Bill C-20 (Historical)

An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to revise the eligibility criteria for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) in order to support those employers hardest hit by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It also extends the CEWS to November 21, 2020, with the ability to extend the CEWS by regulation to no later than December 31, 2020, and provides a revised calculation of the CEWS for the fifth and subsequent qualifying periods. Finally, it makes amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that the CEWS operates effectively.
Part 2 amends the Pension Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Children’s Special Allowances Act and the Veterans Well-being Act to authorize the disclosure of information for the purpose of the administration of a program to provide a one-time payment to persons with disabilities for reasons related to COVID-19. It also amends the Income Tax Act to authorize the use by officials, or disclosure to Government of Canada officials, of taxpayer information solely for the purpose of that one-time payment. Finally, it provides that any amount payable in relation to the administration of the program to provide that one-time payment is to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Part 3 enacts the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19) which addresses the need for flexibility in relation to certain time limits and other periods that are established by or under Acts of Parliament and that are difficult or impossible to meet as a result of the exceptional circumstances produced by COVID-19. In particular, the enactment
(a) suspends, for a maximum of six months, certain time limits in relation to proceedings before courts;
(b) temporarily enables ministers to suspend or extend time limits and to extend other periods in relation to specified Acts and regulations for a maximum of six months; and
(c) provides for the transparent exercise of the powers it confers and for Parliamentary oversight over the exercise of those powers.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Further COVID-19 Measures Act

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out that, throughout the pandemic, there has been a certain pattern emerging.

Looking at people in need, what has the government's response been? When people are in need, the government says to wait. Canadians living with disabilities have been told, since the beginning of this pandemic, to wait. Canadians who saw their CERB about to be cancelled at the end of July were told to wait, and now Canadians, again, do not know what is going to happen at the end of August.

Those who cannot go back to work are going to see CERB end, and the government tells them to just wait, but when close, well-connected friends of the Liberal government and of the Prime Minister need help, the government rushes in to help with a nearly billion-dollar bailout.

Let us be absolutely clear. The billion-dollar bailout of WE had nothing to do with students and everything to do with helping wealthy, well-connected friends of the Liberal government.

The WE scandal was never about students or helping students. It was about helping close friends of the Liberal government and the Prime Minister.

What we also see with the government is an ongoing trend of using a lot of nice words, but they are empty words and symbolic gestures. We see another example of those empty words and symbolic gestures when it comes to systemic racism.

The government has certainly said some nice words, but those are empty words because they lack action. The Prime Minister took a stand. Well, he did not take a stand. The Prime Minister took a knee, but he has yet to take a stand on really addressing systemic racism.

I want to ask Canadians to think back to 2015. From 2015 to 2020, has there been any difference in the lives of people when it comes to systemic racism? What has been the concrete difference that the Liberal government has made? What has the Prime Minister done?

After the images of him in blackface emerged, Prime Minister Trudeau asked us all to judge him on his actions. What were the Prime Minister's actions?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would remind the hon. member for Burnaby South the importance of referring to elected members by their riding names.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Indeed, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer has expressed it correctly.

I would ask the hon. member for Burnaby South to avoid the use of members' names in his remarks. Certainly, titles or riding names are perfectly acceptable.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

When the images of the Prime Minister in blackface emerged, we were told to judge the Prime Minister on his actions. What have those actions been? At a time when there is a movement of people demanding concrete action to address systemic racism, the Prime Minister has asked his ministers to come up with a plan for a plan to do something. That is not real concrete action.

What has the Prime Minister done to immediately respond to the calls and demands for action to address systemic racism in policing? When it comes to the RCMP, has the Prime Minister taken any concrete action to address systemic racism in the RCMP? We have seen the images of indigenous and racialized people brutalized by the police. What has the Prime Minister done since to show any leadership? Effectively, he has done nothing.

Indigenous people, black people and racialized people are no better off right now in 2020 than they were in 2015. The Prime Minister has done nothing to make their lives better when it comes to systemic racism in policing. He could have immediately ended racial profiling in policing. That is within the power of the federal government.

The Prime Minister could immediately review the use of force and say we need to completely overhaul it. The Prime Minister, if he wanted to, could say we need an emphasis on de-escalation when it comes to conflicts. The Prime Minister could review the budget so that we could be spending more money on health care and responses to health care crises than we do on police. All of these things are possible, but the Prime Minister has done none of them.

How is systemic racism different now, in 2020, compared to 2015, when the government took office? It is not different.

The Prime Minister has said some nice words and made symbolic gestures, but he has not taken any concrete action to change people's lives.

In the context of this whole movement, at a time when people are calling for concrete action and thousands are taking to the streets to demand meaningful action against systemic racism in the police force and other institutions, what has the government done? Nothing.

The Liberals had an opportunity, and now they have a chance to review the use of force. The Liberal government has the power to make changes that would emphasize de-escalation in conflicts with the police. The Liberal government has the power to alter its funding priorities to give more money to health care workers than to police.

All of that is possible if the government wants to take action. However, it is clear that the Liberal government and the Prime Minister want to make symbolic gestures and pay lip service, but they do not want to take meaningful action to improve people's lives.

I will say it again. What we are seeing is a trend with this government. The government wanted to do the minimum when it came to helping people in this crisis and we forced it. We pushed it, and we demanded more for people.

When it comes to things like systemic racism, at a time when there is a powerful movement asking for change, this government has done nothing to improve the lives of people. People are no better off in 2020 than they were in 2015. When the Prime Minister took a knee, who was he protesting? Who was the Prime Minister protesting? He is in power.

The Prime Minister has the ability to change things right now, but he has done nothing. He has not challenged the status quo. He has not changed anything at the RCMP. He has not brought in any new laws to improve the conditions that people are faced with. He has done nothing to change the reality that if one is black, indigenous or racialized, one is more likely to be brutalized by the police and more likely to be killed by the police, but less likely to be able to find a job or a place to live. Those are the real problems of systemic racism, and this government has done nothing.

I ask the people of this great country to look at the actions of the Prime Minister and the actions of this Liberal government to see that they have tried to do the minimum. They have given us pretty words, empty words, but they lack action.

We will continue to fight for Canadians. They can count on us to have their back. They can count on us to fight for them every step of the way, to demand more and to demand better. That is who we are. That is what we do, and that is what they deserve.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government]

Mr. Speaker, let me express my disappointment in the leader of the fourth party to not recognize the work that has been done by this government for black communities across this country and the leadership of this Prime Minister.

Very seriously, without any partisanship, we can certainly say that a lot has been done since 2015. The first thing this Prime Minister did was to reverse the decision of the previous government, the Conservative Harper government, which did not allow the UN panel to come into Canada to undertake a study in an effort to recognize the UN International Decade for People of African Descent. We allowed it to come in.

It issued a report about a year and a half later, and within a couple of months of that report being issued, what did the Prime Minister do? First, it made a symbolic change. We put a black woman, Viola Desmond, on a Canadian banknote. She is the first Canadian woman on a Canadian banknote. That was a really important, symbolic move.

The second thing I could talk about is that the Prime Minister recognized anti-black racism and recognized the UN International Decade for People of African Descent. He has also made sure, for the first time in Canadian history, that two consecutive budgets have had measures directed at black Canadians, including measures for mental health, disaggregated data and community support.

