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.

An Act to Provide Further Support in Response to COVID-19

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here. I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. He has always got such incredibly intelligent debate and I always look forward to his words.

I am so thrilled to be back in the House. I very much thank the people of Calgary Midnapore for returning me to the chamber with the highest percentile of votes in Calgary, the highest percentile of votes in any major centre and what I am most proud of, the greatest number of votes for any woman in Canada. It is an honour to be back in the House.

I would also like to take a moment to thank my team, which was so incredible throughout the election. I would like to thank my campaign manager, Mr. Justin Gotfried, the son of Richard Gotfried, the MLA for Calgary-Fish Creek. I would also like the thank Katie Cook who was my communications point person and my sister Holly Schramm who served as my official agent, keeping me in line and out of trouble with those books. I would also like to thank all the incredible volunteers. I would like to thank my parents Keith and Angie Schramm, who are still my constituents to this day, and my very good friends who I grew up with in Calgary Midnapore who put out signs and raised money for me, Joanna Shaw Morin and Caroline Baynes. Of course, I cannot go without thanking the loves of my life, my husband James Kusie and my beautiful son Edward Kusie who supported me in this journey back to the House of Commons. I thank them and I love them.

Again, I thank so much the people of Calgary Midnapore.

Here we are again in the House debating legislation on new benefits. As the member across the aisle indicated, yes, we on this side of the House were very collaborative and certainly went along with the government's requests for funds and for programs, because we care about Canadians. We are compassionate individuals and we knew that was what Canadians needed at that time.

I will give a brief history of all the times we went along with the legislation despite concerns because we knew that was what Canadians needed at that time.

Let us go back to March 13, 2020, when Bill C-12, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, was presented; one billion dollars in funding for approval. We did not put up a fuss on this side. In fact, it received royal assent the very same day.

Let us go forward a little further into time. On March 24, 2020, we had Bill C-13, an act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19. As the shadow minister for families and social development at that time, it was legislation to fix the shortcomings that the government missed at the time it created the original legislation, but, one again, we did not put up a fuss on this side of the House. We recognized that was what Canadians needed at that time. That bill also received approval from the House that day and royal assent the very next day.

On April 11, 2020, there was a second act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19, Bill C-14,, which was CEWS, and we know there were certainly a lot of faults with that at the beginning, as well as the CERB. It received royal assent the very same day. Again, I am just pointing out the collaboration this side of the House had always provided the government in getting Canadians the benefits they need.

Here we are again today, being asked to approve Bill C-2, but we are in a different time. We are heading out of the pandemic. I recognize we have the omicron variant, and I hope no fifth wave, but Canadians want to move forward into the future.

Therefore, I have a message for the government today, and it is that you do not get a blank cheque.

It is time to move our economy from benefits to jobs, and I am very proud to say that as the new shadow minister for employment future workforce development and disability inclusion. We currently have one million job openings, with a 16.4% jump from August to September alone. That is incredible.

One-fifth of those are in the hospitality sector. Other major vacancies occur in these critical health care sectors, including nurses and psychiatric nurses. We have heard in the House about the crisis in the trucking industry, how the average age of truckers is near retirement age and how there are just no new workers coming forward to take these positions. In fact, over one-third of employers have indicated that they have limited their growth in general as a result of not being able to find employees.

This affects every region and so many sectors. I said this when I made my request for an emergency debate on Friday to have a discussion about the shortage of workers in the country. It affects Quebec, the manufacturing sector in Ontario and of course the tourism sector in my home province of Alberta. For this reason again, I say again to the members opposite, “You don't get a blank cheque.”

I would like to move on to something that is very uncomfortable to talk about, and that is the fraud that we have seen with these programs. In fact, FINTRAC reported that there were organized criminals who knowingly and actively defrauded the government with both CERB and CEBA programs, that social media was used to recruit people, and in fact that stolen identifications were used in an effort to get these funds. There was the use of prepaid cards to prevent a paper trail, so they were very smart about this. They knew what they were doing, unfortunately for the government.

In addition, there were individuals who received these funds while not even living in Canada and in fact living in jurisdictions of concern, countries that posed a higher money-laundering or terrorist financing risk. From the start of 2020 until October 31, 30,095 suspicious transaction reports were registered for COVID-related benefits. That is over 30,000. Sadly, 30,000 of those also dealt with human trafficking and drugs, two issues on which the government has failed, but prosecutions are unlikely. Why? In July 2020, the Canadian Revenue Agency advised the House of Commons finance committee that the program had been targeted by organized crime and that Canada does not prioritize the investigation and prosecution of financial criminals. In fact, in the past decade alone, Canada has secured fewer than, wait for it, fewer than 50 laundering convictions. The government is not taking organized crime seriously. Again, for that reason, “You don't get a blank cheque.”

Finally, we in this country need to get a grip on inflation. Canada is among the top 10 countries with the highest inflation rates in the G20. Canada has the second-highest inflation rate in the G7, second only to the United States, which I know the government thought it would get along better with, since the Liberals still talk about the previous president all the time. Rates are predicted to reach 4.9% this month, a three-decade high, and are expected to stay there well into 2022.

Some provinces, including Prince Edward Island, are experiencing rates as high as 6.3%, and unfortunately it is low-income Canadians who spend one-third on shelter and 15% on food and higher energy prices. We cannot control the pandemic, but we can control spending. There was $74 billion on the CRB and there will be $8 billion for Bill C-2 if it passes. We should investigate the fraud. We should evaluate this further. Perhaps we should bring it to the finance committee if the Liberals are willing to strike the finance committee up again, but my final message to them is this: “You don't get a blank cheque.”

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.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief.

Earlier on in the debate, specific to this amendment, Mr. Maloney made reference to the fact that the review of Bill C-14 didn't get done because of the pandemic, and I respect that.

However, I have to say that.... I watch Sunday football, and I watch referees review calls on the field all the time during the pandemic. I watch hockey, and I watch referees review calls all the time during the pandemic. When I was a firefighter, we reviewed the actions on scene after incidents all the time, and I'm sure it still happens during the pandemic. I review my bank statement during the pandemic.

I would suggest that it's not because of the pandemic that this review did not get done. Let's call a spade a spade here. First of all, it's because the government decided to prorogue Parliament, so that's really why it didn't happen.

