the provinces, because our rates are preferred, and we certainly hope they stay that way.

Programs were introduced, subject to change, which is unusual. They were not introduced with a hard line that they were going to be the bottom line come hell or high water. They were introduced subject to change, recognizing there were going to be problems and changes that needed to be made. They were improved with the input of members from all parties. I doubt the public knows, but all of us in this House know that members had the opportunity to participate in daily conference calls with senior members from several departments across the Government of Canada.

Through those calls, we had the opportunity to question and discuss, and programs were improved with input accepted from all members. Members could give their input based on how they saw the programs working on the ground, whether it was CERB or any other program. They could give that input from whatever region of the country they reside in.

We must acknowledge members of the public service for participating in program development, in working long hours and participating in those conference calls night after night after night. They would explain programs and answer questions. They would sometimes take criticism. They would accept changes and make recommendations to the various ministries as a result.

We were not always successful in the issues we put forward. I know both the member for Edmonton Centre and I put forward in those nightly calls that CEBA needed to be changed to allow personal bank accounts to be considered. That still has not changed. I am still demanding that the government change that so the people with personal bank accounts and not business accounts can qualify for the CEBA or the RRRF. That needs to be done.

Members from all parties have raised that point. It should not be a program where the banks get the benefit. It has to be a program where people get the benefit. I am disappointed in how I see the banks living up to their obligations in the pandemic at the moment, because they have been provided billions of dollars of liquidity. Many of us in this House agree that change needs to be made.

I sincerely want to thank all members of the public service for their efforts under trying circumstances. They are under the pressure of a health crisis, working from home and working under completely different circumstances than they are used to.

All the programs made a difference. I can certainly say in my riding and across the country the big ones were CERB, the wage subsidies and CEBA. However, now it is time for future extensions and future improvements. That is what we have in Bill C-4. As my colleague before me mentioned, there are three main areas in this bill, three new benefits.

The first is the Canada recovery benefit, which will provide $500 per week for up to 26 weeks for workers who meet the eligible criteria. In other words, they do not qualify for employment insurance, are not employed or have a reduction of at least 50% in employment or self-employment earnings and are available and looking for work. That is important. I do not mind admitting that one of the concerns I have with CERB is I hear from too many businesses that they cannot find workers. There has to be balance here. We need to be there for people who cannot find work, but people also have to be willing to work if work is available. The changes made under employment insurance make it necessary for people to be going out there and striving to gain work.

The second major area in this bill is the Canada recovery sickness benefit. That will provide the same amount of money I mentioned in the first program. This is for workers who are unable to work at least 50% of their normal work because they contracted COVID-19, have underlying conditions, are undergoing treatment or have contracted another sickness that would make them more susceptible to COVID-19.

The third area is the Canada recovery caregiving benefit which will also provide $500 per week for up to 26 weeks per household for eligible workers who are unable to work at least 50% of their normal work and need to take unpaid leave to care for a child under the age of 12 due to school or day care closure, or a family member who requires supervised care and is unable to attend a day program.

There are changes. What I tried to outline is that a lot has happened since the COVID-19 pandemic hit this country. All parties can take some credit for those programs.

The government moved rapidly and with this bill today we see how we are recognizing some of the lessons learned from the programs we have put out there and that there needs to be other changes made. I do not have time to go into the employment insurance changes, but they are good as well. We need to debate them further and continue on improving them until we see the end of this pandemic.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have to disagree with him. I think the government has been outstanding in its response to the pandemic thus far. Over the last several weeks, the government has planned a new agenda from the Speech from the Throne. We worked together as best we could with opposition parties to craft the modalities that are in Bill C-4. I know that we share the same objective, which is that Canadians who are out of work at this time or who need to stay home because of COVID–19 get these benefits and are protected within federally regulated workforces. I very much hope my hon. colleague will be supporting this bill.

Standing Order 69.1—Bill C-4—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised on September 28, 2020, by the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19. I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this question, as well as the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Government House leader for his intervention.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie asked that the Chair use the authority granted under Standing Order 69.1 to divide the question on the motions for second and, if necessary, third reading of Bill C-4. He argued that the bill is an omnibus bill that contains an element that should be voted on separately. In particular, the member asked that part 3 of the bill, dealing with the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act, be the subject of a separate vote, as he contends that it is a distinct initiative unrelated to the rest of the bill.

The hon. parliamentary secretary argued that all elements of the bill are part of the government's response to the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and that this constitutes its unifying theme.

As members will recall, Standing Order 69.1 allows the Speaker to divide the question on a bill where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked. The critical question for the Chair, then, is to determine to what extend the various elements of a bill are indeed linked.

Bill C-4 does contain different initiatives. Part 1 enacts the Canada recovery benefits act to authorize the payment of the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit in response to COVID-19.

Part 2 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, amend leave provisions related to COVID-19.

Finally, Part 3 amends the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to limit, as of October 1, 2020, the payments that may be made out of the consolidated revenue fund under that act to those in respect of specified measures related to COVID-19, up to specified amounts. It also postpones the repeal of that act until December 31, 2020.

One could make the case, as the parliamentary secretary did, that there is indeed a common thread between these various initiatives in that they are all related in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In presenting his argument, the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie referred to the two rulings by my predecessor on Bill C-69 and Bill C-59, where he decided that the standing order could be applied to a bill that dealt with the same policy field as long as the initiatives were sufficiently distinct as to warrant a separate question. Each of those bills contained changes in the fields of environmental protection and national security, respectively.

The Chair is not convinced, however, that Bill C-4 is of the same nature. While each part of the bill is a distinct initiative, all three measures are in response to a specific public health situation, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. A close examination of the bill also shows that each part is designed to replace, supplement or extend measures enacted early this year that are expiring.

As my predecessor stated in his very first ruling relating to this Standing Order, on November 7, 2017, found at page 15095 of the Debates, and I quote:

Members will know that many bills contain a number of initiatives on a number of policy areas, some of which members support and some of which they might oppose.

The amending process affords members an opportunity to propose changes, including the opportunity to remove portions of a bill to which they object. The question for the Chair, in applying Standing Order 69.1, is whether the matters are so unrelated as to warrant a separate vote at second and third reading.

