Bill C-14 (Historical)

COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2

A second Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to introduce an emergency wage subsidy as part of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Part 2 amends Part IV.‍1 of the Financial Administration Act to provide that certain provisions of that Act, as enacted by the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, cease to have effect on the day after September 30, 2020.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

I think protecting vulnerable people and protecting the conscience rights of physicians are things that, around this table, we should all agree on. I know that I have only a couple of seconds, but Bill C-14 required a parliamentary view. What role would you like the Canadian Medical Association to take in the process of that review, which was supposed to have already taken place?

Criminal Code

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before getting into the details of the proposed legislation in front of us, I first want to make sure that in the House we avoid a common misunderstanding that seems to come up whenever people strongly disagree with assisted suicide or related issues. Quite often, someone in favour of allowing assisted suicide or removing safeguards will express compassion and empathy for those who are suffering. In saying this, I am not questioning their feelings or their sincerity; nobody wants to suffer or watch their loved ones go through terrible pain. What I am saying here, for everyone's benefit, is that those who are opposed to it or who want to support safeguards have a deep sense of compassion and empathy for those who are suffering. In other words, our human feelings of compassion by themselves do not automatically lead to one position or another.

Along with my wife, I have watched four grandparents pass away, and at present we have another one who is living in palliative care. Each time I have witnessed and cared for family members as they go through difficult health problems, I am reminded of the importance of always affirming a dying person's dignity while they live out the last part of their life.

For the past year, we have had widespread awareness of and concern for how the spread of COVID-19 could devastate seniors and others who are more vulnerable because of medical conditions. For the most part, these are the same people who are at risk and would be even more so under this new law. Along with everything else we could learn from 2020, I hope we can improve our medical practices and strengthen safeguards for the most vulnerable in every area, including this one.

As we continue to debate Bill C-7, it is important for all of us to take a moment to carefully consider its wider impact and unintended consequences. If passed, the new law will significantly expand the number of Canadians who will be eligible for assisted suicide. Whether we agree with these changes or not, it is clear that they are major and fundamental.

It was only a few years ago that Parliament passed Bill C-14, which created the legal framework for what it called “medical assistance in dying”. Previously, the Criminal Code had considered it a serious crime to either kill a patient or participate in a patient's suicide. While amending the section on culpable homicide and defining eligibility, it presented MAID as the narrow exception.

At the time, the former justice minister, with the same sense of transparency for which she later fell out of favour with the Liberal government, publicly stated, “We recognize that medical assistance in dying will in many respects fundamentally change our medical culture and our society.” It was true for what happened back then, and now we are adding some more major changes before the last ones were ever properly reviewed. There was supposed to be an official review of the MAID system, but that has not happened.

Without having a thorough and careful review, we are supposed to proceed with Bill C-7 anyway. So far, in the current session, we have started debating this bill for part of only four days. I hope there will be much more time than this for considering this bill at every stage, especially when it is studied by the justice committee. There is so much that should be said, and the amount of time we all have to work with is too limited.

I share the deep concern of many Canadians who recognize that this bill undermines our country's commitment to upholding and protecting the equal value of each human life. More particularly, there needs to be even more attention given to how assisted suicide, especially in the way this bill handles it, affects the lives and social well-being of people with disabilities.

Over the past year, the idea of systemic discrimination has come to the forefront of our public discourse in Canada, in the U.S. and around the world. To help us better reflect on how it can relate to this discussion, we can look to the work of Dr. Laverne Jacobs. Dr. Jacobs is a law professor at the University of Windsor. She has approached the issue with her legal expertise and speaks from her experience as a Black woman living with disabilities in Canada.

As part of a longer presentation about MAID back in January, she compared and related the experiences of minority communities. She said, “What's particularly troubling about any system or any structure of systemic discrimination is that once ideas that are harmful to a minority group have been legislated into law, it is very difficult to convince the general public that they are not stigma-inducing or ultimately discriminatory. So in both cases, in both the case of racial inequality in the U.S. and the case of MAID here in Canada, we're dealing with the stigmatization of a historically disadvantaged group.”

In an article on the subject of MAID, Dr. Jacobs wrote:

More explicitly, while the MAID law indeed requires consent, these irreversible choices about ending a life are made in a complex social, cultural and health-care context, where lack of access to adequate care, lack of social support and overall ableist stigma have an impact on the choices people with disabilities may have.

In the same article, she also said:

There are also concerns, fuelled by developments in the few countries that provide access to MAID outside the end-of-life context, that being elderly and fragile is increasingly accepted as a reason for a physician-assisted death and that this may create subtle pressure.

This is a small sample of her work, and Parliament would do well to take a closer look at the rest of her comments.

Loss, especially one of this nature, directs and shapes people's actions and attitudes. We cannot say that people with disabilities and other vulnerable populations have not told us this and explained how this bill will inevitably hurt them. Many other advocates and members of the disability community have been speaking out with similar fears, but they were not heard when they called for the government to appeal the Quebec Superior Court ruling. They have also been ignored when it comes to the problems in Bill C-7.

Bill C-7 has to do with life and death, which are ultimate realities. It is reasonable to expect that altering the way our institutions and culture approach the most consequential matters will have wide-ranging effects across all of society. It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine where we will end up if we follow this path.

In my remaining time, I want to highlight some of these problems.

Most notably, Bill C-7 removes the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion, which is very concerning to me. I am concerned that removing it will normalize suicide over time. Without appealing the decision, the government is going beyond what the Quebec Superior Court ruled.

As one example, the government wants to allow for advance directives. As I have said before, there has been no thorough review of MAID as it currently operates. I am also not aware of any specific study about the risks and problems associated with a process for advance directives. That should happen well before we ever consider enacting it.

Advance requests raise difficult questions. For example, I have to wonder: Could someone consent in advance to be killed once they reach a state they fear but have never experienced, like living with advanced dementia? Further, once someone has signed an advance request and lost the capacity to consent to medical treatment, at what point exactly would their life be terminated? More alarming to me is this: If a non-capable person seems to resist a lethal injection, can the physician still proceed with the injection if the physician believes that the resistance is not due to any understanding on the patients's part that the injection will kill them? Bill C-7 states that apparent resistance means a doctor must not proceed but clarifies that involuntary responses to contact is not resistance. This raises another question. How does a doctor determine if the response to contact is involuntary?

Given that advance requests raise serious ethical issues, oversight challenges and safety risks, legalizing advance directives in the way that Bill C-7 would is irresponsible. This is the position we are left with when we are not trying to create effective accountability mechanisms and when we have insufficient data.

I am also troubled that Bill C-7 would remove the 10-day waiting period. Frankly, I find this disturbing. The 10-day waiting period in Bill C-14 already had a built-in exemption for those whose death or loss of capacity to consent was imminent, and as such, I cannot understand why the removal of this waiting period is necessary or prudent. On the contrary, I find it negligent.

It is well established that the desire to die is often transient. Suffering individuals have ups and downs throughout the day, throughout the week and throughout the year. No one should be able to make a death or life decision when at their most vulnerable point. The 10-day waiting period effectively allows a patient to reconsider their decision and take the time to speak with loved ones. This is critical.

Finally, I want to add that I believe the bill should add a provision that prohibits medical practitioners from discussing MAID unless the patient explicitly asks. We must not underestimate the power of pressure and suggestion, no matter how subtle, especially when it is combined with social stigma, as I mentioned before.