My point is this. If we talk about sports and we talk about my bank statement, as two examples, and if today, during the pandemic, these reviews are still being done, is Bill C-7, which deals with life-and-death decisions, not more important than sports and my bank statement? Absolutely, it is.

Mr. Thériault has brought forward what I believe is a great amendment. It at least gives us one more safeguard, for this committee to look back and review. Some of us won't be here in the next committee, so it provides that next level of safeguard, because quite frankly, Bill C-14 didn't get reviewed. It's vital, and it's due diligence on our behalf to see that going forward.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be fairly brief. I see the time we're running up against here.

Basically, I feel reviews are necessary. This is, as I referred to the other day, very significant, life-altering, pan-Canadian legislation that we're discussing. These are issues about procedures that a few short years ago weren't even allowed. We went into a whole new territory.

Now, with the changes to Bill C-14, which I was not in Parliament to debate, many of what I would have thought—and obviously my side of the table believes—were reasonable safeguards have been rejected by others here on the committee and by their parties.

I don't quite understand, to be honest, the comments of my colleague Mr. Garrison that this goes against what he is hoping for. Maybe I didn't understand clearly what my friend had to say, but the amendment put forward by Monsieur Thériault speaks of it being within 12 months. It doesn't say after 12 months or at 12 months. It says within one year.

It also says that it will “be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose.” As I read this reasonable amendment, which I support, what is being sought here is a mandated review within 12 months, which may be undertaken by this committee or it may be undertaken by a special committee. The point here is that there's a mandate to make sure it happens.

Again, I thought Monsieur Thériault's comments were very good, that this complements the legislation we are clearly moving towards passing here. It sends a clear signal to those wondering, on both sides of all these arguments, where we're going. It sends a clear signal, to those who may be thinking of court challenges or who may just be feeling that this changes their environment and their world view, that we as legislators take this seriously.

Four days on such significant and important legislation is not sufficient, I believe. The rest of the committee did not agree. They wanted this through quickly. I think we should have heard from more witnesses. I don't know what's going to happen in the Senate.

To me, there's nothing here that is stopping what Mr. Garrison was speaking to, which is to get on with this and get on with a review, a review that should have happened and that was not pursued by the Liberal government, even though they were mandated to do it. That I still don't understand.

We sit here with legislation that goes way beyond the Truchon decision. We as legislators are making decisions, it seems to me, based on which health care professionals we choose to listen to and whether or not we choose to listen to the organizations for persons with disabilities.

This is very significant legislation. I don't at all think that it will lead to every piece of legislation having a review clause in it. This is legislation that is in its own category, in my view, in terms of significance.

This amendment simply puts all of us as legislators and the government on notice that there's a process that would require a careful, proper, more thorough and better-informed look at legislation that is so significant that we are making changes to the criminal law of Canada and we are making changes to the provision of health care and palliative care. This committee has chosen not to put in safeguards for conscience rights of physicians. We've heard from physicians who say that they will have to leave their chosen profession if there are no such safeguards.

An earlier amendment was not passed, but this would be the opportunity to look at the lived experience and dying experience of people who are within this system who choose to end their lives this way, who change their mind, and who choose not to go down this path. It gives us an opportunity to look at what supports are in place, what true options are in place for people facing these tough decisions, and for their families, quite frankly, because there's more than just the individual affected.

It's a very reasonable amendment that would bring forward.... I don't trust the fact, to be perfectly honest, that when a review was already mandated and the government chose not to do it.... Unless we have it in the legislation, I'm not confident that asking this committee to look at it will work.

The government has shown that it is prepared to put forward legislation in this area that goes far beyond court decisions, that goes far beyond the directions of the court to date, and therefore this review is absolutely necessary. Canadians would expect no less of us.

Thank you.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too, would like to speak in support of the BQ amendment. Let me first say that I agree with Mr. Thériault to the degree that his amendment is not duplicative, that it is complementary, and that it reinforces on the government something that the government failed to do when Bill C-14 was passed.

Mr. Moore, in his comments, noted that he was not here during the debate on Bill C-14. I was here on the debate on Bill C-14. I was a member of this committee, as were you, Madam Chair. I can say that at the time, the provision in the bill mandating a five-year review was considered to be a very important part of the bill. At the time, we were in uncharted territory. We had a Supreme Court decision in Carter that struck down the blanket criminal prohibition on medical assistance in dying. We were certainly starting from the parameters of Carter. There was, however, much that was unknown in terms of how to provide for a legislative response that satisfied what the Supreme Court called on Parliament to do, which was to strike a balance between respecting individual autonomy while at the same time protecting vulnerable persons through a carefully monitored and designed system of safeguards.

The process, starting with the special joint committee on physician-assisted dying, through to the passage of Bill C-14, was over a period of six months, from January 2016 to the end of June 2016. Between the special joint committee and the justice committee, we literally heard from a wide range of witnesses in a process that, although not perfect, was a marked improvement from the process that we had with respect to Bill C-7.

The purpose of establishing that five-year review was in recognition that it would provide sufficient time to determine what worked and what didn't, whether the safeguards were appropriate and whether there were changes needed. It also provided a period in which Bill C-14 could be implemented across Canada. I certainly thought at the time that this would have been the first step. There would have been a review and then a possibility for amendments to Bill C-14.

None of that happened, however. We didn't get a review in June of this year. Mr. Maloney made reference to the fact that there is COVID. Well, yes, there was then, and there is now. I don't believe that is a legitimate excuse for why a review could not and should not have taken place. The fact is that before COVID, this government decided to pre-empt that review, because Bill C-7 was introduced before COVID. It went considerably beyond the scope of the Truchon decision and removed, as we have heard, many important safeguards in Bill C-14. The idea that somehow COVID got in the way of a parliamentary review just doesn't add up.

The attitude of the government was “we know best” in moving ahead with legislation that fundamentally changes the landscape around the medical assistance in dying regime without undertaking any kind of review. The minister and members of the government bragged about their online consultation, which they say informed the drafting of Bill C-7.