In this particular case, there is a government motion before the House that would limit the opportunity to amend the bill. Though the amendment proposed by the opposition House leader would provide such opportunities, the Chair cannot prejudge what the House may decide in this regard. The Speaker's duty is to determine whether the criteria in Standing Order 69.1 have been met.

In my view, all of the measures contained in Bill C-4 relate to the COVID-19 pandemic, and this constitutes a common element linking them together. Accordingly, there will be only one vote at second reading for this bill.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly see why the member for Kingston and the Islands would not want to talk about the ethical lapses that are all too apparent on the other side of the House. The 10 ethical lapses from the former Liberal member would be relevant to holding the government to account. We have a Prime Minister, a Liberal Party leader, who has been found on four separate occasions, and likely will be again, to have broken the ethics rules of the House of Commons. I can see why the member would be leery to talk about these things.

However, the fact remains that this concurrence motion had to be moved within the next few sitting days. This does not take away the fact that the Liberal government has still provided only four hours and 30 minutes for discussion on Bill C-4. The fact that the opposition had a concurrence motion does not change the fact that the Liberals have left four hours and 30 minutes for Bill C-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also regret that we have to be put in this situation, but the reality is that the only thing the Conservatives seem to want to talk about is how they have been impacted by their inability to discuss and debate the motion we are going to be talking about shortly. They do not actually have anything to contribute to the debate.

My question to my colleague is very simple. Given his concern over the fact that we are debating this right now instead of Bill C-4, did the member share the same concern when it came to a motion of concurrence that was debated this morning? It had absolutely nothing to do with this session of Parliament. It may be a very worthy cause for the Conservative Party to take up, but the timing was absolutely ludicrous given that there was no relevance to the need to do it today. The member must share the same view when it comes to that motion.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the House of Commons. This time, for the first time this session, I am doing so virtually, from my home riding of Perth—Wellington.

Before I begin my remarks this afternoon, I do feel it is important to note a historic event that happened 35 years ago today. I was reminded of this event by Art Milnes of Kingston. It was on this date in 1985 that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed the first Black lieutenant governor of Ontario, the Hon. Lincoln Alexander.

Lincoln Alexander was certainly a Canadian who broke barriers at the time of his life as the first Black member of Parliament for the Conservatives and the first Black cabinet minister in Canada. Certainly his appointment 35 years ago today is equally of historic note.

We join the debate today on Motion No. 1. It is somewhat unfortunate that my first speech at length in this chamber during this session is one that is a motion of a guillotine. This motion provides exactly four hours and 30 minutes of debate on this matter, on Bill C-4. It provides for no committee study, no clause-by-clause consideration, no questions to ministers, and no opportunities for clarification on the implementation or the ramifications that this bill may have on Canadians. It provides for no witnesses, no comments from Canadians, from organizations and groups, from experts or from academics. In short, it provides for very little in terms of formal input from Canadians.

Of course, the government has noted, quite rightly, that many of the benefits that have been introduced for Canadians ended this week, but that does not excuse the opportunity that the Liberals wasted when they could have introduced legislation prior to this date. Certainly, before they prorogued on August 18, they could have tabled legislation on one of the Wednesday committee of the whole sittings that were scheduled for the weeks after they prorogued Parliament. They did not.

Even as recently as this past Friday, our new opposition House leader provided the government with the opportunity to have a Sunday sitting. We, as opposition parliamentarians, were ready, willing and able to be here on Sunday to debate this piece of legislation. We were ready to hear from the ministers and to question ministers on the implementation of this bill. We were ready, but the government was not. Rather, the government saw fit to introduce the guillotine motion and to cut off debate.

This brings me back to the importance of the opposition. My colleague from Regina—Lewvan talked about the team Canada approach. Certainly, early in this pandemic we often heard the Liberals talking about the team Canada approach, but for whatever reason, we do not hear them talking about team Canada anymore. Perhaps that is because half of team Canada is being left on the bench.

I would note that if it were not for the opposition and our pressure, there likely would not have been changes to the wage subsidy, which saw the government move it from 10% to 75%. It was good to see that the Liberals finally endorsed the back-to-work bonus that was introduced by our former leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, which actually provided an incentive for Canadians to transition back into the workforce.

Could one only have imagined if the government had implemented some of our ideas earlier in the pandemic, when we called for more strict quarantine measures for Canadians returning to Canada from international hot spots? We cannot improve legislation when we are being muted. It is unfortunate that the government has failed to see the important role the opposition plays in the governing of our country.

I am often reminded of a speech that was given in 1949 on the role of what was then His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It was delivered by a then little-known member of Parliament from the riding of Lake Centre in Saskatchewan. This member, of course, went on to become better associated with the next riding he represented, that of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

John Diefenbaker said this in that important speech:

The critical question is often asked as to why the need of two sides in Parliament, one to propose and the other to oppose. The simple answer is that the experience of history has been that only a strong and fearless Opposition can assure preservation of our fundamental freedoms and of the rights of the individual against executive and bureaucratic invasions of those rights.

We are here to protect those rights of all Canadians and to speak up on their behalf.

There is no question that this pandemic has had an impact on Canadians across this country. I would dare say there is not a single Canadian who has not been affected in one way or another by the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it is families, farmers, small business owners or children.

One point that is important to highlight again and again is the fact that the government has failed on rapid testing and at-home testing. We see our international colleagues implementing these programs for quick testing so that they do not see the massive lineups or the wait times for single parents waiting with their children to get tested. The government has failed on this matter.

The government has also failed on reunifying families. I have raised the case in this House on a number of occasions, and so have my colleagues, of my constituent Sarah Campbell. Sarah has been separated from her British fiancé Jacob since February. It was bad enough for a young couple in love to have to cancel their June wedding, and I am sure many Canadians can associate with the disappointment that this would have caused, but what was truly heartbreaking was that within days of their scheduled wedding date, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and throughout her surgery and treatment, she has been separated from her fiancé.