Yes, there is a lot of work to do, but we do nothing by exaggerating positions, as the leader of the NDP has shamefully done here, and not recognizing the work we are doing for black Canadians—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

In the statement by the member, who was asked to list out what the Liberals have done since 2015, he said they allowed someone to come in to do a report, and they made a symbolic change, a self-admitted symbolic change.

What has this government done to make people's lives better and to stop police brutality? What has it done to actually stop racial profiling, which it could immediately stop? We talk about mental health. The RCMP's budget is $10 million a day, which is more in one day than this government has committed for an entire year for the mental health of black people. How shameful is that?

The examples given by the member only highlight the inaction of this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I hope that the push by the member for Calgary Shepard to have indigenous war hero Tommy Prince on the five-dollar bill will be supported by the member for Hull—Aylmer and all members of the House, because I think it is a noble cause.

My question is related to the WE Charity. The leader of the NDP spent a considerable amount of time talking about WE. The figure was $912 million. That's a lot of zeros. On top of that, we found out a couple of weeks ago through the fiscal snapshot that we are $343 billion in deficit and $1.2 trillion in debt.

My question to the hon. member is this: Within those many zeros, how many more situations of Liberal cronyism and corruption does the hon. member think we will find, if we search hard enough, that are similar to the WE situation?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen in this scandal is a clear example of Liberal rhetoric: the words members use about who they are working for in public, and when the doors are closed. In public the Liberal government has certainly said a lot of very positive things, but behind closed doors it turns out they are actually working to help out their closely connected friends.

In the WE scandal it is very clear that this was never about helping students. The government had ample opportunity to extend the Canada summer jobs program and help students struggling with debt when they go to university, or to help students get into post-secondary education and reduce barriers by providing additional grants.

There is so much that the government could have done, but instead of actually helping Canadian students, it leapt to the aid of well-connected friends of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister, to give them nearly a billion-dollar contract. That is flagrant. It shows that the Liberal government really wants to work for its closely connected friends, how quickly it will work for them, and how it will tell Canadians who are struggling to continue to wait.

That is the contrast and I think that is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was in opposition for 20 years, which I often make reference to in the House. The statements made by the leader of the NDP and some of the Conservatives bring the word “balderdash” to my mind, as they have absolutely zero merit. That program was all about students. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and others say that there was an unfortunate oversight that took place and it is being rectified.

To try to give a false impression that it was not about students is completely wrong. From day one, this government has been there to support Canadians in all regions of our country, whether it is through the CERB program, the wage loss program or the many other programs that we have provided to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

Would the member not agree that today's legislation is about improving some of those programs that we have brought forward, and that will continue to support Canadians in every region of the country?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation brought forward today is because the New Democrats fought, demanded and pushed for help for Canadians living with disabilities. It is certainly a step in the right direction. The fact that we fought, pushed for and demanded changes to the wage subsidy program to help more workers is a positive step.

I want to make it clear that, every step of the way, the Liberal government did not come to us to say, “Here is an idea. Shall we work together and collaborate?” It came up with an idea that was the minimum possible and then we had to push them. We had to fight with them to actually deliver more for people. Every step of the way, the Liberal government wanted to do the minimum and we had to fight with them to deliver more for people. That has been the way things have happened.

We will continue to fight for people because that is what we do.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the leadership of the hon. member in bringing to the fore the importance of maintaining a focus on anti-black racism. I am honoured and very proud to have worked for members across the way, including the previous speaker on a very compelling document that was a declaration on how to dismantle anti-black racism, while putting a face on a bill or putting a symbol on taking a knee.

What would be the hon. member's priority, given all of the recommendations that have been put forward on tackling anti-black racism, to take immediate steps to ensure that black Canadians are provided with fair and equal opportunities in Canada?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that question is difficult because a lot needs to be done. I do not want to hold it as if I have all the answers, but I do have some that have been built by the community and by people who have looked at this question.

What we need to do immediately is end systemic racism: the anti-black racism that exists in policing. That means specifically ending racial profiling, ending carding in all of its forms, and ensuring that we invest in addressing the social determinants of health, which means investing in affordable housing and more affordable health care. It means decriminalizing personal possession of illicit substances. Instead of giving a criminal response, it should be a health care response. It means ending mandatory minimum sentences, which disproportionately impact racialized black and indigenous people.

These are the things we can do. These are concrete steps, not symbolic gestures but real, concrete, legislative changes that will improve the lives of people. That is what we are committed to doing.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join my colleagues today to participate in this important debate on Bill C-20, which provides an administrative amendment so we can better support Canadians with disabilities during this pandemic.

It feels like a very long time ago now, but in fact it was just over a year ago that the Accessible Canada Act became law. This legislation had unanimous support in both the House of Commons and the Senate. I hope the same spirit will live on and all parties will support this important piece of legislation that will enable this critical emergency financial support to be provided to Canadians with disabilities.

We know this pandemic has deeply affected the lives and health of all Canadians, but it has disproportionately affected Canadians with disabilities. Persons with disabilities have incurred significant costs to safely get food, medication and other basic necessities. We also know there are additional costs for delivery services and private transportation.

It is also possible that support workers for persons with disabilities may not be available and that they must be paid privately because of a reduction in volunteer and subsidized services.

As we work together to reopen the economy, we must continue to protect the health and safety of persons with disabilities and ensure we maintain an approach that is inclusive by design. This has meant working together with organizations and persons with disabilities across the country, and using a disability lens to come up with a plan to provide the support they need during this difficult time. This is how our current response has come to have key components, including direct financial support through this one-time payment, employment supports and accessible communications.

I will begin with the one-time payment. This is non-taxable and is $600 for Canadians with disabilities. We recently announced we would propose legislation that would make this benefit available to more people and expand it to include approximately 1.7 million Canadians with disabilities who are recipients of a disability tax credit certificate, CPP disability or QPP disability benefits, or disability support provided by Veterans Affairs Canada. This payment will help cover the costs of things such as PPE, support workers or increased use of taxis and home delivery services for groceries and transportation.

Seniors who have a disability tax credit certificate and are entitled to the old age security pension will receive $300 in addition to the special COVID-19 special payment, a one-time $300 payment to seniors.

Canadians who are certificate holders of the disability tax credit and are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement will receive a payment of $100 in addition to the special COVID-19 one-time payment to seniors of $500.

With this new support and the special payments announced last month, all seniors who are certificate holders of the disability tax credit, the DTC, Canada pension plan disability, as well as Quebec pension plan disability recipients and recipients of VAC's disability supports, will receive a total of $600.

As I mentioned earlier, the legislation before us today would support the delivery of this one-time payment. As minister, I have the authority to issue this type of payment under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, but new legislative authorities are needed so that the Canada Revenue Agency and Veterans Affairs Canada can share information about those eligible for this one-time payment with my department. It is an administrative measure, but it is important as it is about safeguarding the personal information of Canadians and only sharing it for the purposes of creating and delivering this one-time benefit.

Additionally, Canadians with disabilities who are eligible for the disability tax credit but have not yet applied will have a 60-day window of opportunity to apply for the DTC after the bill receives royal assent.

We heard clearly over the past month that many Canadians with disabilities, despite being eligible for the DTC, have not applied for a number of valid reasons. The 60-day application window could increase the number of Canadians receiving the emergency disability payment quite significantly. We will be working closely with the disability community to ensure that those who want to apply have the access and support they need to do so.

We want to ensure that the proper supports are in place for all Canadians. This one-time payment complements the other emergency supports provided by our government.