I would note, Madam Chair, that several witnesses—including some who did participate between the online survey and the limited consultations that occurred I believe in February—came before our committee over the very short time in which we had hearings to indicate that all of those consultations were with a predetermined outcome. They did not believe that the government was interested in hearing all perspectives, but rather that it had a specific objective upon which the government wished to legislate and was seeking an outcome to validate proceeding in the manner that the government ultimately did with the bill we have before us, namely, Bill C-7.

I would also note that in addition to that consultation being predetermined in terms of its outcome or bias, as evidenced by a number of witnesses who stated this, the online consultation disadvantaged many vulnerable and marginalized Canadians. For those who don't have access to the Internet and those who have visual, mobility or cognitive impairments, their views, their perspectives, were ignored or were certainly made more difficult by what I think is really an insensitive process. People living in remote and northern communities, where were they during the online consultation?

Now we have this very unacceptable situation where we have a very bad piece of legislation that has been repudiated by every national disability rights organization in Canada and by over a thousand physicians, and we don't have a review. What is needed is that comprehensive review. It should have happened before Bill C-7.

It hasn't happened, but with this particular amendment, we would reinforce the need for that to happen, and for that to happen immediately, so that we can have true and meaningful consultation from all segments of Canadian society impacted by medical assistance in dying—by all of those groups—and do it in a comprehensive way and hear from voices that went unheard as this government has sought to ram through Bill C-7.

I happened to be at a press conference this morning where there were many voices, including indigenous voices, that have gone unheard in the four meetings we have had to hear from witnesses. I've said it before and I'll say it again: It need not have been this way. It shouldn't have been this way. It is this way because of what I would submit has been a reckless approach on the part of the government.

At the very least, this amendment underscores what should have happened and what absolutely needs to happen, and that is a review, not five years from now but in a manner that is as expeditious as possible. Certainly a one-year time frame is more than reasonable.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move CPC-9, which amends Bill C-7. It amends section 241 of the act, which Bill C-7 does touch on. I think this is fully within order. We heard testimony at committee, which I thought was very important testimony, from, for example, Roger Foley. For anyone who doesn't know, you can certainly find his story in the media. Various media outlets reported that Mr. Foley appeared to have been feeling some pressure to consider MAID. He, in fact, made recordings to this effect.

This is very important, because we're in a new stage now. Under Bill C-14, introduced by this government, an individual's death had to be reasonably foreseeable. That was never defined, and we chose not to define it as a committee, but reasonably foreseeable death is now no longer a requirement to provide for assisted death. In effect, someone does not have to be dying to be eligible for assisted dying.

I want to specifically mention, on this amendment, that the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians spoke directly to this. They sent us a submission on Bill C-7, and their fourth recommendation is a recommendation on bringing up assisted dying:

To safeguard against any possibility of subtle or overt pressure on patients, health care professionals should not initiate a discussion about MAiD or suggest the option of MAiD unless brought up by a patient. If a patient raises questions or requests MAiD, health professionals should have the ability to explore these issues, including their underlying suffering, and provide information or direct them to someone who can provide information. In other jurisdictions—

And I draw the committee's attention to this:

—where assisted dying is legalized, such as in the recent legislation in Victoria, Australia, this risk of coercion due to the hierarchy and differential of expertise present in the physician-patient relationship is addressed directly in the law. Victorian Legislation states that a healthcare practitioner must not initiate a discussion or suggest Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) to a patient. We urge the Federal government to reduce harm of coercion to vulnerable patients by including this in the current revisions to the Canadian MAiD legislation.

We also received a submission from the persons with disabilities community. They make a number of recommendations. Their fourth recommendation states:

Investigate the “worrisome claims about persons with disabilities in institutions being pressured to seek medical assistance in dying, and practitioners not formally reporting cases involving persons with disabilities”, which were identified in the UN Special Rapporteur’s report, and establish an independent body, whose membership must include representatives of the disability community, to investigate such cases moving forward.

The Conservative Party members listened to the testimony of those witnesses. I paid particular attention to the testimony of Roger Foley. That is why we're moving CPC-9, which deals directly with the issue of when medical assistance in dying should be brought up. It makes it crystal clear that this should be a patient-initiated discussion, not a physician-initiated discussion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be very brief.

Let me simply say that I do support the amendment. Prior to the Truchon decision, there were inconsistencies in terms of how “reasonably foreseeable” was interpreted, particularly in the province of Quebec versus the rest of Canada. In the province of Quebec, “reasonably foreseeable” tended to be interpreted in an end-of-life context, and that in part has to do with the provincial legislation that the National Assembly had passed prior to the introduction of Bill C-14. That was not the case in other parts of Canada.

I would submit that some clarity was required, having regard for the vagueness of that term. However, given the fact that Bill C-7 puts forward a two-track approach, I would submit that clarity is now essential to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, an even application of law in all jurisdictions of Canada. On that basis, I support the amendment.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I just want to elaborate a bit upon what Mr. Maloney was saying. I think that sometimes it gets complicated and gets a bit muddled when we get so mired in these terms.

We have a regime under Bill C-14 that talks about a sort of an end-of-life regime. We have a decision about reasonable foreseeability in Truchon, which says that if you keep it to just an end-of-life regime, you are not actually promoting the dignity and autonomy of individuals, and therefore a change must be made.

The change that must be made is what's presented before us now in Bill C-7. It creates two tracks. There is a track where your death is reasonably foreseeable, and then there's the track where your death is not reasonably foreseeable. There is facilitated access when the death is reasonably foreseeable, and there are enhanced safeguards where a natural death is more of a long-term one, in what we call track two.

In trying to narrow down how you divide between a death that is reasonably foreseeable versus one that is not, I appreciate what Mr. Thériault is trying to do, and I'll echo the sentiments of Mr. Maloney. I appreciate the statements he made in the House. I appreciate his interventions in this committee. I know that he and his party believe very strongly in the model that Quebec has rolled out provincially and in ensuring that there is access that grants autonomy and dignity to individuals.

Where I'll differ with him is just this idea about demarcation, the 12 months as a demarcation, a line in the sand, so to speak, as to when something becomes reasonably foreseeable or not and determining whether you fall into track one or track two.