Sarah has written over 100 letters to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, as well as to the Prime Minister, with very little response. In fact, only yesterday, Sarah's case was raised by my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, and the Minister of Immigration did not even get my constituent's name right, despite it being in the question.

No one is calling for the borders to be reopened, but what we are calling for is some compassion, some compassion for committed long-term relationships and for adult children to be reunited. Unfortunately, Sarah and so many others like her continue to wait and are met with apathy from the Liberals across the way.

My riding, like many ridings across the country, is heavily agriculture-related, and the challenges that our farmers and farm families face are astronomical. I have talked to local farmers, farm businesses and agriculture processors about how this COVID-19 pandemic has impacted their businesses. I hear about the challenges they face in accessing programs such as CEBA loans in redressing COVID-19 through the existing business risk management programs. Farmers and families feel that they are not being heard by the Liberal government, and it is truly unfortunate. Now is the time that the government needs to come to the table with farmers and farm families and address the challenges that they have faced with the business risk management suite of programs.

As well, Perth—Wellington is home to many cultural and artistic attractions, including the Stratford Festival, Drayton Entertainment and Stratford Summer Music. These, in the tourism industry, have been hit the hardest. They are among the first to have been cancelled as a result of the pandemic and they will be among the last to emerge from the pandemic.

Arts and culture affect the whole tourism and hospitality sector as well. From speaking with local business owners who own restaurants, bed and breakfasts, motels and hotels, I know that businesses that have been around for sometimes multiple generations are now concerned about how they are going to get through not just the next six months but the next 18 months, and they are just not seeing the hope, the reassurance that we will come out of this pandemic better than they were before.

I want to end by saying how unfortunate it is that we are debating a guillotine motion here in the House rather than addressing the concerns of so many Canadians, like the restaurant owner in Stratford, the farmer just outside of Drayton, the family from Mount Forest that is not quite sure whether their job will still be there in a few weeks. Now is the time to really address the concerns of Canadians, but instead of having the opportunity to have a full discussion on the bill, a multi-billion-dollar spending bill, we are instead limited to four hours and 30 minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to touch on a number of areas.

The first thing I will do is pick up on the last question and answer and on some of the comments made by the members, particularly the Conservatives, about prorogation. It is interesting that the last questioner said that we shut down the House for six weeks. On the surface, one might think that is a terrible thing to do. However, when we understand what really took place, most Canadians would support what the government has done.

When we talk about the prorogation, it meant that instead of coming back on the Monday, we came back on the Wednesday, so we lost those two days. We also lost one day in August. However, keep in mind that this is the first government in the last 30-plus years to have the House sit in July and August. We sat more days in July and August than we lost in the prorogation.

A member across the way has said that this is not true, but it is true.

Members have to stop listening to the Conservative spin and see the reality of what we face today. Instead of listening to their constituents, they are listening to the Conservative spin and that is a serious problem. It is one of the reasons we are doing what we are today.

I give credit to the NDP and the Green Party members, who can be pretty brutal with some of their comments on the floor of the House. They are not necessarily friendly in all matters toward the government of the day, but they recognize that this is important. They recognize what the motion is trying to accomplish. They understand it and they appreciate it. They might have some issues with it, but they are supporting it. Unlike the Conservatives and the Bloc, they believe it is in the best interest of all Canadians that we remain focused on their needs and ultimately see legislation pass. We should not look at it as a possible option; it is absolutely critical that it pass.

I take exception to many of the comments from members who are saying it is undemocratic. I was in opposition in the far corner for a number of years when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. If members want to talk about assaults on democracy, they just need to go back to the Harper era.

Let us look at what has taken place with the pandemic. Virtually from day one, the Prime Minister has been very clear. He wants the House to focus on the pandemic and do what we can to protect the interests, health and well-being of Canadians. From day one, that has been the issue with this government. In the last number of weeks, we have talked a great deal about the economy and restarting it.

When we talk about accountability, I challenge any one of the members of the Bloc or the Conservatives to stand in his or her place when it comes time to ask a question. I would like those members to tell me when was the last time they met on the floor of the chamber and were afforded the opportunity to ask not just hundreds, but probably thousands of questions of the government of the day.

Opposition members had a wonderful opportunity to convey their thoughts and ideas with respect to the pandemic, share their concerns with the government and press the government on those issues in the months of July and August, which, at least in my 30 years as a parliamentarian, I do not ever recall being provided to opposition members.

Going back to my days in opposition, we would get a question and might get a supplementary one. What was provided here for opposition members was they could go five minutes steady, have three quick questions, a long question, a preamble and then go back-and-forth and the minister was obligated to respond in that same time frame.

At the end of the day, opposition members were afforded the opportunity to hold the government accountable. I did not try to tell them that they should not ask questions about this or about that. We all know where they focused a lot of their attention. I do not think it was with respect to, at least not for the most part, the health and well-being of Canadians even though we were into a pandemic.

Now those members are upset, saying that they want more time to debate Bill C-4, which is why they oppose this. However, they had no reservations at all this morning to bring in a motion for concurrence on a report, which literally killed two hours of potential debate.

They have a great deal of experience and have no reservations at all in using what parliamentarians often refer to as a “filibuster”, and they are good at it. I give them full credit for that. In the last five years, I do not know how many times I have seen two members of the Conservative Party stand. After one speaks, the other one moves that another Conservative be heard to precipitate the bells to ring in order to waste more time. Another example is that they argue for debate and then move a motion to adjourn for the day.

It is not that they want to see more debate, the focus of the Conservatives is more on wanting to show Canadians that the House of Commons is dysfunctional and cannot work. It does not matter who sits in the prime minister's chair, unless it is a Conservative. The House of Commons cannot do its work. I have seen that time and time again over the last five years, with Conservatives as the official opposition.

There was a budget where one member consumed virtually 98% of the whole debate time allocated. I remember that well, and it was not me. It is not that I was jealous or anything of that nature, but having said that, again, those members have no reservations. When they stand now and say that they want more time to debate, based on what I have witnessed, that is just not true.