Journalist Ben Mattlin, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, wrote this in the New York Times:

I’ve lived so close to death for so long that I know how thin and porous the border between coercion and free choice is, how easy it is for someone to inadvertently influence you to feel devalued and hopeless—to pressure you ever so slightly but decidedly into being “reasonable,” to unburdening others, to “letting go.”

Perhaps, as advocates contend, you can’t understand why anyone would push for assisted-suicide legislation until you’ve seen a loved one suffer. But you also can’t truly conceive of the many subtle forces—invariably well meaning, kindhearted, even gentle, yet as persuasive as a tsunami—that emerge when your physical autonomy is hopelessly compromised.

Despite Mattlin's significant physical disability, he is a father, husband, author and journalist. He has a successful life and knows what he wants. He is less vulnerable than others who might be more easily persuaded that MAID is their best option. In this way, voluntary MAID is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary MAID.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is so pertinent to the debate we are having on Bill C-7. It is an opportunity to get improvements to Bill C-14 and we need the opportunity to do that. Due process is what Parliament is all about and we need to have that opportunity in the House.

On the issues of grievous and irremediable medical conditions, as I said in my speech, we could have had an opportunity to put more definition into some of these issues. The foreseeable issues were just another one of those areas where we could have had more definition.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was pointing out that with Bill C-14, we entered a slippery slope, as the safeguards had been removed. Bill C-14 is the law of the land. I am merely pointing out that we are now removing the reasonably foreseeable requirement. We are not improving the safeguards at all with the bill. In fact, we are removing safeguards. In the absence of palliative care, in the absence of a true choice, that leaves folks with no choice at all.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying. It is long overdue.

I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of adopting the principle of this bill, because it clarifies two aspects of medical assistance in dying.

The first has to do with access to medical assistance in dying when death is imminent, meaning that the person is terminal and is receiving palliative care before receiving medical assistance in dying. At least, I hope that is the case, because people in palliative care are not always the ones to request medical assistance in dying. I will come back to this.

The second aspect has to do with people for whom death is not imminent, who were denied access to medical assistance in dying as a result of the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” clause in Bill C-14. The court struck down this criterion, which was the key safeguard. This is what Bill C-7 is designed to fix, and we are happy about that.

As we begin debating the underlying principles of Bill C-7, it will come as no surprise that I am discussing them. It is precisely because we, as lawmakers, did not do our job four years ago when we were studying Bill C-14, that we find ourselves debating Bill C-7 today.

This is a democracy, and parliamentarians, not judges, must make the laws. We, the representatives of the people, the lawmakers, must be the voice of Canadians, especially those who are suffering. Judges only interpret the grammar of justice. They examine the laws we make, as well as the rights and freedoms, and determine whether a potential infringement of rights and freedoms is reasonable or not.

In this case, the court has handed down its ruling: The provisions of the current law, the former Bill C-14, are an unreasonable infringement of rights and freedoms. Furthermore, before Bill C-7 was tabled, two courts had ruled that the Criminal Code, amended by Bill C-14, violated the right to life, liberty and security of the sick person suffering intolerably or with a terminal illness.

We have to be clear about the issue at the heart of this debate: before being legal, this is an ethical debate. On one side of this debate is the paternalistic vision of the state and medical practice, while on the other side is a vision based on the autonomy of the individual and its corollary, the principle of self-determination. I know that all my colleagues in the House have good intentions. They want to do good, they want the best for patients and they are caring. I am sure that during this entire debate they will reflect the very values they are advocating and they will be just as caring and compassionate about the interests of patients.

However, we cannot claim to be caring and compassionate, in other words wanting to do good and what is best for an individual who has reached their breaking point at the end-of-life stage, if we are interfering with that individual's autonomy and self-determination, and if we refuse to respect their wishes on something as personal as their own death. The literature is clear on this.

The basic question is this: What business does the state have interfering in a decision as personal as my own death? My life is my own, as is my death. No one else, and certainly not the state, is going to die in my place. The courts had to reframe the limits of the state's power to intervene because we did not do our job properly.

All I want is for us to understand what is at stake here. I am referring to the law, which my Conservative friends often put up on a pedestal. The value of autonomy is conferred by law through the principle of self-determination, especially with regard to medical care. That is what I want to discuss here today with my colleagues. Let's talk about the autonomy bestowed on a person by law through the principle of self-determination.

In the biomedical context, the principle of self-determination is associated with an inviolable rule, namely the rule of free, informed consent. The rule regarding free, informed consent to treatment has never been challenged in emergency situations. Patients always have the right to refuse treatment.

My question for my colleagues is this: Why would it be any different for human beings experiencing intolerable suffering due to an irreversible illness or condition? Why would it be any different for competent individuals who are neither depressed nor suicidal and who have expressed a desire to live fully until they reach the limit of what they can tolerate?

In the Carter decision, which led to Bill C-7, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions prohibiting medical assistance in dying violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person. People like Ms. Gladu, Mr. Truchon, Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor have not reached the end-of-life stage. They might not even be in the terminal phase of their illness. That does not mean they have not reached, or are not in the process of reaching, the limit of what they can tolerate.

The court stated that the restrictive provisions in Bill C-14 were effectively shortening the lives of such individuals, that they violated their right to life by inciting them to commit the act before they were ready. That is what needs to be fixed right here, right now. Bill C-14 did a fairly good job covering the end-of-life care for terminally ill patients whose death was reasonably foreseeable, with the exception of the requirement for a second consent, which is sometimes not necessary and means that people suffer even though they gave their informed consent.

There is no issue for people who are terminally ill. The dying process has already begun and is irreversible. Death is imminent and foreseeable. The issue we need to address as legislators has to do with people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable and imminent. Under Bill C-14, Ms. Carter, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon were ignored.

What we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, want is respect for the moral autonomy of the dying. We often hear the expression “dying with dignity”. I must point out that dying with dignity does not mean having a sanitized death. That is not what it means to die with dignity. The dignity of a person is derived from their freedom to choose and respect for their free will. That is what it means to be a human being. That is what it means to respect a human being. When that is violated, we violate the dignity of the human being.

Whether the death is unpleasant or not is not the issue. The crux of the matter is to allow the human being to make a decision about the end of their life. Unfortunately, in the past, we won the right to die rather than undergo aggressive therapies. At the time, this was called passive euthanasia. The person was left to die without much attention and without death being the intent. Palliative care was still in its infancy. There was a great fear of administering one last fatal dose of medication, but it always ends up causing death. Because palliative care is still care, it does not strictly count as passive euthanasia.

Patients won the right to die rather than undergo aggressive therapies, because people did not use to die from cancer; they died from the treatment. Medical paternalism has at times gone too far and has been less than helpful.

Today's patient-practitioner relationship prioritizes collaboration, negotiation and respect for the patient's choice. Patients alone can assess their quality of life, and that must be respected, which is why medical professionals must be transparent with their diagnoses.

Patients won the battle for the right to die rather than undergo aggressive treatment, and that evolved into palliative care as we know it. For a long time, palliative care was thought of as the only solution that would allow people to die with dignity, but if that is the case, why is it still so hard for people to get that care? If that is the solution, why is there still such a shortage of palliative care units?

Sometimes, even the best, most carefully managed palliative care in the world cannot alleviate people's suffering. Bioethics teaches practitioners to remember that patients come first, and that means listening to them.