The reason for this is that everything I've learned through the course of this committee study, and everything I've learned in the consultations that I was privileged to be a part of in January and February, indicates that the medical practitioners who are involved in this very sensitive, very complex assessment are doing so with a lot of professionalism and with the care of the patient in mind. I remain strong in that faith that they will continue to execute their functions professionally. Allowing them to have the flexibility to make that determination rather than carving out a line is, to my mind, the best path forward in terms of ensuring consistency with the regime in the past but also making the constitutional changes that are required by the position of the court.

Simply for that reason alone, I think demarcating 12 months as a line in the sand would not be beneficial and, in some respects, I certainly wouldn't want the inadvertent consequence of limiting access to MAID for those who would otherwise be eligible, who otherwise had made an informed decision and were trying to make an autonomous decision, and impeding or limiting that autonomy.

Thank you.

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

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa]

[English]

As president and CEO of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair and all distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to provide you with my statement and to answer any of your questions.

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.

As Chief Poitras shared with this committee on November 3, 2020, “This pandemic has highlighted the inequities in this country and exacerbated existing challenges.” This statement underlines how, 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 1982, 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 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as the gold standard for indigenous business data in Canada.

From the beginning of the pandemic, the Government of Canada introduced efforts to build supports for businesses. A number of those supports were required to be remedied to include indigenous businesses, and while access is now available, CCAB has repeatedly highlighted the need for a navigator function specific to indigenous business to assist with the understanding and uptake of the various programs. Indigenous businesses have found navigating the bureaucracy, which often does not consider their unique legal and place-based circumstances, a significant barrier to accessing the supports necessary to keep their businesses alive and maintain the well-being of their communities.

The lack of targeted assistance for indigenous businesses to utilize these government supports further adds to the frustration and distrust that is the result of our history. This underlines the need for an indigenous economic recovery strategy that is indigenous-led, builds indigenous capacity and is well resourced to support indigenous prosperity and well-being. Access to external markets would be an important part of this work, including the need to back indigenous exporters as part of the recovery.

Such a strategy was not mentioned in the recent Speech from the Throne. Although we acknowledge the number of important renewed commitments made in the Speech from the Throne, I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment that there was no mention of efforts to support the economic empowerment of indigenous peoples, businesses or communities. This was a missed opportunity for the government to signal to Canadians that indigenous prosperity and economic reconciliation matters.

As this committee is aware, in order to support sound federal policy development and effective interventions during the pandemic and in collaboration with leading national indigenous organizations, including my colleagues here today, CCAB undertook a COVID-19 indigenous business survey, as was discussed in the last session, as part of a COVID-19 indigenous response task force. The goal of the survey was to understand the unique impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on indigenous-owned businesses in Canada, and to encourage the Government of Canada to support indigenous businesses through purchasing PPE from them.

As we dug deeper into our research, we found that indigenous women disproportionally bore the brunt of the negative affects of COVID-19. More indigenous women-owned businesses reported very negative outcomes to their business—61% of women-owned, compared to 53% of men-owned. Women-owned businesses experienced higher revenue drops as a whole—50% or more—compared to 36% of men-owned. In addition, Inuit businesses are most likely to have experienced a revenue drop of 50% or more, compared with Metis-owned and first nation-owned businesses.

The CCAB appreciates the indication provided to us by Indigenous Services Canada that they will fund a second COVID-19 indigenous business survey this fall, and a further survey in the spring of 2021, to assess the impacts that the first and second waves of COVID-19 have had and are having on indigenous businesses.

It is our hope that the results of both surveys will inform effective policy and programmatic interventions to support indigenous business recovery and, in turn, support indigenous prosperity and well-being. We welcome an opportunity to provide that data to you in the future.

During my last appearance before this committee on May 29, I pointed out that the unique circumstances facing indigenous businesses were not initially taken into account when forming the eligibility of CEBA or Bill C-14. That initially left many large indigenous-owned businesses ineligible for the wage subsidy. We appreciate that these gaps were remedied. However, we must not forget the additional burden the close to a month-long gap had on many indigenous businesses.

Furthermore, with an understanding that there were on-reserve businesses that could not access the programs available due to unique taxation and ownership structures, the government announced the distribution of $133 million to support those indigenous business. Analogous to the work currently being done to extend CEWS and CEBA and the remediation of the rent assistance program, investigation and consideration must be given to the extended needs of the same businesses that were not eligible for that funding.

I would like to underline that indigenous businesses have repeatedly told us that they are not in a position to take on any more debt.

I also mentioned in my last appearance that numerous indigenous businesses were prepared to readily provide supplies or equipment to meet Canada's medical needs and the capability to rapidly scale up or pivot production to PPE. CCAB and other organizations, as discussed earlier, have provided lists of such indigenous businesses to numerous federal departments and through the task force database, but only a small fraction of the over $6 billion of federal procurement contracts for PPE have been awarded to indigenous businesses.

An announcement on September 21 noted a total contract of $2.5 million to seven indigenous businesses. This represents only 0.04% of the federal spend on PPE, nowhere near the 5% commitment made last year in Minister Anand’s mandate letter and the Speech from the Throne. The commitment is a target of at least 5% of federal contracts to be awarded to indigenous businesses, and in the throne speech, a support of supplier diversity. The frustration on the lack of progress on this 5% target has been evident in our discussions with our members and at our public Business Recovery Forum on September 16.

I would like to leave you with this point for consideration.

Too often, indigenous business concerns are an afterthought, resulting in indigenous organizations such as CCAB, NACCA and Cando working to prove to government that their responses have not met the needs of indigenous people. There is no better example of that than PPE, as 0.04% of federal spend on PPE is not a genuine effort to achieve economic reconciliation. A reasonable starting point to support indigenous economic recovery would include procurement and infrastructure set-asides for indigenous businesses and communities.

[Michael Villeneuve, Chief Executive Officer , Canadian Nurses Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Good afternoon.

I would like to acknowledge the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples, from whose traditional lands I am speaking to you today.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for responding to CNA's request and extending an invitation for us to speak about Bill C-7. We are honoured and grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee in the Year of the Nurse and the Midwife 2020. I do not need to tell any of you that it has not been quite the year of celebration that we had planned.

I have worked in health systems for more than 40 years, and 37 of those as a registered nurse. I have had the honour of serving as the CEO of the Canadian Nurses Association since 2017.

CNA is the national and global professional voice of Canadian nursing. We represent nurses living across all 13 provinces and territories and in hundreds of indigenous communities.