If the members had 10 hours, they would want 15 hours. If they had 15 hours, they would want 20 hours. They want to frustrate the government. The Conservatives consistently try to prevent the government from passing legislation or any other measures. I believe that is the reason, at least in part, why the NDP and the Green Party are having to support the type of motion we have before us. They realize that if we do not bring in motions of this nature, they would never pass. We cannot please the Conservatives.

It is not because Conservatives want more debate. I do not believe that for a moment. It seems that this is their sole purpose for existing, at least the Conservative leadership's. It is not meant as a reflection on any individual member of Parliament, but the Conservative driving force, the leadership team, if I can put it that way, its focus is not what is happening in terms of the pandemic. When I say “Conservatives”, I mean the Conservatives here in Ottawa. I believe their focus is to be as critical as they can about the Prime Minister and other ministers. They will zero in on any Liberal and point out every blemish they believe is there.

Standing Order 69.1—Bill C-4

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a point of order raised yesterday respecting the splitting of Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19. My colleague has suggested that this is an omnibus bill with unrelated parts.

I suggest that my hon. colleague is unclear about what constitutes an omnibus bill. It is, in short, a bill with many constituent and unrelated parts. Nothing could be further from the truth with respect to Bill C-4.

Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, contains related measures to address the health and economic consequences of the pandemic. It includes the three new recovery benefits that replace the Canadian emergency response benefit, as well as extending the funding for existing supports for businesses and Canadians that will expire tomorrow, September 30.

The scope and principle of the bill are measures to address the pandemic. There is nothing in the bill that is unrelated to supporting Canadians through the pandemic. It would be quite another situation if the bill included some COVID-related measures and measures to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It does not.

I therefore submit that these measures all fall within the common element or theme of supporting Canadians through this pandemic and should not be divided for the purposes of voting.

Peschisolido Report

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I was a little late getting to the House this morning and have now reviewed the motion. Why now? Why today?

I remember making a speech in the session just past, the one that was prorogued. I know there is opposition to that and that is fine. That can happen in a democracy. However, I remember saying that Canadians had put in place a minority Parliament and we should take the opportunity as parliamentarians to show we could make this Parliament work. Errors happen, and I am not saying the government is errorless because it is not. However, if Canadians are watching Parliament right now, are they proud of us? I do not think they are.

I have had the opportunity, as the Canada-U.S. chair, to go to the U.S. many times. I have seen how partisan the situation is there. The Democrats are here, the Republicans are there and never shall the two meet. I have always said that I am so proud of us as Canadians that we have not let that happen. However, this motion tells me that it is happening. Yes, this issue needs to be debated. There is nothing wrong with the motion, but today is not the day. Canadians are concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses are concerned about where they sit.

I spent a half an hour this morning on the phone with one of the food processors in the country. It believes the government is still continuing to move ahead with new regulations. I personally would oppose on front of pack labelling. Now is not the time for that either. Companies have suggested that other countries have brought in some tax measures that make them non-competitive here. That is one of our main industries. We should be debating issues like that, not this one today. There will be a time and place. That is why we have separate committees. These issues should be at least before a committee first, the ethics committee or some other. There is limited time to have debate on Bill C-2/Bill C-4. We have seen a slice of where this Parliament can work.

The government side came together with the leader of the NDP and made changes to improve the assistance to individuals and for improved sick leave. That is fine. We should debate that issue. Several people in the House were on the finance committee, during which we held hearings in late May, after Parliament shut down due to COVID-19. We heard some 300 witnesses who had a lot of concerns, such as where they would be as went go through this pandemic? We should be talking about those issues.

I am suggesting that for the next couple of months we concentrate on the issues about which Canadians are concerned. This is political theatre in terms of this motion. I have been in opposition and I played these kind of games. I admit that. However, we are in a pandemic and we need to deal with the issue that is before us.

My request is that we deal with the issue Canadians want us to deal with, specifically for the next six weeks or so. Let us let our committees deal with some of the other issues such as the WE scandal, which needs more work on. We have had hearings at the finance committee. We went through the documents. I know issues will continue to come up, but today in the House is not the place for that to occur.

The tourism industry in my area is gravely concerned about where it finds itself. The airline and transportation industries are gravely concerned about where they find themselves. The airports in my region are down 94% in business. What are we, as parliamentarians, going to propose to those industries so they can survive until next season? Hospitality and tourism industry members are telling me now that while they figured 2021 would be the rebound year, they are now looking at it as the transition year and that hopefully 2022 will be the rebound year. We need to look at what we can do to strengthen the economy.

The debate on Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 is going to be about assistance to individuals, and yes that assistance has to be there, but what are we going to do beyond that to strengthen businesses so they can be there and be the backbone of our economy in the future? Those are some of the things we need to be talking about.

The other thing I heard, more over the summer and not so much at the finance committee, is about whether the chartered banks are pulling their weight. Right now, the bank deferrals are starting to come due. I have been talking to some in the business industry who are saying that they are having a rough ride with the banks in rolling over their operating capital and loans.

The government and Canadian taxpayers have basically backed the big banks such as the Business Development Corporation, the Export Development Corporation and Farm Credit Canada with additional liquidity to basically give them a guarantee as they provide monies during this pandemic. I do not believe this place and the banks are pulling their full weight in getting us out of this pandemic. Those are some of the issues we need to be talking about.

Over the summer, we heard a lot of talk from a lot of people on a guaranteed annual income. That is an issue we should be discussing. Personally, I do not think we can go holus-bolus, but I would not mind seeing a few pilot projects across the country to see how it goes. Would those be able to replace some of the other programs we had to quickly bring in as a result of the pandemic? We need to be discussing those issues.

I want to turn to where I come from, the farm community. I am hearing a lot of concern from members of the farm community about the safety nets in place for them at the moment. I strongly believe the business risk management program must be improved. I could go through a litany of things and blame the previous government on that because it cut back the business risk management from 85% to 70%, but let us get it back up there again and work together to do that.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you very much. I'm going to start with some simple things.

Specifically for Mr. Alghabra and Mr. Gerretsen, when you talk about Conservatives only wanting to talk about WE, prior to the prorogation I was the chair of status of women, where we worked our butts off to do an excellent study. We talked about violence against women. We talked about shelters. We talked about the she-conomy. We talked about all of these different things.