For example, low-income persons with disabilities benefited from the one-time special payment to the GST credit, provided in April to low and modest-income Canadians. Families of children with disabilities got the additional Canada child benefit payment. Workers with disabilities can access the CERB. Students with disabilities can access the student benefit, including a $750 per month additional amount.

Seniors with disabilities got the senior payment. Persons with disabilities will also benefit from the $350-million investment we made in charities and non-profits so that they can deliver essential services to communities across Canada.

However, these measures did not sufficiently address the extra costs being incurred by Canadians with disabilities. As I mentioned previously, some examples include personal protective equipment, which is life-saving for many Canadians with disabilities and their personal support workers; the extra costs of personal support workers, or general help in the home; the extra costs of purchasing food, and higher prices for all items; extra Internet costs, associated with physical distancing; extra costs due to the loss of in-kind services and community support, such as transportation and meal provision previously offered by volunteers or extended family; and additional therapy, such as mental health services and physical therapy. I would say that the lack of these services threatens the independence of so many of our citizens.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the members of the COVID-19 disability advisory group. The group was created in April to provide advice on the real-time, lived experiences of persons with disabilities during this crisis. Their advice has helped shape our government's response to the pandemic.

They have offered advice and guidance to a number of federal departments, including the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and ISED. They have assisted in our collaboration with provinces and territories in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I can think of our conversations around long-term health care in assisted living facilities, visitor policies for hospitals and the provision of PPE to personal support workers.

They have made a significant and meaningful difference in our government's pandemic response because they remind us daily of what is at stake. I thank them for their continued work and advocacy.

I have heard clearly from Canadians in the COVID-19 disability advisory group that employment support for persons with disabilities during the pandemic and into recovery is critical to ensure that people with disabilities are not left behind.

We recognize that persons with disabilities are at greater risk of losing their jobs in an economic downturn.

Many people with disabilities are employed in sectors that have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic, including the service and tourism industries. This is the reason why we have established a national workplace accessibility stream of the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. Through this stream, we will provide $15 million for 2020 and 2021 in additional funding to help persons with disabilities and to help their employers improve workplace accessibility and access to jobs.

Some of the activities supported by this fund will include setting up accessible and effective work-from-home measures, expanding online training opportunities, creating inclusive workplaces, whether virtual or physical, connecting potential employees with employers, providing training for in-demand jobs and, where needed, wage subsidies.

We also launched an important call for proposals under the enabling accessibility fund small projects component, for small-scale construction, renovation or retrofits, for funding of up to $100,000. Employers are the priority for funding under this call.

Through the youth innovation component of the fund, young Canadians can also express their interest in collaborating with local organizations in their communities to secure funding of up to $10,000 for accessibility projects.

Another important support for persons with disabilities during the pandemic concerns the accessibility of communications. During any public health crisis, it is vitally important that communications be accessible and that we act on the need to engage with persons with disabilities.

It has been raised as a key issue by the disability community and the COVID-19 disability advisory group. That is why on Saturday, June 6, I announced $1.1 million to support national disability organizations and enhance their communications and engagement activities.

This funding is being delivered through the social development partnership program disability component, and will help organizations address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the people they serve. This support will allow organizations to create a barrier-free, multilingual experience for persons with disabilities and ensure they receive accessible and relevant information to support them during this time.

The Government of Canada is also doing its part to ensure Canadians, including Canadians with disabilities, receive timely, clear and accessible information during the pandemic.

An example of the kind of support that has been given is the ongoing provision of ASL and LSQ interpretation during national press conferences so that deaf and hard-of-hearing Canadians can have access in real time to critical information. I anticipate that the provision of ASL and LSQ will continue. It will continue post-COVID as a significant legacy of the work of Canadians with disabilities and their advocates for so long. This will be a true legacy of accessibility.

I am confident that these support measures will greatly benefit Canadians with disabilities across our country. Our actions are based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international human rights obligations, including those under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We are also guided by the Accessible Canada Act, which was passed last June. The Accessible Canada Act is actively informing everything we do in regard to persons with disabilities.

I believe that we have taken a disability-inclusive approach to our pandemic response, but I also believe that the delay in getting this money to Canadians with disabilities, in this time of pandemic crisis, has brought to light shortcomings and barriers within Government of Canada programs and services for persons with disabilities, and these need to be addressed.

Having a tax credit as a gatekeeper for federal programs and services is extremely ineffective in our ability to deliver to a really important and significant group of citizens. I think we can do better. Having the Prime Minister put in my mandate letter a commitment to review government programs and services to come up with a consistent definition of and approach to disability will be key in ensuring that no government is ever again put in a position of having to creatively figure out how to get money to people who are so desperately in need of that money.

We had to use the tax system and we had to deal with the pension system, and we are. We will deliver, but it is not ideal. It is easy to sit here and come up with excuses or reasons, but there are none, so I will commit today to ensuring that we do not put our citizens in this position again moving forward, and to doing the hard work, hand in hand with the disability community, to make sure that they are not put in this position again.

This one-time payment is a very important step, but it is just one of many steps that need to be taken to ensure a quality of access and opportunities for people with disabilities in Canada. I think, and I believe, that we will succeed and thrive only when every Canadian can play an equal role in our society. As we work hard to safely restart our economy and recover from the impacts of COVID-19, we cannot leave anyone behind, and we certainly cannot leave our most innovative, creative problem-solvers, who are our citizens with disabilities, behind either.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that the first time the Liberals proposed a single payment to persons with disabilities, we Conservatives offered to recall Parliament to debate and perhaps improve that initial legislation. The Liberals chose to play political games, and weeks later, after an unnecessary delay, we are back. Parliament is recalled, and we are debating an improved piece of legislation. However, this unnecessary and, for many in the community, painful delay stands in stark contrast to the turning on a dime and the awarding of almost a billion dollars to a charity, which looks very much, to many Canadians, like political payback. It is not just WE to me, but WE to me, to him, the Prime Minister, and his family.

This improved piece of legislation, overdue, is still very complex and will be seen as a challenge to many persons with disabilities in making their applications. What is the minister going to do to ensure timely disbursement of these payments?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that when given the chance to separate just the disability component—because quite frankly I thought we were all in agreement about it last time—certain parties did not choose to go forward then. We could have been a month ahead of where we are now.

Having said that, I agree; it is definitely an improved piece of legislation, in the sense that it delivers to more people. As I said in my remarks, we cannot escape the fact that we do not have within the federal government a system of direct delivery to citizens with disabilities. We do for seniors, and we do for families and for children, but we need to work on one for people with disabilities.

Yes, this is going to be super complicated at the back end, but people with disabilities need not apply whatsoever for this. They are actually given an opportunity, if they do not hold a disability tax certificate, to get one or apply for one so they can get this benefit. We are going to do the heavy lifting. It is going to be super complicated administratively at the back end, but as a result we are doing the best we can to deliver using a system that really is not functioning at this time.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's speech. I understand that she deeply cares about the living conditions of people with disabilities and thinks that this is an important issue.

It would have been nice if the bill could have been passed in early July. Perhaps people living with disabilities would now have access to that money to help them deal with the challenges they are facing.

Now that I see that the minister cares about the situation of the most vulnerable members of our society and those who are struggling, I will ask her this question.

The bill that I am sponsoring seeks to increase the number of weeks of employment insurance from 15 to 50 for those who are grappling with a serious illness and should not have the added worry of struggling to pay their rent and make ends meet.