That is true for Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Carter, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Truchon, and it is true for Ms. Gladu and many others who have continued to suffer throughout this pandemic while they wait for us to do our job. Contrary to what some people think, these individuals are not suicidal. They want to live as long as possible.

I watched a very interesting interview with Ms. Gladu. What did she say to us? What did she want? She wanted the freedom to choose. Having this freedom greatly diminishes the suffering and anguish.

With Bill C-14, the government said its intention was to protect the most vulnerable. Is there anyone more vulnerable than a person who is suffering from intolerable pain, who is living with an incurable illness and who is being told to go to court for the right to choose and to die with dignity? Is there anything more important and more intimately personal for an individual than their own death?

I have a hard time understanding my Conservative colleagues' argument that the state must decide for an individual, when they are so economically libertarian. Several Conservatives felt that Bill C-14 went too far. The courts said that it did not go far enough and that it violated fundamental rights.

Elected members of the National Assembly of Quebec advanced the debate without pitting palliative care against medical assistance in dying. They chose to include requests for assistance in dying as part of a continuum of end-of-life care that is consistent with palliative care. Whether we are talking about a degenerative disease or an illness that causes extreme pain but is not terminal, let us not pit those two realities against each other. Respect for human dignity includes proper support when one is dying, which requires doctors to have the humility to recognize that they cannot always help people manage their pain adequately.

Our society recognizes people's right to self-determination throughout their lifetime but takes it away from them at the most intimate moment of their lives. In so doing, we think that we know what is best for people or that we are doing the right thing, when we are actually undermining human dignity, their freedom to choose.

There is no more important moment in a person's life than their death. Learning to live is learning to die. Learning to die is learning to live. I say that because the clock starts ticking the moment the doctor cuts the umbilical cord.

The Carter decision and the Baudouin ruling sent us back to the drawing board. We need to do our job as legislators and stop off-loading the problems and the ethical, social and political questions onto the courts. We have a job to do as legislators.

There is a sociology of law. In a society, the law evolves with people's consciences. I know I am straying from the technical details of the bill, but we will have plenty of time to discuss them in committee.

The bill proposes that a person who is not terminally ill must consent twice and be bound by a 90-day period. I really wanted to talk about advance consent, since that is about all that is missing from the bill.

Bill C-7 does not address degenerative cognitive diseases, which are predictable diseases. Doctors can tell patients how they will progress. People with these diseases often remain of sound mind for years and do not appear to be sick, but eventually, they become forgetful and then die. They can also experience complications from being bedridden or immobilized or conditions other than that disease. I think a person with Alzheimer's, for example, should have the opportunity to make an advance request. This bill does not take those people into account.

Still, I said at the outset that we agreed on the principle and the grounds for discussing this bill. We will have time to talk about these issues. I urge my colleagues to bring substantive arguments to the debate on the adoption in principle of medical assistance in dying.

I remember when the previous Parliament studied Bill C-14. I heard arguments about how we were putting ourselves on a slippery slope. Some people were practically saying that long-term care homes would turn into euthanasia factories. If evil people are working in our health system, they should be fired, no matter what job they do, because they have no business there. I am not buying the argument that this is a slippery slope because people are evil.

We must assume from the outset that everyone working in the health care system is caring and compassionate. Increased health transfers would enable these people to provide better care, and maybe there would be more palliative care units in hospitals. Even though people have been saying for 50 years that palliative care is the only solution, I do not believe it is. It makes no sense that people do not have better access to palliative care in this day and age.

I would like to end my speech, which I trust was a substantive one, with a wish for all of us, here in the House, concerning the delicate issue of the end-of-life. I sincerely hope—which is what the patients who turned to the courts were hoping for—to face death serenely, peacefully and without suffering. That is my wish for everyone, because that is the best wish we can make for a human being. We should imagine ourselves being at peace on our death bed and being able to let go because we have palliative care to support us in our journey towards death. That is the best wish we can make for a human being.

I am therefore calling for a debate on both the substance and the principles. I am also appealing to the humanity of all my colleagues so we can finally provide an adequate response to all those who are suffering and have been waiting for far too long.

Supplementary Estimates (A)

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Chair, I am delighted and honoured to address the House today in an extraordinary context.

Thank you for, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to discuss, in particular, supplementary estimates (A) for 2020-21.

As committee members know, every year, the government tables the supplementary estimates, which sets out its spending plan.

These supplementary estimates present information on spending requirements across federal organizations that were either not sufficiently developed in time for inclusion in the main estimates or have since been updated to reflect new developments.

This is the first supplementary estimates to be tabled this fiscal year. It includes a summary of the government's additional financial requirements and an overview of the main funding requests and horizontal initiatives.

The Supplementary Estimates (A), 2020-21, also shows that the government is continuing to invest in people, in workers, in the economy and in support related to COVID-19 to ensure the country's success and economic recovery.

Parliamentarians will have the opportunity to review and vote on these allocations, which seek to provide important services to indigenous communities, safe and secure transportation for travellers and support for Canada's armed forces. This is in addition to COVID-related expenditures.

Specifically, these supplementary estimates include $6 billion in operating and capital expenditures, grants and contributions to be voted on by Parliament for 42 different federal organizations. These voted measures represent a 5% increase over those included in the main estimates for 2020-21 that I tabled on February 27, including more than $1 billion for the government's response to the COVID crisis.

For the purposes of parliamentary information and transparency, the supplementary estimates also includes forecasts of statutory expenditures totalling $81.1 billion. It is important to note the key difference between voted spending and statutory spending. Voted spending requires the annual approval of Parliament through what is called a supply bill, whereas statutory spending is approved through other laws. The current estimates contains information on statutory spending to enable parliamentarians to have the most comprehensive information available on the spending planned by the government.

Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent them have the right to know how public funds are being spent and to hold the government to account. Estimates are brought forward to ensure that Parliament can review and approve the new spending needs of the Government of Canada.

The Supplementary Estimates (A) for 2020-21 include $6 billion in new funding across the government, including $1 billion in continued support for COVID-19 relief.

For maximum transparency, the estimates documents also provide information on spending authorized through the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act and the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2, which have already been negotiated, discussed and unanimously approved by parliamentarians.

We know that Canadians want maximum transparency from Parliament. These estimates include statutory information on spending that was first authorized through the COVID-19 emergency response acts that were presented, debated and passed in the House. This spending is now helping Canadians.

The health, security and well-being of all Canadians remain critical to our government. As a result, these supplementary estimates include a request for an additional $1.3 billion in voted expenditures to deal with the impact of COVID-19 on Canadians.

This includes $405 million for the national medical research strategy to fund tracking and testing of COVID-19, to develop vaccines and therapies, and to enhance clinical trials and biomanufacturing capacity in Canada.

There is also $302 million to support small and medium-sized businesses.

This also includes $274 million for urgent research and innovation on medical countermeasures, $87 million for the Community Futures Network, and $59 million to help the Canadian Red Cross Society support individuals, families and communities during the pandemic.

Here are some of the other key initiatives included in these estimates that support a variety of Canadians priorities: $585 million for the Department of National Defence to fund the joint support ship project to replace vessels that have reached the end of their lifespans, and $481 million for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs to fund the federal Indian day schools settlement agreement.

In addition, $468 million is allocated to the Department of Indigenous Services to support the safety and well-being of first nations children and families living on reserve.

There is also $312 million for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and Department of Transport, which will fund aviation security screening services.