One day before that letter was finalized, prorogation took place, so to all of those members who came here and worked really hard so that we could be the voices of women across Canada, do not think this is about WE, because I—and don't question my integrity—will always fight for Canadians.

You may think that this is all about WE, but I'm going to remind you that on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food they were talking about support for poultry and egg farmers. That's not WE.

On Canada-China relations, well, we know we have a problem there, and I know an emergency debate was asked for, because there are groups that are studying the genocide that is occurring in China.

We talked about the Canadian trading relations. That was one of the studies that was going on.

On the HUMA committee, which I sat on, off and on—and I know why—we were working very hard on the things we were studying there. We talked about housing. We talked about poverty. We talked about food banks. We talked about all of this great work. That all came to an end when prorogation occurred.

The study on systematic racism in policing in Canada was started at the public safety committee, but unfortunately what happened was that the prorogation took all of these studies and just quashed them, so all the work, all of the work that was done in committees.... You can talk about WE and say that's all we talk about, but I challenge you, because I can tell you, at the end of the day, do I care about WE? No, but do I care about an ethical government that I can sit there and be supportive of on great legislation and support if you bring it forward? Absolutely.

To go on to the fairness, if Mark ever wants to go there, I introduced Bill C-4 to you this morning and Bill C-2. We'll be voting on that at 3 a.m. on Wednesday morning, two legislative pieces as we're coming back to the House of Commons. We're talking 48 hours and you're concerned about getting a piece of paper on that. Sorry, that one won't go there.

I think we have to understand that prorogation stopped all the incredible work that was being done. There was a lot of non-partisan work being done so that Canadians could put food on their tables, so that poultry farmers could make sure they're getting their money after these NAFTA negotiations and CETA, and all of those great things, but you guys can turn a blind eye and not look at the big picture and then say that Conservatives are only focused on WE.

While Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc and Liberals were all sitting on these committees doing good work, the leadership at the PMO decided to close down Parliament. We are asking for documents to support why the prorogation occurred, and I don't think that is uncalled for, especially when we know that the standing order has that there.

I'm going to finish off with a simple quote, and I'm sure we all know who said this because you all are standing behind him when you're supporting the Liberal government:

Mr. Speaker, I hope that future prime ministers will answer questions from all members, not just from party leaders. I hope that future prime ministers will not make excessive use of omnibus bills and will not resort to prorogation to avoid problematic situations.

As Todd talked about and as everybody has said—and I think Rachel talked about this—we came back to a throne speech that we thought was going to knock us on our butts, because we thought the government was actually going to do something.

All you did was close the door and reopen it. Nothing has changed in six weeks. All of these programs that you're talking about are current on my householder that I produced four weeks ago. It is four weeks old, so don't say to me that we're coming to something new. All of these programs are old. The shelter stuff is stuff that we were talking about. There is not anything new.

Prorogation happened and we want to know why. Canadians have the right to know why. For me, I don't care about WE. What I care about is that there are beds and shelters and all of those things for our good Canadians, but as a government and as the House of Commons, we can do it all. We can pass Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 in the next 48 hours. We can have somebody studying agriculture. We can have somebody studying what is happening over in China. We can do it because there are 338 members of Parliament who are here to do our jobs.

I really hope that as we are going forward you will just step back and ask why prorogation happened, and if it wasn't for WE, prove us wrong. It's simple.

Thank you.

Government Business No. 1

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

I rise today to speak about the Canada recovery benefit legislation and the way in which it will positively impact the lives of Canadians across the country as we continue the process of restarting our economy.

Many members of the House, myself included, have not been in Ottawa over the past six months, but we have all been conducting our work in our ridings, interacting with our constituents in a safe manner during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The actions this government took in implementing the Canada emergency response benefit were significant in the lives of Canadians, whose incomes have been disrupted or eliminated entirely by the health crisis. It allowed families to make ends meet while facing such challenges and, of course, while maintaining their own health and safety.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen a return to many of the things that families are used to. Children are returning to school. Many workplaces have or are about to resume operations with many staff who were laid off several months back.

We also have seen new situations arise as a result of COVID-19. Workers have had their industries permanently changed and are looking for new careers. For example, in British Columbia, all stand-alone banquet halls have been ordered to shut down by our provincial health officer. This has left many of my constituents in a difficult situation, trying to figure out what is next when it comes to collecting a paycheque.

I have also seen many self-employed business owners who are recovering their past clients and work activities, but are doing so in a way that is slower than the bills that are piling up.

These are the familiar and new realities that have inspired this bill. As we transition away from emergency response measures like the CERB, it is imperative we understand the situations that we as elected officials are hearing on the ground and that we take that feedback into account. Simply put, our government understands that the next phase of recovery cannot have millions of Canadians falling through the cracks without any means of support.

This is why we extended the Canada emergency response benefit by an additional four weeks, through to the end of September. However, this bill is about what is next. In that regard, three new recovery benefits are introduced so that the move to employment insurance leaves no Canadian behind.

First is the Canada recovery benefit, which will provide financial assistance for up to 26 weeks to workers who are not eligible for EI but still require income support and who are available and actively looking for employment.

As I mentioned, my riding of Surrey—Newton is driven by small business owners, many of whom are sole proprietorships, run by hard-working, self-employed people. As they move to get more of a solid footing, we do not want businesses to fail because they have seen this during their business activities and we do not want them to be left behind through this transition.

The Canada recovery benefit is about supporting Canadians who have had their income drop or be eliminated due to COVID-19, but it is going to be accompanied by additional support. In these individuals' search for gainful employment, we are working closely with the provinces and territories to share information and provide tools and training to get people back into the workforce.

The second new measure, the Canada recovery sickness benefit, would provide $500 per week for up to two weeks for workers who are sick and must self-isolate as a result of exposure to COVID-19. During this pandemic, doing the right thing by self-isolating and reducing the risk of spreading the infection to colleagues, friends or family members should not be a path to financial hardship. Workers and their families should not have to choose between staying safe and making ends meet.