Canada’s 440,000 nurses touch the lives of patients at every point of care constantly, and no provider has as much face time with the public, where these really complex, human moral issues arise. The transformative legislative and moral decisions being proposed carry huge impacts for nurses who are responsible to live with them and enact them in their practices every day.

Nurses are an integral part of the delivery of medical assistance in dying and it is vital that the committee hears their voices. We have acquired significant knowledge, perspectives and experience from nearly five years of MAID in practice and have valuable knowledge to inform the impending changes to the legislation.

CNA has been actively involved in work related to MAID for several years and was the key stakeholder when Bill C-14 was passed in 2016, as well as during the consultations in early 2020. CNA advocates for safeguards to protect the rights of patients and nurses, as well as for system-level changes, including better access to palliative care and accountability mechanisms. I will turn briefly to Bill C-7 now.

Overall, CNA believes that the federal government has listened to our initial feedback during the consultation phase earlier this year. We are pleased to see that some of our recommendations were included, such as the removal of the 10-day reflection period, removal of final consent for those who lose capacity and the amending of the legislation to allow for one independent witness.

Regarding the new stream for cases where natural death is not foreseeable, we heard from experts that the proposed safeguards are adequate and sufficient. We emphasize that legal expertise for updating MAID guideline documentation will be critical to ensure that all new items in the legislation are acknowledged and fully understood by patients and practitioners.

In general, while we're supportive of Bill C-7, we believe that further improvements and additional clarification in four areas would strengthen the legislation and provide better care for patients and legal protection for nurses.

First, CNA strongly recommends that Bill C-7 includes an additional five-year review period of MAID by a committee of Parliament.

Second, we recommend removing the wording that stipulates that the practitioner providing MAID does not know or believe they are connected to the other practitioner who assesses the MAID criteria.

Third, we recommend clarifying that practitioners can initiate a discussion on the lawful provision of MAID.

Fourth, we recommend clarifying the proposed “preliminary assessment” clause, which we find confusing and that is causing some concerns among nurses.

Furthermore, we strongly recommend that parliamentarians conduct as soon as possible the broader review of MAID to address important issues beyond Bill C-7.

In concluding, CNA would like to state its gratitude to the Canadian Nurses Protective Society, who has been an important partner in our MAID-related work. We submitted a written brief with more information, and I am glad to try to answer any questions.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this committee today.

[Michel Racicot]

Thank you.

First of all, when I talk about the most permissive regime, if you take the example of Holland, in Holland there is a requirement not only that some of the treatments be available, as it is in Bill C-7, but also that everything has been tried. This is not present in Bill C-7.

Secondly, on the other issue, I should say that on the reasoning of the court, I'm not saying that we're trying to appeal it, but the reasoning of the court was focused on ignoring two of the objectives of the law, which are still present in Bill C-7: the inherent dignity and equality of each human life and that suicide is an important problem.

As for what the court said—and I have the French version—the judge said that she could not recognize the first two objectives in affirming the value, because these objectives were stipulated in a manner that was too vague. She chose to ignore that, and she chose to consider, as the court did in Carter, that the only objective of Bill C-14 was to protect persons who could succumb to MAID in a moment of vulnerability. I think we need to take a look back at that decision and—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Racicot, if I could ask you one other question, you can answer both.

You said in in your submission, I believe, that Canada is looking like “the most permissible country in the world concerning MAID.” I'm giving you an opportunity to correct the record. I believe that as a lawyer you're probably aware that the Benelux nations allow medical assistance and dying for minors, as well as for situations where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. Neither of those two apply under Bill C-14, nor would they apply under Bill C-7.

Perhaps if you want to clarify the record in that regard...? Also, would you want to comment on paragraph 678 of the Truchon decision?

Thank you.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

There has been a lot of discussion about the consultations that took place. As somebody who has participated in them, I think it's important that the committee testimony reflect that there were 125 experts and stakeholders who were met with in a series of round tables that took place around the country with ministers and various parliamentary secretaries. There were also 300,000 people who submitted feedback via a questionnaire.

I also think it's important to put on the record that the testimony we heard today is very important and very critical, and the advocacy is being heard and being listened to. The statements that have been put on the record in the chamber, including at the committee, should reflect, as we all do as parliamentarians, that all lives are valuable, particularly the lives of persons with disabilities. What we need to reflect also is that pressure is never appropriate in terms of any coerced choice. If there is ever pressure that is untoward, it needs to be investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted.

I will ask Dr. Goligher a question and then I'll ask Mr. Racicot a question.

Dr. Goligher, I think you used the terms aiding and abetting a death. Just to reiterate, there are actually four protections with respect to conscience rights found in both the preamble and the text of Bill C-14, in the sixth to last paragraph, if I remember correctly, of the Carter decision, and in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, the effective referral regime was actually litigated at the Ontario Court of Appeal and was found to be constitutional.

I'm going to ask you to comment on another aspect, because you also mentioned the equality rights of persons with disabilities, and it's an important point. I've found another paragraph here where this actual issue was put to the court in Truchon, and the Truchon court found that by not changing the regime, the equality rights of persons with disabilities would be compromised, and section 15 would thereby be violated.

This quote is from paragraph 678:

The requirement at issue reveals a legislative regime within which suffering takes a back seat to the temporal connection with death. Where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the consent and suffering of the disabled are worthy only of the sympathy of Parliament, which has adopted a protectionist policy towards every such person, regardless of his or her personal situation. As soon as death approaches, the state is prepared to recognize the right to autonomy. This is a flagrant contradiction of the fundamental principles concerning respect for the autonomy of competent people, and it is this unequal recognition of the right to autonomy and dignity that is discriminatory in this case.

There is no doubt that discrimination is a live issue in this context, but in fact, the conclusion of the Truchon case was exactly the opposite of some of what we've heard today.

I was wondering if you could comment on that, Dr. Goligher.

[Dr. Stefanie Green]

Madam Chair, I think it's important to point out that Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 are very clear about protecting, respecting and supporting conscience rights, and certainly our organization is very strongly in support of that, but when people do not follow professional guidelines to do effective referrals, we're finding obstruction of access to care. What's happening is that patients and families are coming to us very late on, and that's where we get into the problem with the 10-day waiting and the loss of capacity. They come to us in a much more urgent situation.