For my own department, called the Treasury Board Secretariat, the estimates include $396 million for the disability insurance plan; $82 million for previous requirements, in this case to cover the cost of negotiated wage adjustments; and $9 million to continue the Canadian Digital Service's operations.

The supplementary estimates enable the government to be transparent and accountable for how we plan to use public funds to provide the programs and services Canadians need. In accordance with the government's commitment to transparency, we continue to provide additional important information online regarding these supplementary estimates.

For example, we have published a detailed listing of legislated amounts reported through these estimates and a complete breakdown of planned expenditures by standard objects such as personnel, professional services and transfer payments. Our online information tools reflect our commitment to give Canadians a clear explanation of where public funds are going and how they are going to be spent.

Furthermore, the Minister of Finance committed to reporting to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance every two weeks about the key measures taken by the government to help Canadians.

Lastly, the government remains firmly committed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, as these supplementary estimates show.

The new spending plans in these supplementary estimates will help support people affected by the pandemic and maintain support for the economy and Canadians.

As we advance these plans, I would like to acknowledge the crucial work of all parliamentarians as we continue to work together for the future of our country and the wellness of all Canadians. Canadians are counting on us and expect all parliamentarians to be steady in their support as we navigate through these very challenging times. Let us honour their trust.

I would now be happy to answer any questions that members of this House may have.

[Glenn Purves, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you very much. I think I'm the only one who has an opening statement today.

Mr. Chair, I'm very happy to be here today to answer the committee's questions on the 2020-21 supplementary estimates (A).

As committee members know, each year the government tables two or three supplementary estimates that outline incremental spending plans to the main estimates. The current supplementary estimates (A), tabled by the president on June 2, 2020, seek approval of funding that is incremental to the 2020-21 main estimates, which were tabled this past February and which parliamentarians are currently studying.

These supplementary estimates present information on spending requirements across federal organizations that were either not sufficiently developed in time for inclusion in the main estimates or have since been updated to reflect new developments. In addition to summarizing the government's incremental financial requirements, these estimates also provide an overview of major funding requests and horizontal initiatives.

The information in the supplementary estimates ensures continued transparency and accountability on the use of public funds to deliver programs and services to Canadians. These documents give parliamentarians and this committee the opportunity to review and consider these spending amounts in advance of approving them.

They bring forward $6 billion in operating and capital expenditures, grants and contributions to be voted by Parliament for 42 federal organizations. Among these are public health and economic responses to the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, support to indigenous peoples across the country, the disability insurance plan for the public service and air travel security screening.

Karen Cahill, assistant secretary and chief financial officer for the Treasury Board Secretariat, and my colleague Marcia Santiago are happy to answer questions on any items should committee members have any.

In total in these supplementary estimates, voted spending measures represent about a 5% increase over those included in the 2020-21 main estimates tabled this winter. As you may recall, the 2020-21 main estimates requested the authority to spend $125 billion in voted budgetary expenditures and $87 billion in voted non-budgetary expenditures.

We also continue to publish information on statutory spending in these estimates. This ensures that all Canadians have the most complete information available on the planned spending of appropriation-dependent organizations.

For information purposes, these supplementary estimates include forecasts of statutory expenditures totalling $81 billion. These statutory expenditures forecasts provide information on emergency spending that was authorized by parts 3 and 8 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, which were presented, debated and passed in Parliament in March and April. Parliament is not being asked to vote on them again in supplementary estimates (A).

Mr. Chair, it's important to be clear on the difference between voted and statutory expenditures. I mentioned this a couple of months ago when I was at the committee and walking through how we map out the supply calendar.

Voted expenditures require annual approval from Parliament through an appropriation bill. This means that parliamentarians consider and approve the government's proposed spending plans in the estimates documents before they are authorized in an appropriation bill. Statutory amounts, on the other hand, are presented in the estimates for information, because they've already been approved by Parliament through other legislation.

To support transparency and accountability in government spending, significant additional detail on these supplementary estimates is available online. The government's online information tools reflect the commitment to give Canadians a clear explanation of where public funds are going and how they're being spent. As my colleagues Alison McDermott and Soren Halverson from the Department of Finance can attest, the Minister of Finance is committed to report on a biweekly basis to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on the key actions taken by the government to help Canadians.

Finally, as usual, the government will report on the actual spending through the public accounts after the conclusion of the fiscal year.

Again, I realize members are eager to get to the questions, so I will leave it there. I'm happy to receive them. Thank you.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to rise today to table a petition concerning conscience rights for palliative care providers, organizations and all health care professionals. The petitioners recognize that palliative care and euthanasia are entirely separate practices, distinct legally, clinically and philosophically.

They were compelled to call the government to action after the Delta Hospice Society faced sanctions from Fraser Health for refusing to offer on-site euthanasia to their patients. This is expressly against the conscience of the hospice.

Bill C-14, which legalized euthanasia, affirms that freedom of conscience and religion is still guaranteed in Canada. This petition calls on the government to do a better job ensuring this is the case. No person or organization should be compelled to act against its own conscience in this country.

[Tabatha Bull, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business]

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa and provided the following text:]

Aanii, Tabatha Bull n'indignikaaz, Nipissing n'indoonjibaa, Migizi dodem.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Hello. My name is Tabatha Bull. I am from Nipissing First Nation, and I belong to the Eagle Clan.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and all distinguished members of the committee.

Speaking to you from my home office, I acknowledge the land as the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples.

My name is Tabatha Bull, and I am the president and CEO of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, or CCAB. I'm honoured to speak here on behalf of our association regarding the government’s response to COVID-19.

More than any other time in history, indigenous issues need to be top of mind for the Government of Canada and the Canadian public. Since 1984, CCAB has been committed to the full participation of indigenous peoples in the Canadian economy. Our work is backed by data-driven research, recognized by the OECD as the gold standard on indigenous business data in Canada.

The coronavirus has quickly changed our business and personal lives, but we are all in this together and we must work collaboratively to repair the economic damage and recommit ourselves to reconciliation and a prosperous indigenous economy for the benefit of all Canadians. CCAB is working in collaboration with the federal government to make sure indigenous businesses across the country have the resources and information they need to make it through the economic downturn from COVID-19.

Understanding the unprecedented efforts that government has made in providing supports and programs at a faster pace than ever before, many of the programs that were launched initially excluded indigenous business. While the government has been responsive to our advocacy to close the gaps, the associated delay creates an increased negative impact that is unique to indigenous business. In order to level the playing field, the whole of government must put indigenous businesses at the forefront to ensure they are able to access government programs as they are rolled out, to ensure immediate inclusion.

In collaboration with leading national indigenous organizations, CCAB recently launched the COVID-19 indigenous business survey as part of a COVID-19 response task force. The survey aimed to understand the unique impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on indigenous-owned businesses in Canada, to identify the current barriers and gaps with government programming, and to gauge the capacity of indigenous businesses to supply PPE to the federal government.

More than 90% of the 843 indigenous business respondents have experienced a very or somewhat negative impact on their business operations. Almost 30% of indigenous business respondents have reportedly shut down their offices and facilities, while almost 20% have closed their business entirely due to COVID-19. Forty-four per cent of indigenous businesses have indicated that without support they are likely to fail in three to six months, in addition to the 12% that have already or will close their business within a month.

The loss of indigenous businesses on this scale has a direct adverse impact on the indigenous economy, and in turn indigenous communities. This is precisely why any delay must be avoided.