If I were to ask her to support my bill on EI sickness benefits tomorrow, will the minister extend her concern for people with disabilities to others who are struggling?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely assure you that we have decided to up benefits from 15 to 26 weeks for people receiving employment insurance because of illness. That is really important. As we saw with the CERB, we have to support people who are sick so they can make the right decisions for their health and their families as well as for the health of our communities.

I am absolutely determined to change the act and increase the number of weeks from 15 to 26. I am committed to making that happen.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech.

I sometimes have a hard time understanding the Liberal government's ability to respond. When it is time to breathe some life into the big banks so they can issue more loans, that gets done instantaneously. When they say they are going to stop giving public funds to companies that send their money to tax havens, it takes 24 hours and then they backtrack, because that is untouchable. When it is time to award a billon-dollar contract, they do so untendered and then award it to an organization run by the Prime Minister's buddies—not to mention that his mother and brother are on the payroll. However, when it comes to providing assistance to people living with disabilities, they waited until July 20.

Why is it that they are incapable of turning around and helping people living with disabilities but they can turn on a dime when it comes to helping the richest, most fortunate Canadians, the banks and the friends of the Liberal Party?

That is strange, is it not?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been supporting persons with disabilities since the beginning of this pandemic.

Families receiving the Canada child benefit get it for their children with disabilities. Students receiving the Canada emergency student benefit get an extra $750 a month if they have a disability. We know that it is harder for persons with disabilities to find a job and that they have more expenses. Seniors with a disability are entitled to the disability tax credit. We wanted to be sure to reach the group of people who had not received these other benefits. We wanted to be sure to help the most vulnerable who were not included in the other measures.

Even though the system is difficult, I also wanted to make sure that we were not paying some people twice and others not at all. We wanted to be sure to give money to the people who need it most in the reality of the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, first of all, how much I appreciate the work of the minister in digging down into the weeds of what is a patchwork, if not a minefield, of how benefits and services are delivered to disabled people in this country.

In my riding, this is one of the big surprises that people have any time I speak to them. I am a former financial educator. I used to talk about the disability tax credit often with people, and it was a great surprise to many of them that this was something that could actually apply to people who have mobility restrictions, as well as, on the other side, people who have cognitive deficiencies. Of course, the families and the patients were in the throes of that and finding it very difficult to get the DTC. It has been expanded so that occupational therapists and physiotherapists can sign the certificate, and now also nurse practitioners.

Can the minister tell this House how members of Parliament can further help in this very important work?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity over the next 60 days, or I guess 60 days from when this bill receives royal assent, to really dig in as members of Parliament and help as many of our constituents as possible, and the organizations that help them, access the disability tax credit.

We will be providing support to members of Parliament. We will be providing support to disability organizations to help their members access this tax credit. This will immediately help people, in the form of a $600 payment, but it will also provide people access to a myriad of other services that the federal government offers for people with disabilities who require the DTC.

I will give an example. The Canada child benefit provides an additional amount each month if the child has a disability. In order to get that additional amount, the child has to be eligible for the DTC. This is completely silly, with all due respect, because there could be parents who perhaps have a child who was just born with a significant disability, and they have to navigate the tax system in order to allow their child to get a benefit the child is entitled to.

It is far from perfect, but having the 60-day window will allow us to get as many people as possible through the door while we fix the bigger problems.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber. I am very pleased, as are my colleagues in the official opposition, that the finance minister has finally, in Bill C-20, announced these long-awaited measures, but it is worth noting that they have come at a very convenient time for the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

The ethics committee was about to meet and begin a deeper dive into the third ethical scandal facing the Prime Minister and his government. In classic fashion, the finance minister, also under investigation, and also having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, has tried to distract Canadians with a big money bill and help for people that the government delayed helping when it had the chance.

The Prime Minister has long promised openness, accountability and transparency, telling us that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and he made a commitment to do politics differently, but here we are for a third time as our Prime Minister is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner for his part in the scandal involving the WE organization. The two times he was found guilty of breaking the ethics laws tell us that we do not need to wait for a report, but need the Prime Minister to come clean.

It is clear that ethical considerations are often thrown to the wayside in the PMO and under the Prime Minister. Truly, it has been a theme since he came to office. First, it was his illegal trip to billionaire island, where the Prime Minister was found to have violated sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. He accepted gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island, which were seen as gifts that could have influenced the Prime Minister. Further, the Prime Minister was found to have contravened the act when he did not recuse himself from the discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further a private interest.

Then, of course, it was the SNC-Lavalin scandal, in which the Prime Minister was found to have contravened section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act. Section 9 prohibits public office holders from using their position to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further their own private interests or those of their relatives or friends or to improperly further another person's private interests. This will not be the only time I mention the Prime Minister's friends and relatives, as it deals with conflicts of interest and his dealings. In this case, it was a clear violation by the Prime Minister when he undertook a campaign to influence the then attorney general into letting his friends at SNC-Lavalin off the hook by interfering in a criminal prosecution.

Now the Prime Minister is being investigated for his role in awarding a nearly $1-billion sole-sourced deal to an organization that has deep ties to the Liberal Party of Canada and deep and direct ties to the Prime Minister's family and him. The awarding of this contract is now being investigated by multiple committees of the House of Commons and has spawned two probes by the Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner has announced that he is examining the actions of the Prime Minister in awarding this contract and whether he broke the law again by not recusing himself from the decision despite his close ties.

The Ethics Commissioner has also announced that he is investigating the finance minister for his role in awarding the contract and not recusing himself despite his own close ties to this organization.

As I mentioned before, the finance minister is no stranger to the Ethics Commissioner, having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws already because, as I am sure most Canadians can relate, he forgot he had a French villa and a corporation in France. It happens to the best of us I am sure, but despite the fact that one of the finance minister's—

[An hon. member]

A common man's problem.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

A common man's problem indeed.

Despite the fact that one of the finance minister's daughters worked for WE and his family took a WE-sponsored trip in Ecuador, he did not recuse himself.

Now all of these ethical breaches by the Prime Minister and the finance minister follow the same pattern. The Prime Minister will deny he did anything wrong; then he will try to pass the buck; then he will say that he is sorry and then he will get the rest of the Liberals to cover it up.

He said he is sorry, but we know he is only sorry he got caught. If he were sorry, he would have accepted the invitation to appear at committee. If he were sorry, he would waive cabinet confidence. Really, if he were sorry, could he not have just written a letter to the chair of these committees and said that in light of very public revelations about his failure to recuse himself from deliberations and discussions concerning a nearly $1-billion sole-sourced agreement with a firm he has direct ties to, he would like to appear at their committees? Would that not have been the transparency the Prime Minister called for?

We know when the Prime Minister says he is sorry that, he is “sorry, not sorry”. That is why he blocked the investigation into the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We know from the “Trudeau II Report” it was the second time the Prime Minister had broken the law, the second time he had the distinction of being the first prime minister in Canada to to be found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We know from that report that there were nine people who wanted to provide testimony to the commissioner during his investigation, but were not able to. Why? Their response was uniform: it was because it would reveal a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council.

What does that mean? It means that the witnesses were muzzled by cabinet confidence. It means they were not allowed to testify. They were not allowed to listen to their conscience. How can that be? We heard in this very place that the Liberals fully co-operate with the work of officers of Parliament and the Ethics Commissioner every time.