Many of our patients are socially isolated. They may have been hospitalized for weeks. They may not have social friends or even the technical abilities to find access to care, and they are absolutely reliant on their caregivers to provide that information and provide a way for them to access better information and access to care. Without that possibility, they are simply locked out of this.

[Dr. Stefanie Green]

Perfect. I'm going to take the first opportunity to answer it. Thank you for the question.

Madam Chair, I would like to point out what I'm sure is clear among most of our members, which is that mental health as a sole underlying condition is not explicitly prohibited under Bill C-14. In fact, there have been cases in this country of people with mental health illness as the only underlying condition going ahead, qualifying for and proceeding with MAID.

That's not commonly achievable with naturally foreseeable death and we don't see it very often. It is obviously much more common for us to have already seen patients with both mental health illnesses and physical illnesses applying for and being found eligible for MAID and proceeding.

Of course, there are many people.... In that situation, it's up to the assessors and the providers to do the best job possible to ensure that capacity is still present. Mental capacity is always presumed to be present, unless it isn't. It's not uncommon in that situation for physicians and clinicians—who assess capacity in our patients all the time, every day in our offices, for all medical treatments and surgical interventions—to be able to distinguish between the two.

[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?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank our speakers here today and I want to thank my colleagues on the committee.

I want to emphasize one point. I think we all agree that the role of Parliament is essential and that the job of parliamentarians is essential, and we're trying to sort out how we can conduct our job, given the public health advice. A fundamental part of our job as members of Parliament is to remain in touch with our constituents. However, today we're telling our constituents we can't meet them personally. If you're like me and you're meeting with your constituents daily or regularly over the phone or via social media or email, I think it's incumbent on us to find ways to also conduct our parliamentary duties with some flexibility.

I want to start my questions with Mr. Macfarlane. Can you comment on how you saw Parliament conduct its role in passing Bill C-13 and Bill C-14?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the committee for having me here. I'd also like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Finance for the work they're doing.

We obviously know that COVID-19 is causing unprecedented disruption to the economy here at home and around the world. None of us has faced a crisis like this. Our government knows that Canadian workers and businesses have been through a tough time already and that this difficult period is continuing. That's why we're moving rapidly to help as many Canadians as possible, as quickly as possible. We're creating, developing, adapting and delivering measures in record time.

Today my goal is to highlight some of the measures we've announced recently, including enhancements to programs in anticipation of your questions.

Earlier this month when I met with you, I talked about the Canada emergency response benefit, which provides $2,000 every four weeks for up to 16 weeks to workers who lose their income as a result of the pandemic. What we've seen over the last week is that millions of Canadians have successfully applied to the program and received payments. We want this benefit to be as flexible and accessible as possible. That's why, for example, it's available to workers whether or not they have employment insurance. No one should have to choose between protecting their health, putting food on the table, paying for their medication or caring for a family member.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced new measures to expand the eligibility criteria for the Canada emergency response benefit. Workers can earn up to $1,000 a month while receiving the benefit. This includes wages along with fees and royalties.

The Canada emergency response benefit will also be available to people who were unemployed prior to the pandemic, who ran out of employment insurance benefits, and who can't find work because of COVID-19. Seasonal workers who can't work in their field because of the pandemic will also be eligible.

The Canada emergency response benefit is an important part of the government's COVID-19 economic response plan to support Canadians and businesses facing hardship as a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic. We also need to recognize that the pandemic has placed a significant amount of stress on certain workers.

Take those working in hospitals or nursing homes as examples, or the people who are ensuring the integrity of our food supply and those providing essential retail services to Canadians. The work these people are doing is essential. However, their salaries are sometimes less than what they'd receive from the Canada emergency response benefit. We want to boost the salaries of these essential workers. We're working with provinces and territories to offer a cost-shared, temporary top-up to the salaries of all low-income workers deemed essential in the fight against COVID-19.

Through this new transfer, provinces and territories will be able to provide a salary top-up every four weeks to the essential worker who earns less than $2,500 per month. The Government of Canada will cover a portion of the cost of the top-up and will provide an important boost to the front-line workers in our hospitals and long-term care homes, those working to make sure our groceries are well stocked, and others.

As announced yesterday, the federal government will share the cost of the programs to retain essential workers that were already in place in Quebec and British Columbia. The government is also providing support to employers through its COVID-19 economic response plan.

As you know, the Canada emergency wage subsidy covers 75% of employees' wages up to a maximum benefit of $847 per week, for up to 12 weeks. As I said earlier, not all jobs are the same and not all businesses are the same. We changed the eligibility criteria for the Canada emergency wage subsidy to help as many employers as possible and thereby as many workers as possible. As a result of Bill C-14, which was passed by Parliament last Saturday, employers must show that their revenue decreased by 15% in March 2020, instead of by 30%, as will be the case for April and May. We also acknowledge that the pandemic has been negatively affecting employers since mid-March.

Employers will also have two possible benchmarks to determine their eligibility, based on their loss of revenue. They'll be able to compare revenues of March, April and May 2020 to that of the same months of 2019. Alternatively, they can use an average of revenues in January and February of this year; this is especially beneficial for new businesses and start-ups that might not have a year's worth of earnings to look back on.

Employers will calculate revenues through one of two accounting methods: either the accrual method or the cash method.

To make it simpler and more cost-effective for employers to re-employ workers, the government will also refund some premiums for employers who keep their employees on paid leave. This includes employment insurance, Canada pension plan, Quebec pension plan and Quebec parental insurance plan premiums.

The government continues to assess and respond to the challenge of COVID-19 and we stand ready to take additional actions as needed. Earlier today, the Prime Minister announced that we'll make the Canada emergency business account available to more small businesses.

The CEBA was created to provide help to small businesses and not-for-profits to pay for non-deferrable operating costs. When we initially launched CEBA, the eligibility requirements required employers to have paid between $50,000 and $1 million in total payroll in 2019 to qualify.

As we've always said, the COVID-19 economic response plan is responsive. We heard from Canada's small businesses. We want to make sure that businesses are getting the support they need, so we've expanded the criteria. CEBA will now be available to the businesses that paid between $20,000 and $1.5 million in total payroll in 2019.