I would like to share with you some examples of gaps in the programming the Government of Canada announced to support businesses through this pandemic.

First, the initial eligibility of CEBA allowed for only taxable income to be counted toward payroll eligibility. We appreciate that this eligibility criteria was changed quickly upon the issue being raised; however, this delayed the ability for many on-reserve indigenous businesses to access the program.

Second, Bill C-14 initially left many large indigenous-owned businesses ineligible for the wage subsidy. CCAB and many of our members identified this potential gap in advance of Bill C-14. We appreciate this was addressed on May 15; however, this meant that some indigenous-owned businesses were delayed by three weeks in applying for the wage subsidy.

Another gap still exists in that the BCAP cannot be utilized for the payment of dividends. This presents a barrier to many indigenous economic development corporations that support vital social programming for their affiliated nations through the payment of dividends to them as shareholders. The point again is that indigenous business must be the government’s first thought, not an afterthought, when devising programs to aid all Canadian businesses.

Turning to the topic of government procurement, there are indigenous businesses that can readily provide supplies or equipment to meet Canada’s medical needs or that have the capability to rapidly scale up or pivot production to provide PPE. The CCAB and other organizations have provided lists of such indigenous businesses to numerous federal departments through the course of the pandemic. However, not one of them has secured a procurement contract to date.

Last year was CCAB’s second year of our Supply Change aboriginal procurement initiative, a driving force behind the groundbreaking federal government mandate to set an indigenous procurement target of at least 5%. The federal government and national indigenous organizations can and should continue working together to connect indigenous suppliers to procurement officers. Efforts to increase procurement opportunities for indigenous businesses, now and in the future, will prove mutually beneficial for business and government, and help indigenous businesses stay afloat during the pandemic and expected recovery period.

It's imperative that all federal departments put indigenous business considerations first. Vast opportunities exist to support the indigenous economic recovery, not only through procurement but in future programs such as shovel-ready projects. We cannot allow COVID-19 to set us backwards on our collective path to close the gap.

CCAB is committed to continuing to work in collaboration with the government, our members and partners to help rebuild and strengthen the path towards a healthy and prosperous Canada.

Thank you all for your time. Meegwetch.

Proceedings of the House and Committees

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in this debate today. As my colleagues will agree, these are unprecedented times, which calls for a government response to match.

This is a situation unlike any we have ever experienced in our lifetimes, and I am proud of how our government has responded. When we looked at what was happening around the world and the terrifying effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in countries like Italy and Spain, it was clear that something drastic needed to be done.

Beginning on March 13, and in the following days and weeks, most of Canada was put on pause. In response, our government worked fervently to bring forward a package of measures that would allow Canada to survive while much of the economy was paused, to allow for the putting into place of public health measures needed to avoid the worst impacts of COVID-19.

On March 24, we introduced Bill C-13, which included a comprehensive suite of measures to ensure that individuals, families and businesses could withstand the shocks of a paused economy, such as we have never experienced. My colleagues and the members opposite will remember those negotiations, which spanned long into the night, to ensure that we could pass legislation with much-needed measures as quickly as possible.

Through Bill C-13, we introduced, among other measures, the now well-known Canada emergency response benefit, the CERB. Since this benefit was put in place, there have been more than eight million individuals, for a total of almost $39 billion in benefits. These are the numbers as of May 21. Canadians who had lost their jobs and did not qualify for employment insurance, and who would not have had money for rent or food, are now receiving the CERB. Due to the CERB, a single mom of two who worked part time in a nail salon did not have to worry about putting food on the table when she lost her job because of COVID-19.

Thanks to the Canada emergency response benefit, many Canadians who were worried about their finances received the support they need to get through this period of uncertainty.

We also introduced measures to help the most vulnerable Canadians. We amended the Income Tax Act to issue a supplementary GST/HST credit payment and an extra Canada child benefit payment.

Under these measures, a couple with one daughter will get an additional Canada child benefit payment of $300, on top of an additional GST/HST credit payment of $733, which is the maximum amount, given their lower income.

We saw that investment markets were being impacted by the pandemic. Seniors are worried about their savings. This is why we also reduced the amount that seniors are required to withdraw from the registered retirement income fund.

Knowing that students were facing particular worries of their own, we provided relief for students to receive federal student financial assistance, and we paused the requirement for paying back interest and capital on federal student loans.

Through Bill C-13, we introduced measures to allow for transfers of funds to provinces and territories for expenses related to COVID-19. We also allowed for certain exceptional regulatory powers, notably in relation to employment insurance, and removed the requirement for providing a medical certificate for sick leave.

We also introduced a 10% temporary wage subsidy for small employers for a period of three months. As we observed the number of CERB applicants and how the economic situation was unfolding, we introduced a new bill, Bill C-14, on April 11, with a new Canada emergency wage subsidy that allowed for a 75% wage subsidy for eligible employers. This helped ensure that companies could retain their employees, rather than be forced to lay them off. Due to the CEWS, Canadian business owners can apply for support to help them keep their employees on the payroll until business picks up again.

On March 24, when we tabled Bill C-13, we did not know how bad the situation would get, how long the public health measures would have to stay in place, or the exact impact on the economy and Canadians. On May 1, once it had become clear that the situation would continue through the summer, we tabled Bill C-15 to create the Canada emergency student benefit.

Many students depend on summer jobs to pay their tuition and cover their expenses, such as rent and groceries. In short, they need the money to meet their needs. It was becoming clear that many of them would not be able to get jobs this summer.

Finally, on May 15, we introduced Bill C-16 to support our dairy farmers.

Our government introduced four bills in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency in Canada. These bills contained unprecedented measures, several of which I mentioned earlier. They were all developed in exceptional time frames, with public servants working all hours to make them possible. I would like to thank those hard-working public servants, many of them my constituents, for working around the clock to serve Canadians.

Our government has been quick to act and has made adjustments where necessary, modifying or introducing new measures as the situation evolved. We have based our decisions on available evidence, looking for ways to get money to those who need it as soon as possible. We have also worked collaboratively with the members opposite. I recall being on phone calls every day with officials hearing how hard members from all parties were advocating for their constituents. We negotiated the content of the bills prior to their introduction.

It is difficult to predict all of the effects that the pandemic will have on the economy and the population. Some flexibility is required to be able to respond quickly. Given the circumstances, the government continues to ensure that it can respond quickly and appropriately. Many of the measures that have been put in place will expire by the end of October. Until then, we will continue to take all of the necessary measures to support the country.

In response to those who are comparing us to other countries around the world that are having the same problems, I want to say that every country's situation is different. We have our own regional challenges, distinct populations and programs that cannot necessarily be compared to those found elsewhere. Our unique context requires us to develop our own solutions, and that is what we have done.

It would be difficult for somebody to disagree with the fact that what the government has done through Bill C-13, Bill C-14, Bill C-15 and Bill C-16 has never been achieved before in the span of three months. During that time we have introduced and passed four distinct pieces of legislation. We have increased existing benefits, we have developed new benefits and we have given individuals financial breaks. Because of the measures the government has initiated, our constituents are being supported during these times of great uncertainty.

I believe our government has acted quickly and purposefully, with the best interests of Canadians and Canadian businesses being central to the measures we have advanced. We have demonstrated that Canadians can rely on the government to be there in times of need, in times of crisis.

As the effects of the pandemic continue to unfold, we will ensure that the measures put in place meet the needs of Canadians. If new gaps or problems emerge, we will do as we have done thus far and listen to all parliamentarians and all Canadians and bring forward measures as needed.