The then government House leader talked about the historic waiving of cabinet confidences. That is not the case. It is not what happened.

He got away with it. He got away with obstructing that investigation. The Prime Minister was not properly incentivized to follow the rules.

We follow that pattern and we find the Prime Minister yet again facing an investigation.

With the WE Charity scandal unfolding before us and despite the Prime Minister's best efforts to the contrary, it is important to establish the facts as we know them. We know this did not begin with the government picking the WE organization at random in June to administer a program for youth. In fact, we found out that the WE organization was pitching the government in mid-April before the government even announced the program. We know that the organization circulated a proposal to several ministers in mid-April.

On April 19, at a meeting with officials from the finance department and ESDC, a Finance official told another senior official, who testified at the finance committee, Ms. Wernick, the senior assistant deputy minister at Employment and Social Development Canada, that in fact it was she who contacted the WE organization.

It is interesting that a mid-level public servant picked up the phone, got the founder of this organization, which we know has tens of millions of dollars in real estate holdings in downtown Toronto among all of its laundry list of other things it engages in, and said, “It is me calling. Is that WE? It is,” and it was the founder on the phone ready to take her call. I am not sure how surprised they were at the WE organization to find out that they were going to be on the receiving end of administering nearly a billion dollars in taxpayer funds.

We also found out at that meeting that this organization was going to benefit by about $43 million dollars in administrative fees. We heard today one of the ministers say that it was just $43 million. What is $43 million between friends?

On April 22, interestingly, the Prime Minister announced that the government would be moving ahead with plans to help young people economically during the crisis and that details would follow later, but while the Prime Minister was making that announcement, the WE organization was submitting a new proposal to the government by email to that same public servant who placed the call only a few days before.

We know that a few days later Volunteer Canada, a national coordinating body for the volunteer sector, reached out to the government to offer support in building a volunteer program aimed at youth. In response, little information was made available while program approval was pending. The government was not interested in Volunteer Canada's expertise or help, and what happened next is most interesting.

The WE organization, which had not been awarded anything at that point in time, contacted Volunteer Canada, which was told that the government did not need its help, and asked for help administering a really big program that was worth about $912 million. That is interesting. I thought that Volunteer Canada was not needed by the government. That is very interesting, and it is interesting, indeed, that the WE organization was already calling people, knowing that they had this in the bag.

Meetings were held between May 25 and June 5 between those groups, and on June 5 Volunteer Canada told the WE organization that it would not be participating, citing several problems with the program, including that the program was going to pay students below minimum wage in any province they participated. That does not sound like help for students.

That is very strange, because the official opposition, the Conservative Party, called for funding for the Canada summer jobs program to be increased beyond what the government had committed this year. I can tell you that in my riding, there were employers approved by the government and who had advised my office that they had students who had applied to work, but that the fund ran out of money.

There were lots of employment opportunities. There was a structure already set up. The Government of Canada was prepared to administer that, but suddenly this new program, plucked out of thin air almost inexplicably, to the benefit of $43 million for these administrators, at a cost of $912 million to the taxpayer and paying less than minimum wage to all program participants, was invented by the government.

I think Volunteer Canada's concerns were right on the money. That kind of consulting, which the government got for free, was for a program with all kinds of problems, but the government bashed on, and on June 25 the Prime Minister announced the program, and later that day his minister said that the WE organization would be administering it.

The current government dismisses questions of conflicts of interest in the awarding of the contract, and the PMO and the WE organization have told several media outlets that the Prime Minister's family was not paid to speak at WE events. Later, on July 3, the WE organization announced that it would not be administering this program. On that same day, the Ethics Commissioner, in response to my letter, announced he would be launching an investigation of the Prime Minister.

On July 9, we learned that the Prime Minister's family was paid by the WE organization.

On July 15, the WE organization issued a statement that it was returning to its roots and would conduct a review of its structure and activities. When a cheque is about to be cut for $912 million, due diligence by the government would have meant that it would have taken a look at what WE's structure and activities were: a board in shambles and a bank covenant not met.

A review of structure and activities should have been done by the Government of Canada before it offered its friends at WE Charity $43 million in a bailout. It is an unusual pattern, to say the least, but these ethical breaches by the Prime Minister certainly followed the same pattern I mentioned before.

Members will remember from the SNC-Lavalin scandal that the Prime Minister's first response was that the allegations in The Globe and Mail were false. We know that this was demonstrably false now. That was proven when it was deemed that he broke the law. The Liberal Prime Minister broke the law. His statements were false.

The Prime Minister's ties to this organization, the finance minister's ties to this organization and the Liberal Party's ties to this organization are deep and there are many.

It is hard to believe that there was no one in the cabinet room and no one on the line who saw this conflict, this problem on the horizon. Is it that everyone knows what happens when someone stands up to the Prime Minister? We saw that with the member for Vancouver Granville, the former attorney general. We saw that with Dr. Jane Philpott, the former president of the treasury board. She stood up to the Prime Minister. What happened to Dr. Philpott? What happened to Canada's first female indigenous attorney general? The Prime Minister fired them, and those Liberals sat silently when that happened. They were complicit in that cover-up and they are complicit in this one.

The Liberals filibustered at the ethics committee on Friday and waited until they talked out the clock. They spoke virtually uninterrupted for hours about all things unrelated and demonstrated misunderstanding in some cases and hypocrisy in others. I took to the floor to encourage them to have the courage of their convictions to vote. If they were going to vote against, they should let the chips fall where they may. Votes are won and lost all the time. However, they moved to adjourn the meeting. They did not have the courage of their convictions. They wanted to further the cover-up.

Therefore, we had the announcement for this bill. The Prime Minister has said it is all about helping people. When the WE Charity scandal first broke, he said that it was all about helping the children. I think it is all about helping the friends, family and donors of the Prime Minister. Canadians deserve better. The Prime Minister must allow the Ethics Commissioner to do his work unobstructed, with transparency, that disinfectant value that sunlight brings. He should waive cabinet confidence. What does he have to hide?

I call on all Liberals to have the courage of their convictions, to appeal to their better angels and to let the Prime Minister know that what he represents is not what Canadians deserve.

Canadians deserve better. They have elected 338 members. They have elected a Liberal caucus that can let their leader know that his behaviour is unacceptable. If they will not ask him to resign, why do they not at least tell him that he must appear at committee, must waive cabinet confidence and must own this scandal?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite encapsulates what the Conservative approach to being in the official opposition has really been about over the last number of years, It has been the character assassination of the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance or others. It has been fairly clear. All one needs to do is review what has happened over the last number of years. While the Conservatives are so determined to continue that character assassination, we as a government will continue to work day in and day out to serve Canadians in all regions of our country.

The very issue we are debating today is Bill C-20. It is about supporting people with disabilities. It is about making changes to the wage subsidy program. Canadians want and expect the House to deal with these things. Could the member provide any comments whatsoever with respect to Bill C-20, something Canadians want to see passed?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to start after the member's outburst. He said that we were all about character assassination, yet one has to have a character to assassinate, and that is not what we see here.

If we look at the measures that have been put in front of us today, we have been asking for these things to happen for months. However, the Liberals wanted to talk about anything but this. Now they want to talk about it because of another one of the Prime Minister's scandals. He has embarrassed our country on the world stage. This this is being reported in media around the world. This is his hallmark. When he says that Canada is back, Canada is back on the front pages in a really negative way under the Prime Minister, under the member's Prime Minister.