Last, this bill is introducing the Canada recovery caregiver benefit, which would provide $500 per week for up to 26 weeks per household for eligible Canadians unable to work because they are serving as caregivers for someone impacted by the pandemic. This could include a sick child who is being kept at home out of caution because they are not feeling well and is staying home for the public good. Workers would be able to apply for this benefit for the period for which they are providing care and require income support, and they would have to confirm that they will meet the eligibility criteria. The 26 weeks of this benefit could be shared within a household, but two family members residing in the same household cannot receive the benefit for the same period. Only one member of a household can receive it at a given time.

These are the realities of a country that is working to restart our economy and our daily lives in a safe and responsible way. Employment insurance has always represented temporary relief for unemployed workers who are upgrading their skills and looking for new opportunities or who have been laid off. With these new benefits, our government is appropriately changing EI so that the new realities of COVID-19 recovery can be realized without anyone being left without the support that they need to emerge from the health crisis stronger than ever.

This is a bill that has been drafted based on the stories that all of us have heard and brought back from our respective ridings. The bill considers the challenges faced by average Canadians as we continue the process of reopening the country and the economy. Most important, Bill C-4 represents a response that listened to Canadians. This is how we have managed our government's response to COVID-19 from the beginning, and we are responding based on the real-world situations that are happening in people's lives.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this most important legislation today.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

No. It kind of cuts both ways. However, I think the key element here, Mark, that you may not be grasping or admitting is that both committees and the House can work at the same time independently.

Your argument is that why in the world would the Conservatives spring this on us when we're discussing things like Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 and getting aid to Canadians, which, quite frankly, I support. Even though we believe the government is going to have to account for its spending measures, I don't think anyone is denying the fact that millions of Canadians need support financially right now.

The House is dealing with that right now. We're having a vote in about half an hour on those two motions right now. The House can do its work. We're not circumventing any of the work of the House and parliamentarians. All we're doing is saying that now that committees have been restruck, let's start meeting to discuss things like prorogation and some of the other elements of other committees that had met.

How about the China-Canada special committee? That was struck down. Do you not believe that's an important committee? I certainly do. I would like to see that back up and running, and I think most Canadians would as well.

That's my only point, Mark. You keep saying that it's offensive because we've sprung this on you without notice. Well, perhaps it was without notice, but it certainly wasn't unwarranted. There is plenty of history and precedence about studies about prorogation. Governments in the past have prorogued on many occasions, and committees have studied the reasons for that. That's all that Karen's motion is speaking to. Let's call witnesses and produce documents to ask the government the very simple question: Why? Why did you prorogue? What did you believe were the underlying and motivating factors to prorogue, which shut down Parliament for five weeks? That's as simple as it gets.

You may want to study the wording of Karen's motion, but that in essence is what it's saying. Give us the ability to call witnesses and produce documents and let's study it. That's it. In a nutshell, that's it.

I don't know how much time you actually need. For example, I know we're probably going to be voting for an hour. This is online voting, and the last couple of nights when we've had practice sessions it has usually taken about an hour to run through the roll. You'll have ample opportunity to go over the motion—line by line and clause by clause—that Karen brought forward, so I don't think there is really any excuse to say that we need to delay. I believe that probably by the time we get back after the 6:30 vote has concluded you will have had, I would hope, the opportunity to read through the motion and perhaps speak to whether or not you want to vote on the motion at that time.

That's all I have to say, Madam Chair. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

I just want to get back to what Ms. Blaney said about the fact there are a lot of Canadians out there who are worried and looking for help. They absolutely are. I don't understand how this particular motion before us is going to help Canadians with their needs right now.

If there is a big secret out there that the Conservatives and all opposition parties are trying to get to the bottom of, I respect that. I respect their role in the opposition and encourage them to do that to the best of their ability in a way that's fair, by making sure that members of all parties have an opportunity to participate, especially in motions that are brought before committee, which is not what is happening here because we just haven't had that opportunity.

Most important, when we get back to Canadians and the help they're looking for right now, what we should really be doing if that's what we care about most is getting back into the House and debating Bill C-4, which was just tabled, rather than the other stalling tactics the Conservatives are pulling in the House right now. It cannot but make one wonder what objective people really have. What is the most important thing for people?

The reality is that what we're seeing right now is that the Conservatives don't care about anything but WE, and I get it. They're going after what they see as some scandal that's going to make things incredibly bad for the government. I get it, but listen, what everyday Canadians care about right now is being taken care of. They care about knowing that their government is here for them and that Parliament actually working for them.

I don't understand why the Conservatives are so hell-bent on this. It seems this is the only thing that ever matters to them, when the reality of the situation is such that for once, why can't they just drop their whole charade of hating on the Prime Minister and making everything a personal attack, and just start to discuss policy. Why don't they come forward and say, “Hey, we don't like this; why don't we do this instead?”, or really advocate for a policy.

You saw it, Madam Chair, in the last session of Parliament. Every time the Conservatives got an opportunity to move an opposition motion, the motion would just be about how the Prime Minister was such a horrible human being and that we needed to look into this and this and that, instead of actually doing something for Canadians like bringing forward some kind of a piece of policy that would better Canadians' lives.

What we're seeing right now is just more typical Conservative stuff where they just bring forward these motions because they may hope to God they can win an election by making somebody else look bad rather than having their own ideas. For me, it's so incredibly frustrating because when it comes right back to it, we talk about the people who are affected by this pandemic. I can't remember who it was—Mr. Doherty or Mrs. Vecchio—who said a little while ago that Canadians want to know what we're doing for them. Yes, they certainly do, but I have news for you that top of mind for them is not WE.

Do they want to know the truth and make sure that nothing nefarious happened? Absolutely, and they have a right to know that, and you have a right to bring that forward on their behalf, but that's not what's most important to them right now. What's most important right now is knowing that they're going to be taken care of throughout this pandemic, knowing that their government and Parliament are there for them, and knowing that their opposition parties are there to make sure that whatever legislation is brought forward by the government is the best it can possibly be.