In addition, the government is also providing up to $306.8 million on a cash basis to indigenous businesses unable to access the government's existing COVID-19 support measures. This includes access to short-term interest-free loans and non-repayable contributions. Financial support for indigenous businesses will be provided through aboriginal financial institutions that offer financing to first nations, Métis and Inuit businesses.

Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan is the biggest economic program of our lifetime.

We're prepared to do whatever it takes to keep Canadians safe. We'll support workers and businesses because we know that this will help the Canadian economy recover more quickly once the crisis is over. This is how we can continue to build an even better Canada.

Thank you. I'm happy to answer your questions.

Mr. Chair, I'm ready for questions.

COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful note on which to rise to speak today, to see the paragraph that I was initially so pleased to see in the unanimous consent motion, and the government will implement measures without delay. It is much improved through our work unanimously. I want to thank the NDP for taking the lead in making sure that benefits are going to people where there had been gaps. Clearly the Minister of Employment and the Minister of Finance have been working hard to try to address gaps.

Before I get too far into discussing what we have done here today and what we have been doing as parliamentarians, I do want to pause and on behalf of the Green Party of Canada, thank all of the essential workers: the front-line workers, particularly those in the health care professions, including our doctors, our nurses, our first responders and our personal care workers who go into senior homes. There are so many people right now without whom we could not self-isolate in safety. We could not practise our social distancing without truck drivers who make sure there is food on the shelves, and the workers in our grocery stores who make sure that the shelves are stocked. There are efforts to stop hoarding and make sure that we look out for each other.

Essential workers in this context include some people that we often do not stop to celebrate. They tend to be the lower-paid workers. In this moment, I just want to express on behalf of all of us again, our deep gratitude. It is particularly concerning that we are not ensuring that these people are protected. PPE, personal protective equipment, which is now on the tip of our tongues, was not something we talked about.

We should have learned lessons from SARS. I worked with Sheela Basrur and I love her. The work on SARS and the commissions at the time warned us that we would need to be ready for another pandemic and that we should not let these supplies run low. I am not going to play a blame game. It is human nature. The farther we got away from the SARS pandemic, the less we went to check how much was stored on our shelves. Do we have enough N95 masks? Do we have enough gowns and gloves? Are we protecting our front-line workers enough?

We still have a crisis. There are still places, people, hospitals and senior care homes that are crying out for this protective equipment. They are crying out as we gather here. I thank them for what they are doing. We do it every day at home. I go out on my balcony on Second Street in Sidney. I know my neighbours are at home because all around me I can hear them banging on pots and pans. The streets of my community, Sidney by the Sea, are empty, but at 7 p.m., there are people in the marina blowing their boat horns and banging their pots and pans. I just want to thank all the health care workers across Canada.

I also want to thank my caucus members. I would split my time if I could, but the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith is in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and the hon. member for Fredericton is in Fredericton. She is still self-isolating from her last trip to Ottawa and New Brunswick rules require that she stay put. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was not able to make the trip. I am enormously grateful to be here.

While I am expressing gratitude, I want to thank the hon. Minister of Employment for giving me a lift. I also have to thank the leader of the official opposition, because I think it was more or less his plane. It is a new term for me: We “plane-pooled”. We went from Fredericton to Victoria to Regina, which is not a regularly scheduled thing.

I was glad that Jill and the kids could come along too. It was a family event as we made our way here. I am so grateful. I booked all my commercial flights and I have to say I feel so privileged and so grateful. It was a special feeling to know a government plane was going to pick me up. I did not expect it, but I have to say I was semi-terrified about the transits I was going to have to make through four airports. I have a lot of reasons for being grateful.

With that, I want to turn to the legislation. We are working hard as MPs. I know every single member of government is working hard, and I include in that the civil servants.

I am used to working seven days a week, but I am not used to getting an email back from staff at the civil servant level from the western diversification office when I write about a routine grant that has a 30-day window. It is because people are working at home, civil servants too, and I thank them. I know they are working Saturdays and Sundays, because they answer my emails on Saturdays and Sundays. This is an extraordinary time.

I am not sure how others in this place will feel about it, but I want to say publicly that I think we are eventually going to need the Emergencies Act. I know that the premiers said no, but I think we are eventually going to wish we had had it in place.

The public welfare portion of the Emergencies Act is not the War Measures Act of old. I read it for the first time a couple of weeks ago and thought that it is what legislation to deal with an emergency looks like when it is not written by people in the middle of an emergency. It is thoughtful: It does not suspend our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it does not send the army in anywhere and it respects provincial jurisdiction and the use of provincial police forces.

I will give members one example that is in my heart right now.

In the community I represent, Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Gulf Islands are being inundated with visitors who are coming in by ferry, even though BC Ferries has told people not to come unless their trip is essential. These small communities are really feeling it. The grocery store shelves empty out with people from urban areas coming to visit. I know it is happening in cottage country. I am sure the Muskokas are experiencing the same thing, with people getting out of the city and going to their cottage. However, the health care systems and services in these more remote rural communities cannot handle the kind of inundation of people that is happening now.

I want to flag for my colleagues here the way the Emergencies Act works. It can be invoked; it does not need new legislation. It can be invoked by Governor in Council, but when Parliament is in recess, it must be recalled within seven days to discuss and debate it.

In an ideal world, just as a precaution, I would have liked us to discuss and debate it today while we are here so that we have it in our back pocket if we need it. I am not certain that at some point in the coming weeks we will not wish we had it to make sure that we had a national priority system for the distribution of ventilators and N95 masks, or that we did not have the capacity to say that we need to stop people from going into these smaller communities that cannot handle an influx of population right now.

This brings me to the bill we have in front of us. I think it is time to think about transformational change. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was pointing this out a moment ago. We are doing things now in real time so fast that those of us who have been parliamentarians for a while would not have been able to imagine that government could roll out these programs so fast. It is an extraordinary tribute to hard work, thinking outside the box and being liberated from some constraints, because the pandemic of COVID-19 is a bigger threat than anything we have faced in the short term.