It is a shame that the Liberals filibustered that committee last week. It is a shame that the Liberals waited so long to bring measures to the House to help Canadians.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his very thoughtful comments on the scandal that is taking place now in our country. It is a common practice when one enters into a contract to do due diligence. In this case, no such thing took place except that the Prime Minister handed over a big fat contract of $912 million to a friend's organization.

How much due diligence does the hon. member believe happened and if proper due diligence had happened, what could have been the result compared to what we have right now?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, we heard the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth say that she believed public servants had done their due diligence. Our professional public service is known for just that, being professional. However, it is around the cabinet table where it looks like that due diligence fell short. It did not look at the potential conflicts, of which there are many. It did not look at the publicly available information that the board of this organization was in a shambles. While rumours abound and close ties persist, there was no comment or concern about the financial jeopardy this company was in.

Therefore, due diligence could have certainly saved the country a lot of embarrassment, but it also could have saved the government a lot of embarrassment. Financial prudence is not the government's hallmark. For once, we would like self-awareness for brand Canada from the Liberals.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting in on the ethics committee and I know the hon. member heard long stories. We heard stories in Latin. We heard biographies. We heard everything and anything from the Liberal side except holding the government to account. There was an understanding that a deal was struck that the Prime Minister would indeed be invited to this committee to be held accountable in that regard.

Given the hon. member's experience on the ethics committee, what does he have to say about the long-standing tradition of prime ministers simply shirking their responsibility to be accountable at committee? Does he believe the Prime Minister has a duty to report to the ethics committee to allow that committee to seek out its mandate in holding the government to account?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I mentioned that if the Prime Minister were sorry, he would not be waiting for invitations, or waiting to get dragged to committee or waiting further embarrassment by order of the House. He would offer to attend. Knowing that the ethics committee is undertaking this work, the Prime Minister should be writing to the chair and offering to come to committee. We saw that before with a member who had great integrity, the member for Vancouver Granville. She offered to appear before the justice committee. She said that she was available, at the chair's call, to attend. That is integrity. That is what we expect.

We have seen the Prime Minister use cabinet confidence to shield answers from being released. In this case, the Prime Minister has said that he is sorry. He needs to make a public declaration that this is not what we will see in the commissioner's report, that there was no obstruction. We cannot have confidence in our public institutions when we have a prime minister who obstructs every investigation, and multiple investigations, into his ethical violations and when he breaks the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for walking Canadians through this scenario. I will remind him as well that it is not just the Ethics Commissioner that is launching an investigation. There is the potential for the Commissioner of Lobbying on breaking lobbying rules on the part of WE, as well as the potential of an RCMP investigation. This is a multipronged, multifaceted situation.

I really want to focus on the dates that the member spoke of, April 19 to the 22, when all of this was going on: the phone calls and emails leading up to the Prime Minister's announcement on June 25 about the Canada summer student grants program and that WE was going to be the group or the partner that was going to deal with this program. Curiously, on July 11, after this scandal broke, 450 people who had been hired to administer this program were laid off by WE. Clearly, the fix was in that WE was going to get this long before the Prime Minister's announcement because of the fact that it had hired.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment further on that and his thoughts about the fix being in on this program.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling when we look at that timeline, and there were too many dates to plot on the timeline in the 20 minutes I had to tell Canadians and the House of the sequence of events that we had seen.

We know that many times throughout the process the WE organization demonstrated certainty that it would be administering this program. Where did that assurance come from? Why was the Prime Minister announcing a program only days after this organization had first been contacted and ultimately submitted the accepted proposal to him at the same time he was announcing the program?

There are many questions, but there is no question that the fix was in from the beginning.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak about integrity and ethics. My father often told me that charity begins at home.

I am wondering if my colleague thinks it is ethical for a political party to apply for the emergency wage subsidy. Would it not be justified to ask the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to study whether a political party can legitimately apply to a program such as the emergency wage subsidy?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that when we look at the scandal we have in front of us, we do not get distracted by shiny objects. I am sure that the softballs the Bloc Québécois like to throw to the Liberals are much appreciated. The Prime Minister appreciates them, but the member is confusing apples and oranges here, or des pommes et des oranges.

This program was about a charity administering funds for a volunteer program, but that is not what it was. It was paying students less than minimum wage in a program that was designed only as a $43 million bailout for friends of the Prime Minister and those Liberals. Let us not get confused or distracted. This is about the Prime Minister rewarding his friends, punishing his enemies and always letting Canadians down.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton.

I am very pleased to be speaking today. This bill that was tabled in the House shows the importance of the Canada emergency wage subsidy and of the adjustments proposed by the government. These changes will provide better support for Canadian workers and employers.

I think that most if not all of the members in the House will agree that the COVID-19 pandemic is the worst crisis our generation has ever encountered. It has caused the largest and most sudden economic contraction since the Great Depression 90 years ago. Fortunately, the Canadian government was quick to show leadership and to help protect jobs and stabilize the economy.

Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan represents nearly 14% of the country’s gross domestic product. This includes $230 billion in direct measures to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to deliver support to Canadians, businesses and other employers. It also includes $85 billion in tax and customs duty payment deferrals to meet liquidity needs of Canadian businesses and families. We implemented this plan to assist Canadians, protect jobs, support employers and make sure that Canada is in a better position to rebound in the post-pandemic recovery.

Since the beginning of this crisis, we have not hesitated to take action and improve assistance programs when necessary. That is precisely what the Minister of Finance did last Friday when he announced the proposed adjustments to the Canada emergency wage subsidy. I will get back to that in a minute, but first a reminder.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy is an important part of our COVID-19 economic response plan. It covers 75% of wages paid to workers by eligible employers up to $847 a week. The CEWS came into effect on March 15 and is available to eligible employers that have experienced a revenue decline of 30% or more, except for the month of March, when the threshold was 15%.

Last May, the government announced that it would be extending the CEWS for 12 weeks, until August 29. We also extended eligibility for the CEWS to several types of employers, including indigenous government-owned corporations that carry on a business, registered Canadian amateur athletic associations and private schools and colleges.

Since its inception, the Canada emergency wage subsidy has supported approximately three million jobs. Some three million Canadians were able to keep or return to their job despite the pandemic. This also means that millions of children, spouses and parents benefited from these jobs breadwinners were able to keep or return to.

Now let us take a look at the changes announced by the Minister of Finance last week and that we will be debating this week.

First, the government is proposing a further extension of the Canada emergency wage subsidy and has provided program details until November 21, 2020. It intends to offer more support until December 19, 2020.

Second, we are proposing to make the CEWS available to employers who have experienced a revenue drop of less than 30%.

Third, the new wage subsidy will be made up of two components, specifically a base subsidy available to all eligible employers that have experienced a decline in revenues, and a top-up subsidy for employers that have been most adversely affected by the COVID-19 crisis. These changes will make the CEWS more effective, and ensure that it better meets employers’ needs. Employers with a larger revenue decline could obtain a larger subsidy. Employers that get back on their feet sooner will be entitled to a gradually declining subsidy as their business picks up.