I'll hand it to the NDP because at least they did that. At least they were looking for ways to make Canadians' lives better throughout this whole pandemic, and the fact is that they've now decided that they're going to vote in favour of the Speech from the Throne. At least they are coming to the table with a desire to make lives better, rather than a desire to kill one particular political career.

I'll leave it at that for now, Madam Chair.

I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this, but I'm extremely disappointed as a parliamentarian, as a member of Parliament, that I was not afforded an opportunity to have a good solid look at this particular motion, to understand it and digest it and make sure I knew what I was voting on, and to discuss it with my colleagues.

Instead it's an intentional attempt to blindside me, and that is what I find to be the absolutely most offensive part of what has been put forward to us by the Conservatives.

At the end of the day, as I said, if the Conservatives want to see a vote on this, they will get their vote on it, but I cannot see that being right now or today or after our votes, because I don't think we have been treated fairly in this process in how this has been brought forward. I am demanding the opportunity as a parliamentarian to do my due diligence, to look at this motion properly and then decide how to vote on it after I have an opportunity to caucus with my colleagues on it.

I'll leave it at that for now and then raise my hand again if I feel the need to discuss this further.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today.

This is the second time this week for me. I unfortunately do not always bring good news, and my comments about Bill C-4 are no exception.

We have an important decision to make this week. We need to take time to talk about how we ended up here, which did not happen overnight. It took the government, Canadians and us a long time to get here.

I want to review the decisions the government made, talk about what happened in the world before and during March and April, and talk about how we got to this point.

On January 28, the World Health Organization described the risk of transmission to be very high in China and very high at a global level of the virus, which was of course on the horizon.

On January 30, the Minister of Health said that it would be virtually impossible to prevent the virus from arriving in Canada, but did not take any steps to prepare at that time.

Between January 22 and February 18, 58,000 travellers arrived in Canada from high-risk areas and only 68 were pulled aside for further assessment by a quarantine officer. There again we see that the government had an opportunity to do so much, an opportunity which it passed on, leading us to where we are today.

By February 17, the national lab had only run 461 tests, and on March 10, public health officials advised policy makers that COVID risks were low in Canada and that mandatory quarantines for returning travellers would be too difficult to enforce.

Before I go on, I have to go back to February, because who can forget what happened in February when the government sent 16 tonnes of personal protective equipment back to China?

Perhaps it did not think that we might need that equipment in the future. The government did not think ahead, and that is very clear right now.

Of course, on March 13, the Prime Minister went into isolation. On March 13, the U.S. declared a national emergency. On March 16, finally, Canada closed its borders, and on March 20, we finally closed our borders with our good friend, the United States. However, on April 9, the Prime Minister warned that it could be over a year until life returns to normal.

We can see that the government had much notice and time to prepare from so many perspectives, from a health perspective, a public safety perspective, and an economic and fiscal responsibility perspective, but it did not. That is the reason we are going into the chamber again to vote in support or not of the legislation of the government, which has been so incredibly irresponsible.

As an official opposition that loves and supports Canadians and that loves and supports our fellow citizens, we did what we had to do. We supported the legislation to give all of the incredible supports to Canadians across the country. I will say that some supports did work better than others.

As the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities during the spring, I saw different studies in terms of evaluating the supports that were given. Unfortunately, though, there were no long-term economic solutions to maintain financial security for Canadians. I will get more into that.

In addition, we did not look at providing any long-term solutions to any groups, such as non-profit organizations, beyond the pandemic, so everything was very short-sighted. That does not matter anyway now, because any useful work that was conducted has become null due to the prorogation of Parliament. Of course, who can forget the WE scandal, where the government was more concerned with doling out contracts to its friends than with providing supports to the Canadians who needed them?

I will also add my two pieces as the outgoing vice-chair of HUMA. I think the government did a terrible job of protecting our seniors in long-term care facilities across this country. I am so happy our official opposition has a fantastic new shadow minister for seniors, the member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who I know will fight for seniors.

I will also say I am very excited to see the previous speaker, the new shadow minister for families, children and social development, who I know will take on the battle to get Canadians out of this cycle of perpetual poverty, which is what we are seeing with the extension of the bill today. Again, as good Canadians and as good stewards of the health, safety and well-being, particularly the economic well-being, of Canadians, we will certainly consider doing what we have to do to support Canadians. However, we were put in this place by the government and its absolute irresponsibility.

What keeps me up at night is the economic recovery of this nation. I could go on and on about the economic recovery of this nation because as we speak, Canada's debt is over $1 trillion. Our deficit for the 2020-21 fiscal year is $380 billion. It is absolutely unthinkable and unbelievable, but here we are.

On July 8, a Global News article said, “The flood of federal spending in response to the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis will see the deficit soar to $343 billion this year, as officials warn the economy might never go back to normal.” Well, would we not like a deficit of $343 billion instead of the $380 billion that we have now.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, speaking of the federal government, stated, “It's without a doubt that we cannot afford deficits of over $300 billion for more than just a few years. And when I say a few years, I really mean a year or two. Beyond that it would become unsustainable.” We are easily reaching the state of this being unsustainable, and beyond.

In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer added, “So if the government has plans for additional spending, it will clearly have to make difficult choices and either raise taxes or reduce other areas of spending. Because it's clear that we cannot afford to have deficits of that magnitude for even the medium term.”

Unfortunately, this is the poor planning of the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and all of his officers. They had several occasions prior to the pandemic to put us in a better fiscal position and to put Canadians in a better position to respond to this pandemic. Then the pandemic hit. Conservatives, who care about Canada and our economy, made the decision to support Canadians in their time of need and in this time of relief.

Again, it is the poor planning of the government in the present and moving into the future that behooved us to show up in the House again and vote for additional supports, supports, which I might add, that will cost north of $50 billion, and possibly as much as $60 billion. This is on the backs of Canadians, on the backs of my son and all the other Canadian children.

I was very proud to take on an economic recovery task force in my riding of Calgary Midnapore. I was very happy to do that, but it feels sometimes that it is an absolute futility because the Prime Minister stated on September 1 to the CBC, “We shouldn't be moving forward with an ambitious, bold vision to help Canadians and build a better future without ensuring that we have the support of Parliament.”