[Paul-Émile Cloutier, President and Chief Executive Officer, HealthCareCAN]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

HealthCareCAN is an organization that represents Canadian research hospitals, regional health authorities and health organizations. My thanks to the committee members for the opportunity to present to you today with my colleague, Dr. Brad Wouters, of UHN, with whom I will split HealthCareCAN's presentation time.

The research community, regional authorities and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research actively contributed to the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 crisis has already exposed the gaps in the public health system, and the health care system more broadly. One of those gaps is the fact that Canadian health care facilities, designed for another time and place, are among the oldest public infrastructure in use today, with approximately 48% of facilities being over 50 years old. The picture in bigger cities is even worse, where 69% of health care institutions are over 50 years old.

Our hospitals are facing enormous budget constraints, which very often force them to postpone important maintenance work that is sorely needed to ensure quality patient care. We haven't adequately funded the maintenance of our health care facilities.

Once COVID-19 is behind us, we must complete the unfinished business of medicare by closing the gaps in long-term care and our traditional institutional health care system. As health care leaders now turn to addressing the backlog created by the huge numbers of cases and procedures delayed in the face of the pandemic, our focus must be on the building of surge capacity into our health care. This will require much more strategic support from the federal government as we work to addressing the coming surge of patients waiting for different types of care due to COVID-19.

Another area of deep concern for Canada's health care organization is the very fragile state of Canada's health research enterprise. Much of Canada's health research talent is employed by research institutes based in health care facilities. That talent drives a $3-billion annual sector of our economy, employing nearly 60,000 highly skilled researchers and staff nationwide. This not-for-profit sector accounts for the majority of the biomedical research that is conducted in Canada, including current essential research and clinical trials around COVID-19.

Hospital-based research drives improvements in disease prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care for Canadians. Here are two examples. Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute has nine major centres, known internationally for their research excellence. It employs over 1,500 personnel engaged in research, 900 principal investigators, and graduate and post-graduate training conducting clinical and discovery sciences. The other example is the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, which is also world renowned, with over 1,200 graduate and post-graduate trainees, and 440 researchers and staff. It is recognized for groundbreaking work relating to health outcomes in transplantation, infectious diseases and patient self-monitoring applications, among many others.

That workforce is paid through a combination of public and private research grants, charitable donations, allotments from foundations, and contracts for clinical trials which are almost all funded privately by biotech and pharmaceutical companies. That revenue base has all but evaporated in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. All research and clinical trials not related to COVID-19 have been either suspended or cancelled, with severe implications for the sector's capacity to employ essential research staff and contribute crucial research toward improving Canadians' health outcomes.

The health research institutes welcomed the announcement of the Canada emergency wage subsidy, but they were very disappointed to learn that, under Bill C-14, they wouldn't have access to it.

[Glenn Purves]

What I can say from our vantage point at Treasury Board.... Again, you have to remember that when we talk about spending authority—the ability to actually spend dollars—a lot of the legislation that has already been passed in Bills C-13, C-14 and C-15 provides for that authority. There is additional information—details and pieces of legislation—that also provides the policy and the program authorities pertaining to the actual spending of this funding.

In circumstances where an existing program or transfer payment is being augmented, or in any other context, Treasury Board looks at it from the standpoint of the policy, the program authorities and the operational authorities to make sure that if there's anything in their line of sight that they need to consider with respect to what has been put on the table in terms of the spending, they will take that into account. Treasury Board meetings take place in order to examine these issues and approve them, but only where needed and where there are gaps.

There are also considerations from many of these programs where ministers themselves have authorities to authorize and make adjustments. In those instances, the Treasury Board Secretariat works closely with the departmental community to ensure that it's done on a legal basis so that it reflects the legal mandate as set out.

Again, there are lots of programs and lots of initiatives that are being supported. The Treasury Board role is about ensuring that from a policy standpoint, from a program authority standpoint, it's to the code.

Alison, do you want to—?

[Ian McCowan, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Governance Secretariat, Privy Council Office]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, I never thought I'd get a chance to appear in front of a parliamentary committee from my dining room. There can be no doubt we're in some interesting times. That said, it's an honour to appear to try to sort through how best to approach the pandemic.

I've been asked to provide some remarks as part of a panel from some other jurisdictions, and I'm going to try to fit into that framework by focusing my remarks on three areas: first, how government business has adapted; second, how cabinet has adapted; and finally, how parliaments seem to be adapting, particularly ours.

In each of these areas, I'm going to try to draw on what we're seeing in provincial and international experiences. Clearly, different jurisdictions are adopting different approaches suited to their own particular context. That said, comparisons are always helpful, and I'll do my best to sketch out a few that may be of interest.

I should say at the outset that all jurisdictions have slightly different parliamentary traditions, and they're in slightly different positions combatting the virus. We're all trying to figure out how to find the best path forward and stay true to our democratic traditions. I should also say at the outset that, from a governance perspective, it seems clear that all levels of government in Canada have come together collaboratively to combat COVID-19.

Before I turn to Parliament, I have a couple of comments on government operations. They are going to have to be, of necessity, comments at a high level. The story of the pandemic is still being written, and governance energy is still focused on managing it. Once we get through the pandemic and the smoke clears a little bit, there will undoubtedly be a chance for the world to look at lessons learned from this extraordinary crisis. In that context, I note that in addition to this committee's examination of the ways and means of how the House can now meet virtually, there are now, after yesterday, seven House committees authorized to undertake reviews of the effectiveness of government measures to address the pandemic, and in like manner, the Senate has authorized both the finance and the social affairs committees to study the implementation of COVID-19 measures. The Senate is also going to have a special committee do a retrospective study in the fall.

Even at this early stage, it is already apparent from a public service perspective that the pandemic has forced an acceleration of some existing trends that we had in government operations. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the use of technology to work remotely. Literally overnight, work groups across government, like most of their private sector peers, have been required to work from home. This acceleration of existing trends is a huge, unplanned experiment in teleworking and video conferencing. Of course, it's too early to determine conclusively the emerging best practices from the experiment, but some early returns from it seem promising, with potential implications not just for continuity planning but more generally for how government goes about its business day to day.

As with a lot of the innovations that are taking place, we're going to have to do lessons learned reviews to see what practitioners feel are the lessons that can be pulled from the new technology. This might be particularly important in terms of organizations with a national footprint that need to be connected regionally but also, most importantly, with their citizens.

On government services, public service has needed to operate in new ways to match the urgency of the crisis in order to get desperately needed supports out the door. That is happening.

Governments throughout the world have been challenged to transform their practices in such areas as improving health care systems, delivering supports, speeding up procurement, engaging the public, securing borders and ramping up coronavirus testing. There are best practices emerging in all these areas. Some of the best practices will be Canadian, but it would be myopic if we limited our learning experience to our own borders, even if you add in the very good examples of excellent provincial and municipal innovation in Canada.

In the race to speedily identify best practices, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development is an important source of good ideas. As they did following the great recession of 2008, the OECD is assessing country practices in response to COVID-19 with a view to identifying best practices to inform government decision-making. They've already developed a country policy tracker, which charts the actions of more than 90 nation-states to combat COVID-19. In addition, they've developed 12 streams of work to assess country responses for issues such as resilient health care, inequalities and social challenges. This is a good example of the type of international experience and lessons learned exercises we're going to be following closely.