I make the parenthetical comment that the climate crisis is still a larger threat to human civilization than this pandemic, but this has caused civil servants, ministers and opposition members to think in different ways. This has caused our Conservative friends, like the member for Carleton on conference calls we have had, to be the voice that asks, “What about the small credit unions? What about helping the small credit unions, not just the big ones?” I thought to myself that we should not ever make assumptions about people. I did not think that was something the member for Carleton would say, but sure enough, he did. There is concern for all of us, and the basic needs of all have risen to the top. As I said earlier today, this experience has shown us that life is more important than money.

That is a truly fundamental lesson in a culture that normally protects the economy above all else.

Now we know that we have to protect our economy and rebuild it, but not at the cost of human lives. We know what is important.

In looking at this, I hope that we can agree at some point that a guaranteed livable income is what the country needs. As other members have mentioned, in normal times not everybody can pay their bills. In normal times, kids who should be able to go to university cannot afford it. In normal times, too many people fall between the cracks. We can fix those cracks. We can fix those gaps.

The Green Party of Canada has, way before I was involved with it, stood for a guaranteed living income.

We need a guaranteed minimum income to allow everyone to live sustainably.

I hope we will come back to this. For now we have Bill C-13. It went quite far toward looking at gaps, but we recognize that they remained. That is why we are back for Bill C-14.

I am pleased to see the wage subsidy increased to 75%. I am pleased to see the tweaking around definitions of what is an eligible employee to make sure that we do not accidentally create a one-day mistake. I am pleased to see the changes around eligible entities and, of course, around the qualifying periods. This makes the whole program much more accessible to more companies and employers that are able to give that wage subsidy.

However, it does not deal with every situation, not even still. If one thing is shown by trying to come up with legislation to meet every circumstance and fill every gap the way we are doing it, it is that one size will not fit all.

This is true even when talking about senior homes. I received an email today from Meadowlane, a seniors home on Salt Spring Island. It is run as an independent living facility, so it is not within the health authorities. It has additional costs but is a not-for-profit society, so how does it handle these additional costs? It does not have deep pockets. Obviously costs are going up. The workers are stretched. The home needs to buy more masks and more gowns, and it does not have a revenue deduction because people are still in the home. Not every circumstance fits yet to our best efforts in this place.

Similarly, I have talked to venture capital businesses. They have the venture capital and are on the verge of a breakthrough, but the BDC venture capital model is not working for them because their venture capital comes from firms that are not in the recognized group within the BDC plan. We need some flexibility there too. We need to be able to say to businesses that if they are on the verge of really taking off, we should not be restricting where they get their money.

Speaking of money, I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. member for Burnaby South earlier today, which is about the banks. The Minister of Finance has clearly been exerting maximum diplomacy on the banks, getting them to say that they will let people have a longer time to pay their mortgages, but the six big banks are misusing his good faith. I will put it that way. They are not so profitable for nothing. Last year's profit of the six big banks in Canada came to $46 billion. It is 10 years in a row now that they have made more money year over year, and we can see why. They are saying to people that they do not have to pay their mortgage for a while, but when they pay it the banks are going to get them.

This is not team Canada. This is not the spirit we want to see. I think it is about time that the large banks were taxed at a higher level. We tax our big banks less than other countries in the G7 do. Why? I guess we like them. I am not sure they like us.

I would love to see the Minister of Finance convene by conference call all of the country's credit unions and ask them what they are capable of doing. What would they be able to do to help the small businesses in this country avoid bankruptcy? What would they be able to do to get them money up front that was not a loan so they could pay their rent and not go under due to the fixed costs of business?

I grew up in my family business as a kid. Through my twenties I waitressed and cooked in my family restaurant on the Cabot Trail, which was a seasonal business. I think about my parents and if this had hit us then. I do not know what we would have done. We would have had 35 seasonal employees that we could not hire. We would have been wondering if we should open or not and what the heck to do with all the things we had to pay for no matter what. That is what I am hearing from businesses in my riding now.

Someone emailed me the other day, and the email just about broke my heart. I will not give any biographical details, but the writer described himself as a 250-pound man covered in tattoos. He said that morning he went to the bathroom and shut the door so his kids would not hear him crying. He has businesses that cannot open right now and he has no way to pay the rent on them. Despite all of his life savings, he is already indebted. Small businesses are going to need more than what we have here.

I am encouraged because the unanimous consent motion does speak to short-term support measures for Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises that will be partially non-refundable. We have to work on how much is “partially”. We have to do way more. If we want to get out of this, which we do, as a country with businesses that run in the black, we cannot let them go into deeper debt. They will not go into deeper debt; I know they will not. They are already telling me that if they take out a $40,000 loan without interest, they will not be able to pay it back and will then go bankrupt later. This is a real concern and is coming from the heart.

There are other issues that matter to us across this country. We know one size does not fit all in any category.

Before my time is elapsed, I want to thank everyone in the government and the provincial governments and particularly our public health officers, from Dr. Theresa Tam to Dr. Bonnie Henry in B.C. to, back again across this country, Dr. Strang in Nova Scotia. These guys are now our daily friends on TV. We see them more than we see those we used to watch on TV. We now know who we can look to for advice. We can look to those public civil servants whose job is public health. I am enormously grateful to all of them, because as every Canadian has witnessed, they are also working around the clock.

It is now clear that these are extraordinary circumstances. We must find solutions together. We must continue to work together. As members of Parliament, we must find ways to work virtually. I do not know how that will be possible, but I know that things that once seemed impossible are possible.

I mentioned earlier that Doug Ford says the Deputy Prime Minister is his therapist. This kind of thing would not have been considered possible a short time ago. We need to work together.

On behalf of the Green Party caucus, I give my word that we will do whatever we can. We have been forwarding advice, complaints, ideas and worries to a listening ear, and for that we are grateful. In this crisis, which does not at this point have a clear end in sight, we need to be able to say to every one of our constituents and to every Canadian, permanent resident and foreign student, for whom I am very worried, that if they are living in Canada we have their backs. If they feel that no one is there for them right now, they should not worry. I want them to reach out to us and tell us what they need. We will fight for them.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, A second Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-14, A second Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

COVID-19 Pandemic

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chair, some businesses are finding themselves excluded from the wage subsidies in Bill C-14 because they are subsidiaries of a larger entity. They are put in the same basket as several other small businesses, and the revenues of each one come from the parent company. This is also true in the case of management companies.

I would also like to know whether these companies should be or could eventually be eligible under this legislation.