The start of the throne speech stated, “For over 150 years, Parliamentarians have worked together to chart Canada's path forward. Today, Canadians expect you to do the same.” The Liberals only care to work with as many parliamentarians as they have to to advance their own agenda. If they managed to dangle a carrot in front of 24 NDP MPs, they have ignored 160 other parliamentarians who also represent Canadians. Canadians deserve help, but more importantly, they deserve a plan for an economically sustainable recovery.

Standing Order 69.1—Bill C-4

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to restate the first part, it is my argument that part 3 of Bill C-4, clauses 10 to 14 in the schedule, is sufficiently different from the remainder of the bill so as to warrant the question at second reading being divided for a separate decision. Again, that is under Standing Order 69.1. While it is true that the state of the whole bill's content is associated with the response to COVID-19, that alone does not qualify as a common element for the purposes of the standing order.

The National Assembly of Quebec has similar procedures regarding omnibus bills, which are instructive. I refer the Chair to Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, third edition, which says at page 400, “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they each apply to a specific field.”

This statement of the National Assembly's practice was endorsed by your immediate predecessor, the hon. member for Halifax West, when he ruled on March 1, 2018, at page 17574 of the Debates:

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

The importance of distinguishing between principles and a field was articulated by former National Assembly vice-president Fatima Houda-Pepin, on December 11, 2007, at page 2513 of the Journal des débats:

In this case, the bill contains more than one principle. Although the bill deals with road safety, the Chair cannot consider that to be the principle of Bill 42. The principle or principles of a bill should not be confused with the topic to which it pertains. Coming up with a different concept of the notion of principle would disqualify most bills from being subject to a division motion because they deal with a specific topic. In this case, the various means of ensuring road safety included in this bill could constitute distinct principles.

The 2018 ruling in our own House concerned the former Bill C-69, which was an omnibus bill with disastrous consequences for the natural resources sector in Canada. The government had argued that all of its provisions hung together on the principle of environmental protection, but the Chair ruled that the argument was not good enough to avoid dividing the question. In that case, he found there were sufficient distinctions to warrant separate votes.

A similar argument was put forward by the government for the former Bill C-59. It claimed that everything was unified by the principle of national security. As the deputy speaker ruled on June 18, 2018, at page 21196 of the Debates, “while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C- 59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question.”

Turning to Bill C-4, parts 1 and 2 concern the establishment of assorted pandemic income replacement benefits for Canadians impacted by COVID-19, together with associated labour law amendments. Part 3, meanwhile, is the government's request to spend over $17 billion on a wide array of measures, bypassing the normal estimates and appropriations procedures of Parliament. One of the considerations the Chair employed in 2018 was to look at how integrated the different provisions of the impugned bill were. In the case of Bill C-69, for example, two parts that were extensively linked with many cross-references were held to have a sufficiently common element between them. However, another part was, despite the presence of some cross-references, found to be not so deeply intertwined as to make a division impossible.

In the present case, part 3 of Bill C-4 appears to have absolutely no cross-references or drafting links to the remainder of the bill. It was simply grafted on. The various components of the bill that are part of the response to COVID-19 are really about the only thing which could even link them together. In fact, I would argue that the long title of the bill itself gives away the fact that the link is tenuous: “An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19”. If there were any stronger connection among these assorted provisions, a more descriptive long title would have been possible.

Before concluding, I will offer a couple of comments of the circumstances particular to the present case.

First, I recognize that time is of the essence in reaching a ruling, because the House is currently seized with government Motion No. 1, which would ram Bill C-4 through the House with barely any debate at all. In fact, it is possible that members are on track to be called upon to vote on the bill late tomorrow night. As noted by the Speaker's immediate predecessor's ruling of November 7, 2017, at page 15116 of the Debates, points of order calling for the exercise of Standing Order 69.1 must be raised promptly. I am rising on this matter on the same afternoon the bill was introduced. To do so earlier would, frankly, have been impossible.

Second, should the House adopt government Motion No. 1, there is nothing in the motion that, in my view, would change the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-4. The wording of paragraph (b) of the motion refers to voting on “all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill”. This language certainly contemplates multiple votes at the second reading stage and, of course, would be undisturbed by the amendment proposed by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition. Moreover, the chapeau of the motion does not make any provision for it to operate notwithstanding any standing order, let alone that it would operate notwithstanding Standing Order 69.1.

In conclusion, it is my respectful submission that Bill C-4 is an omnibus bill and that under the provisions of the standing order, its part 3 should be separated out for a separate vote at the second reading stage.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Among the things we're looking at is that one of the Standing Orders that were changed, of course, back in the 42nd Parliament, was the fact of prorogation. I think, like many Canadians, that when this government prorogued Parliament, just last month, as everybody was coming into the fold of everything that was happening with the scandal, we recognized that the government kind of just stopped on a certain date. We also know that there are certain documents that were going to be sent in and that were expected one day after, including some of the people who were supposed to be coming to either the ethics committee or to the finance committee.

We recognize that, through this prorogation and what ended up happening by worrying more about the skin in the game of the Prime Minister, we forgot about Canadians and forgot about the fact that there are so many things going on, like the fact that we're trying to pull through legislation on Bill C-2 and Bill C-4. We want to look at this to see why there was prorogation at a time when it was so imperative to make sure that we're actually helping Canadians during this pandemic. That is one of the things I'm looking at. At the procedure and House affairs committee, our job is to make sure that all things are kept accountable, putting this all on the floor, as the grandfather of the committees for the House of Commons. That is why I think it is our duty to make sure that...what this prorogation did and the impact on all of the committee work that was done.

Thank you.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, to have the question on Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19 divided for the purposes of voting at second reading.

Standing Order 69.1(1) reads:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

Standing Order 69.1(2) exempts budget implementation bills, but Bill C-4 is not a budget implementation bill so we may disregard this portion of the rule.

My argument is that Part 3 of Bill C-4, that is to say clauses 10 to 14 and the schedule, is sufficiently different from the remainder of the bill so as to warrant—

COVID-19 Response Measures Act

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)