In regard to cabinet, approaches to conducting cabinet business have also been agile. Since the outset of the pandemic, including the need for the Prime Minister to self-isolate in March, cabinet operations have changed in a number of ways.

On March 4, the Prime Minister created the cabinet committee on the federal response to the coronavirus disease, or the COVID-19 committee. This committee is chaired, as you know, by the Deputy Prime Minister, and it has been very active. Their meeting rate has been higher than the norm for a cabinet committee, in keeping with the nature of the crisis we're facing. Another important feature from a governance perspective has been the government's extensive use of first ministers' meetings to ensure a close link and collaboration with the provinces, in addition to innumerable bilateral discussions. This helps ensure a national integrated response, as different orders of governments have managed to work very successfully together.

In terms of full cabinet operations, they've had to rely on technology, as have all other organizations in society, given both the realities of social distancing and the challenges that all of you face as parliamentarians from across the country.

For parliaments around the world, many of the same issues are arising. All jurisdictions are trying to think through the implications of COVID-19 for their operations.

I'm going to touch on four key issues in terms of what seemed to be commonalities across the board: reduced sitting times and frequency, implementing social distancing, passing emergency legislation, and the use of virtual meetings.

First, it's interesting to note that most legislatures in Canada and around the world responded to the onset of the COVID-19 crisis by adjourning or reducing hours, thereby adhering to the medical guidance. This includes all provincial legislatures that were in session at the time. For those provincial legislatures that were not in session when the virus hit, the Speaker made a determination to adjourn, as happened in P.E.I., where the Speaker cancelled the spring session. All provincial legislatures stand adjourned.

Another common feature of the federal, provincial and international response has been to consider emergency legislation. As you know, this happened at the federal level with the passing of Bill C-13 and Bill C-14, and again this week with another bill. It also happened in Alberta, with the passing of Bill 10, the Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act. Passage of emergency legislation has occurred in other provinces. Ontario—

Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting Canada emergency student benefits. This is another bill in response to the urgency of the COVID-19 crisis, the great pandemic. It is an unparalleled and unprecedented situation.

We have never been through anything like this before, and we are seeing level after level and aspect after aspect of debate taking place in this place on different pieces of legislation as we rush to fill the gaps.

There are a few things to say about this, but before I do, I want to acknowledge that I am honoured to speak today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation and express to it our enormous thanks for its patience and generosity. Meegwetch.

We are in the midst of something that we can say is unknown to us, but I was very taken with the analysis by the parliamentary budget office, and I want to speak to that for just a moment.

I am hearing from some constituents who are saying, “Yes, we need all the help we can get right now in this pandemic, but who's going to pay the bills for all of this? What are we going to do when the bills fall due?” I think it's important to take a moment there.

I have been privileged to participate in the finance committee meetings and to ask questions of the Bank of Canada governor, Stephen Poloz, who with his team has done an amazing job; to have an insight into what governments all around the world are doing; and to let Canadians know that we are certainly not alone in this. I think it is obvious that we are not alone in fighting the public health crisis that is COVID-19, but we are also not alone in deciding that there are certain prescriptions for an economy that will help us all.

I do not think Canadians have noticed the absence of certain things, but let me just say that there is an absence of things that we would not want to see, such as runs on the bank. We are not seeing people lining up, saying, “I better get my money out right now. I don't trust the system.” We are not hearing people say, “I can't make my credit card bills because of usury levels of interest rates that have been hiked up.” We have seen that rates are supposed to be going down. A lot of these things we are seeing are the result of very specific prescriptions that are being followed not just by the Bank of Canada but by central banks around the world.

To colleagues and friends here, I recommend the International Monetary Fund review of what is going on. The trillions of dollars that are being spent by governments around the world are, in a sense, backstopped by monetary policy that says we can get through this, but we have to do a couple of things. We are going to ramp down interest rates to as close to zero as possible, so that the cost of borrowing goes down. We are going to introduce more liquidity into the system with a number of measures, including the Bank of Canada's purchase of federal bonds and provincial bonds in the billions and billions of dollars. Bond purchases by our central bank do not add to debt or deficit. They increase liquidity and keep cash in the system so that we do not have a credit crunch.

It is important to note that we have been through situations when things were much worse for our financial picture than now. Even when we get through this, after all the money that is planned to be spent, our debt-to-GDP ratio will not be nearly as bad as it was in the early 1990s.

We have the International Monetary Fund report and the report from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. No one is sanguine about this, but if we read the International Monetary Fund reports and the report from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as Canadians we are left knowing this: We are not in this alone, and the measures taken by the central bank and by the finance minister and the government are so far not putting us in financial peril.

One of the things we do not mention enough is that we are in a very privileged position. An analogy used by Stephen Poloz when he was speaking to the finance committee is that just as COVID-19 will be much harder for people who have underlying health conditions and do not go into this situation in a healthy state, so too are nation states more at risk when they do not go in healthy. However, we are in a privileged position. Our debt-to-GDP ratio was the lowest in the G7 when this crisis hit, and we had historic levels of employment. Certainly in my living memory, it is the closest thing to full employment that I have ever seen in Canada. This is what the Governor of the Bank of Canada meant when he talked about fiscal firepower, and the finance minister has used the same term.

That is not to say that this is not a deep economic crisis that has befallen us, along with a big deep public health care crisis that has befallen us, but just to say that it is not piling on debt, while being a deficit for sure.

The PBO suggested that when spending is temporary, such as it is now, we would most likely expect to bounce back as we did at the end of the Second World War with a large surplus in 1947, but only if certain conditions are upheld. One is that we need to hold the country together. I am so grateful to every province when I hear the deputy prime minister say that there are weekly calls with every premier of every province and territory with the Prime Minister. That is a very healthy thing.

I think it is very important that no matter how much sparring is going on today while we are meeting in person, behind the scenes there is tremendous collaboration and no one party can claim credit for things. Yes, the Greens advocated that 10% was not enough and we had to have 75% in the wage subsidy, and that was done. I think that is a credit to all of us in this place, those who came to it more slowly and those who advocated first. We have to work together or we will not get through this.

Back to where we are in terms of our financial position, I am hoping we do not bounce back in the sense that we go to an economy such as we had before, which had glaring inequities. I hope that we bounce forward and that when the pandemic is over that we look at an economic prescription for the country that is consistent with the urgency of the climate crisis, that is consistent with getting people back to work, but doing things like retrofitting our buildings to make sure that we maximize energy efficiency, even that every building could produce more energy that it uses. That is doable. Also, that we have an electricity grid that works as a national energy corridor east to west, north to south, and it is 100% renewable energy.

There are things that we can do so that we can come out of this crisis with, again, closer to full employment and with less social inequity, with clear action to ensure our seniors are well housed and well cared for, with clear action to make sure that we do not have a social safety net full of holes but that it is repaired, and that we move toward guaranteed livable income.

I just made a note of the most recent book title that came to my attention. I commend it to my friends in the Conservative Party because it was written by a Conservative. Senator Hugh Segal's new book is out and it is called Bootstraps Need Boots: One Tory's Lonely Fight to End Poverty in Canada. I would love to see that fight be less lonely and I thank our former parliamentary colleague, former Senator Hugh Segal, for bringing forward a book at a time when the topic of guaranteed livable income, or universal basic income, has never been as hot a topic.