It is important to point out that a different structure will apply to employees who are temporarily laid off. In their case, the amount of wage subsidy will stay the same until August 29, at 75% of the employee’s wages or remuneration. Our intention is to adjust the wage subsidy over time for employees who are temporarily laid off in order to align with the level of support provided by the CERB or EI. This will make for fairer treatment and make it easier for temporarily laid-off employees to transition from the CERB to the Canada emergency wage subsidy so that they can reconnect with their employer. The changes we have proposed, which we will be discussing this week, are based on consultations with business and union representatives concerning adjustments that could be made to continue to protect jobs while stimulating economic growth.

We got a lot of feedback, but three things stood out. First, the 30% revenue decline threshold is too stringent and could discourage growth. Second, the hardest-hit sectors need more support. Third, extending the program until August 29, as planned until now, is not enough for some employers that need to get back on their feet.

In conclusion, the changes we are proposing address certain concerns. The adjustments will help employers create and maintain good jobs. They will also increase the number of workers rehired in all sectors, by more employers. That being said, we understand that the situation continues to evolve rapidly. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and make additional changes as needed. The current version of the program will be in effect until November 21, and we intend to continue to provide support until December 19.

The opposition parties have read the bill, so they know what our intentions are. I am eager to hear the debates this week, and I hope that every member in the House will support the government’s efforts to help Canadian businesses in these difficult times.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks.

I have a few questions I would like to ask him.

How many angry phone calls has the member received in his constituency office regarding complaints about delays in the corrections to fill the gaps in the emergency wage subsidy? How many angry phone calls has my colleague received from constituents about the delay in the one-time payment to persons with disabilities? This question is probably the most relevant: How many angry phone calls has my colleague received from constituents upset about the billion-dollar WE boondoggle?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had some calls, but not many about the issues my colleague just mentioned.

In my riding of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, we have answered well over 1,500 individual emails and 2,000 or 2,100 phone calls. I can say that people are very polite and very conscious of the fact that we would not be in this position if the federal government had not been there to support workers and people in need.

Tomorrow and Wednesday, we will have time to go over all of this with all of my colleagues. I hope they will ask themselves what they would have done in the current government's place.

The best answer would be that they would have done the same thing we did.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Bloc Québécois members were all prepared to leap to the defence of our constituents' interests.

In fact, the wage subsidy was the Bloc Québécois's idea, because we believe in the importance of maintaining the employment relationship between employers and employees. We even got the government to increase it from 10% to 75% by modelling our approach on what is being done elsewhere.

In my riding, the wage subsidy was used by 62% of businesses. That means 62% of businesses in Granby's industrial area used the wage subsidy because they were struggling.

I would like to thank my dear colleague for his speech and ask him whether he believes that the Liberal Party of Canada faced the same difficulties as the businesses in my riding of Shefford that urgently applied for the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I can confirm that that is the case, just like everywhere else in Canada. It is not so bad if we come up with solutions.

My colleague knows what those solutions are as well as I do. I hope all members of the House will have a chance to speak on this tomorrow or the next day. We will be voting, and I hope our colleagues will support us.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask him a question.

Why does he think the Liberal government awarded a nearly $1-billion sole-source contract to administer a government student assistance program to a charity that had no prior experience?

Does he think that not trusting the public service, not putting out a tender, and giving a contract to friends of the Prime Minister's family is a good use of public money?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will thank my hon. colleague, because I am polite.

We are not about to start the same debate all over again. We have said everything there is to say on the matter, and I think it is important to put ourselves in the shoes of the young people waiting for the subsidy. I think it has been properly distributed across Canada, not just in the Liberal Party, but among all parties.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Consular Affairs.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-20 today. It is an important piece of legislation that recognizes the importance of restarting our economy, supporting our workers and helping Canadian businesses address the challenges of COVID-19.

My riding of Kanata—Carleton is full of entrepreneurs, full of people putting themselves forth to create businesses and opportunities. I am very grateful for them, but they need our support. These are hard-working people. They are business owners trying to help us move our country forward. They create job opportunities that strengthen my community and communities right across the country. They also help us grow the middle class.

Our government has seen how severely Canadian businesses, Canadian workers and their families have been impacted by COVID-19. The pandemic has been especially hard on them, and they continue to face economic hardship and uncertainty.

All across the country, companies of all sizes have had to reduce their operations or temporarily shut down to help slow the spread of the virus.

Since the beginning, we have worked hard to protect jobs, and we are unwavering in our efforts to protect even more jobs and to encourage employers to rehire workers previously laid off as a result of COVID-19. We know how very important this is to our economic recovery and positioning Canadian businesses, non-profits and charities to more easily resume normal operations following the crisis.

As we gradually reopen the economy and take the first steps to recover from the repercussions of COVID-19, we know that it will take time for things to return to normal. All sectors of Canada's economy have been affected by this pandemic. One day, this crisis will be behind us, but we have not reached that point yet. In the meantime, our government will continue to ensure that employers receive the support they need during these difficult times.

From the beginning of this crisis, our government has continuously assessed the repercussions of COVID-19 in order to respond accordingly. As part of Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan, we implemented the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which helps employers of all sizes continue to pay their employees.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy is here for businesses, non-profit organizations and registered charities and will help them pay workers and manage the many challenges their business is facing in this pandemic. This means that, despite the decrease in their income due to the crisis, employers are able to keep workers on the payroll and rehire those they have previously laid off. The wage subsidy is the kind of support that makes sure business owners have one less thing to worry about in this time of unprecedented uncertainty.

Back in May, to ensure Canadian workers could continue to have the support they need in these uncertain times, the Government of Canada announced its intention to extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy by an additional 12 weeks, which brought the end of the program to August 29, 2020. We also extended eligibility for the Canada emergency wage subsidy to more employers to help support more Canadian workers. To date, the subsidy has helped around three million Canadians keep their jobs and have a paycheque to count on throughout this crisis. That number continues to grow.

As the crisis continues to evolve, the Canada emergency wage subsidy must also evolve.

We consulted with businesses and labour organizations so we could hear directly from Canadians on how the program was helping workers and businesses across the country and what adjustments we could make to help it support businesses even more through the safe and gradual economic reopening. We heard them, and with the invaluable input received through these consultations we are proposing further changes to the design of the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

The proposed changes to the Canada emergency wage subsidy would allow the program to support more workers and businesses, better protect jobs and promote growth, and be there for Canadians as the economy continues to open. The flexibility would ensure that the wage subsidy meets the diverse needs of our businesses as we move forward. For businesses that continue to see significant challenges, we would provide significant support to help them keep their workers on board, and businesses that are seeing a steady recovery will be able to rely on predictable support that would help them afford to keep and rehire workers.

First, we are proposing to extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy to November 21, 2020, with the intent to provide further support into December.

We are proposing to expand the program's eligibility requirements to include employers that have experienced a revenue decline of less than 30%. The base subsidy for eligible employers would gradually decrease as revenues increase. To help the employers that have been hit hardest by the pandemic, we are also proposing a top-up subsidy of up to 25%.

Generally, an eligible employer's top-up subsidy under the Canada emergency wage subsidy would be determined based on the revenue drop experience when comparing revenues in the preceding three months to the same three months in the prior year.

Only employers that have experienced an average revenue drop of more than 50% over the preceding three months can get this top-up subsidy.

In addition, a safe harbour would be available to ensure that, through August 29, employers would have access to a Canada emergency wage subsidy rate that is at least as generous as they would have had under the initial Canada emergency wage subsidy structure. This means that through July and August, an eligible employer with a revenue decline of 30% or more would receive a Canada emergency wage subsidy rate of at least 75%.