I will pause parenthetically because of my recent exchange with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe about the fact that I say guaranteed livable income and others say universal basic income. We have adopted, as Greens, the term “guaranteed livable income” because if we want to make sure that the amount that every Canadian receives actually creates a situation in which they find their situation livable and not beyond some level of poverty from which they are moderately better off than they were before. That is a debate for another day.

We are here to look at Bill C-15. It is coming again, as we have seen, in waves, in response to the pandemic. We can look at it and see that first the government looked at people who did not qualify for EI. What did we do? The Canada emergency benefit, CERB, came in first and then we had to make sure that that amount of money was improved upon by looking at things like reducing student loans. Bill C-13 in this place had 19 different parts and was dealing with the impacts on individual Canadians. There was not enough there for small business. We have been pushing harder on that. Bill C-14 gave us more, looking at programs to help small business with access to loans to cover their rent.

New announcements are made almost daily and we still have people falling through the cracks. We still have small business falling through the cracks. However, some of the people falling through the cracks who are helped today are our students. It is terribly important to recognize that for many students who did not earn $5,000 last year, they will not qualify for the CERB. For some other reasons, they certainly cannot expect to find jobs this summer in their chosen field and the Canada summer jobs program cannot absorb the number of people who need the income supports right now and who need enough money to live on.

Many students are, as we have heard today, people living as a married couple with children, or a single mom with children also going to school. Currently, the benefit provided in this piece of legislation is not adequate to help all of those people with their bills because the amount of money in the initial offering is $1,250.

However, I note that under this legislation the minister may make changes by regulation to improve that. That of course is the minister of employment and social development. This piece of legislation requires that the minister receive approval by the Minister of Finance to make changes to the amount received or the weeks it is available.

Personally, I would have gone in the other direction with this legislation. The Conservatives have made it more restrictive. I would have made sure that the minister for employment and social development could make those changes without permission from the Minister of Finance because they make so much sense.

I want to pause because I note the minister for employment and social development has been with us all day today. I want to thank her for her hard work. I know she has been working around the clock like many ministers. I know she is a mom with kids at home. Like all of my friends with kids still at home, keeping the kids occupied while also being on a computer and the phone day and night to make some of the most massive changes in that portfolio and in living memory is daunting. I want to thank her for her diligence.

The missing piece in this that still concerns the Greens greatly is what we are doing for international students. This legislation applies to a person who is a Canadian citizen, it certainly applies to indigenous Canadians, it applies to permanent residents as found under the definitions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or a protected person under the meaning of that act as well. What do we do about our international students?

We have something in the order of potentially half a million international students in this country now. The international students program contributes over $20 billion to our economy and leads to the employment of 170,000 Canadians. As we all know, international students pay far higher fees. They come into Canada and of course contribute to our economy by paying their rent and buying their groceries.

I do not know how many members saw on CBC a few nights back a young woman being interviewed about her experience as a foreign student in Canada. Her landlady was telling her not to worry and that if she could not pay the rent, she would not charge her. She was also giving her groceries. That is a really wonderful Canadian moment. It brought tears to my eyes to hear this young student saying that if it were not for her landlady, she would have neither a roof over her head nor food.

What about the international students who do not have a landlady like that? So far here are their options. If they made $5,000 last year, they can qualify for the CERB, but if they did not make that amount of money, they will not qualify. If they are an international student and also a permanent resident, they would qualify under today's bill for the emergency benefit for students. However, if they are not a permanent resident, if they only have their student visa to be in Canada, they would not qualify.

We still have a problem. It has been identified by the Canadian Federation of Students, which is asking for improvements to this bill. It has two asks. One is that it be $2,000 a month, which is something the minister can do by regulation after this bill passes, but we would have to come back here and re-legislate this to change the definition of “student” in order to allow it to apply to an international student, unless we tinker with one of the other programs such as the Canada summer jobs program. There is still a deep concern for people who are falling between the cracks.

For the simplest way to avoid falling between the cracks, I go back to my earlier reference to a guaranteed livable income. That would be one way of making sure there would be no one in Canada so economically insecure they would be pushed out of the place they are living, unable to afford food, and unable to find a job and not fitting any of the existing programs.

I am grateful for the effort of everybody in the cabinet who have been working so hard, as well as all the civil servants who clearly have been working. As members of Parliament, we are on the phone with them on Saturdays and Sundays. If Canadians do not know, everybody I can find within any government department is working really long days seven days a week.

I have worked with them on rescuing Canadians stranded in other countries. It is extraordinary. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the whole team at Global Affairs Canada seem to have converted themselves into what I have been doing at home myself, part-time travel agent, but to rescue over 20,000 Canadians from over 144 countries is a monumental feat. However, I see the same level of hard work happening when we have Sunday phone calls and my questions are being answered by officials in the Department of Finance, correctional services or indigenous services.

By thanking everyone involved, I am not saying everything is perfect, but for Canadians watching or listening to this now, they need to know that thousands of people are working in ways that I have never seen a government work ever in my life. It is important to say to them, as we say to our front-line health care workers, to the people in our neighbourhoods who are still stocking the grocery store shelves, who are driving the trucks, who are planting their fields now so we will have food in this country, to everybody who is doing the work while most of us are locked up at home, we are deeply grateful, including all of the civil servants who I know have been knocking themselves out.

I heard a story from a friend about a family Zoom call and the husband of one of the people on the family Zoom call mentioned that his wife was working in the federal civil service. He started to say “my wife”, broke down and started crying. There is a level of strain on families working in the federal civil service and I want to pause to say thanks to everyone who is working so hard.

When I mention the gaps, it is not to say this is not good enough and I am angry with the government. It is to say we have to keep working. Maybe, in hindsight, we can agree it would have been better to bring in one measure, as we have been advocating, but I am not angry the Government of Canada has failed to do that so far. What we need to do is help each other as much as possible. I think that means being kind toward those who we see are falling short of what needs to be done, recognizing that nobody has ever worked this hard ever. If we hold together as a country and keep our partisanship to a bare minimum, though I would actually like to see it erased into a nothingness that says we are all in this together, there is plenty of time when it is over to try to get a gotcha point in to try to score something for television, but right now we need to be deeply grateful that we are in this country.

We could be anywhere around the world and trying to rescue people. Knowing what is going on in places like Ecuador and India, knowing what might happen in the continent of Africa, knowing how hard people are working and knowing how relatively safe we all are, I know every single person in this place recognizes how very fortunate we are as a country and as a people.

I also ask us to think in this moment about whether we cannot do more for the developing world, if we cannot do more to avert famine, if cannot see ourselves stretching ourselves a bit more. However, for now, I will be voting for this legislation, but with a very strong plea that we do more for our international students, that we figure a program out where it is needed, so that no student falls through the cracks.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is Bill C-15. Bill C-13 was the first wage subsidy and first emergency bill, which the government did not get right. It listened and brought Bill C-14 forward. I am hoping, therefore, that we might see a bill C-16 so that we can actually fix this new project.

With half of the $9 billion the Liberals are committing overall to student relief, they could massively increase the Canada summer jobs grant and allow half of that investment to trickle down to small and medium-sized businesses and farms and provide relief for many of the front-line essential services, as well as jobs for students in return for the money. There would still be enough money left over for a $1,000 tuition credit for all students, at half of the overall cost of this program.

For the minister in charge of the middle class and those working hard to join it, why is the government's program so structured to prevent people from working? We should incentivize work, and wherever that government investment in students can trickle down to small businesses and farms, why would we not do it that way?