With these proposed changes, the Canada emergency wage subsidy would continue to provide substantial support for Canadian employers and employees who are most adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our government continues to assess the impact of COVID-19. As we have said since the very start of this crisis, we stand ready to take additional actions if they are needed.

Through programs such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program for small businesses, we are helping businesses across the country keep their doors open and continue to provide the services that Canadians need. We will get through this together. We will succeed by working together.

Today, I encourage all hon. members to put the immediate needs of Canadians first, lend their support and vote in favour of this bill.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague is aware of the deeming rule, which was included in the CEWS package at the very beginning. In the case where businesses applied the first month and then the amount was increased to 30%, some no longer qualified, so they did not apply. However, there was a deeming rule, which apparently indicated that a business qualified for that next month even though it no longer met that eligibility. A number of businesses in my riding were not aware of that and did not apply for it.

I wonder if the member is aware as to whether that deeming rule is still in place for those businesses retroactively to be able to get the support they desperately need. With this new layout of the land, will that still be included for them, going forward?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not well versed in that particular aspect of this legislation. I understand that there were discussions about retroactivity and how this could be made to be fair. I do not have an answer for the member at the present time, but I can certainly find one, if she would like me to come back to her with an answer.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

We have been listening to speeches about the content of this bill all day. That is great. There are a lot of good things in this bill. However, there are some things missing. There is always something that could have been done better. Since the government is recalling the House anyway, I wonder why it is not taking this opportunity to introduce a bill that addresses all of the demands, or at least tries to help as many people as possible.

Take, for example, the artists who would normally spend the summer working at festivals or touring and doing shows all over the place. Most of these events are cancelled this summer.

They obviously get a little help from the CERB in the summer, but the CERB will be over at the end of August. These people normally earn a significant portion of their incomes in the summer, which sees them through until the following summer and the next festivals. Now they will have no income for the rest of the year because they are not eligible for the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

These artists and artisans will probably have to find another job and change fields, which will cripple the local, regional and Quebec cultures, especially francophone culture.

Can my colleague tell me why the government did not use this bill to announce assistance for seasonal workers, such as artists? Artists are clearly being penalized and will find themselves in an untenable situation come fall.

I could go on, but I will let my colleague discuss this with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for whom I have a lot of respect.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he may as well confer with the expert. I am a lover of arts, culture and music, and I really worked with the minister. I want that aspect of our society to thrive through this. I know we put money aside, somewhere in the range of $3 billion, for our tourism industry. That is another industry where they need to make their money in the summertime.

I really do appreciate the member bringing that up. It is absolutely key, and I will be working with the minister to make sure that arts and culture are part of this package.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to continue with the idea of those who will be left behind once the CERB comes to an end at the end of August, this will not just happen for artists, but for so many. COVID has shown the many holes that exist within our social systems and within those programs. Sadly, a lot of them have been chipped away after consecutive governments, time after time. Specifically, I think about our EI program and the fact that throughout the 1990s, the Liberal government stole about $50 billion. The Conservatives after them, in 2015, stole $54 billion from our EI system.

As the member across the way talks about all these wonderful programs that have been created, I would like to get back to talking about the programs that existed before and ways that the government has recommitted to expand them, to grow them, to ensure they are strong and will continue to support people beyond COVID.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had to put out some short-term, get-it-out-there solutions, because this really was an unprecedented event. However, I am hopeful that it will actually shuffle us toward reassessing all of our social safety networks. How do we look after people better in this country? Those discussions are under way today, and I am looking forward to being a part of them. We can take this emergency we are in, this crisis we are in, and we can use it to do even more good work for Canadians in the future.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the House know that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk and I look forward to this opportunity to address the House.

First of all, I want to pay tribute to the men and women, the businesses, the entrepreneurs, the hard-working people, the front-line essential workers in my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe who have done yeomen's work throughout this very difficult time in our nation's history. I am happy to report that central Alberta has been very stoic and also very capable in dealing with COVID-19. We have had very few cases in our province and I hope that continues going forward.

Before us today is a bill and the many missed opportunities are the theme of my speech: the missed opportunities in this legislation and missed opportunities for Parliament to have done its job. I do not want to harp on that, but we have been basically sidelined with a very marginal committee. One political party in the House probably regrets that alliance it set up a little while ago. I could be talking about missed opportunities for some people to even come to work today, but I am not going to talk about those. I am going to talk about the missed opportunities in this legislation.

The first thing I want to talk about is CERB and the missed opportunities in this legislation. Many MPs in this room probably already know and have probably already heard from their constituents about something called the CERB clawback. Early on when CERB was put out, people received money. Some who applied for it received maybe a little more than they should. They had an advance payment that was not associated with their work time or with a pay period. Now the government is clawing that money back. It is doing it by just stopping payments cold to people who are actually going to continue on. We know that the government wants to continue on because it has announced several times that it is going to extend the CERB. Why did it not at least notify people that for the next two weeks they would not be getting the CERB? That would have been the polite thing to do. There are lots of Canadians facing this right now. Or the Liberals could have amortized the amount that needed to be clawed back over the next extended period of time so they would not leave a family who is already barely getting by on 25% of what that household normally brings in. But no, that is not what the government is doing at all. It is really unfortunate and a missed opportunity in the legislation to do right by Canadians.

There is $252 million of reannounced money that was going to go to the agriculture sector whether we had a COVID-19 crisis or not. The business risk management tools are not cutting it for our farmers. There is market access loss as a result of COVID-19 border closures and restrictions. Nothing in this piece of legislation is going to address the needs of the farmers of this country that not only feed us, but also feed the world at times. We are one of a handful of countries in the world that is a net exporter of food. We need to support our agricultural sector, and it is a missed opportunity in this legislation. We are going to have further contraction in our agricultural sector as a result. However, farmers by and large do not vote Liberal, so we should not be at all surprised that there is no support in this round three of legislation, or round four, whatever we happen to be on now with one-day parliamentary sittings.

I talked about the oil and gas sector during question period. I am a former rig worker. I am proud to say I was a roughneck during my younger years and was very proud of the work I did. I still have my coveralls, my hard hat, all my PPE from those days. What is the Government of Canada doing right now? Is it advancing the oil and gas sector's interests and positioning the sector to be able to thrive once the world economy takes off again so that we can have a window of market opportunity to get back on track? Who knows, maybe even the oil and gas sector could generate some revenue that would get us back to a semblance of a balanced budget, but there is nothing in there. Where is the money for the oil and gas sector? Here is some money for some orphaned wells because Liberal policies have been so onerous that a bunch of companies went bankrupt and orphaned some of their wells. The Liberals say they will give them some money now to clean up those abandoned wells. It's basically a lifeline to the end of life for this industry. That is what the Liberals have offered.

This is the energy that we all use as Canadians to heat our homes, to power and fuel our economy, to get our kids to school and sport, and ourselves to work, but it is not important to the Liberal government. Why? It is because I do not think a whole lot of rig workers vote for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Through the Community Futures regional relief fund in my constituency, small businesses were given a million dollars. That was gobbled up instantly. This was supposed to be an opportunity for small business owners to go to their local Community Futures in Alberta, or it would be different depending on what province they are in, but it was supposed to be a last-resort effort. It was over-subscribed instantly because despite everything the Liberals have done with the closures they have made, every single Canadian has been impacted by COVID, but they pick winners and losers in their programming. There are so many people who have not been able to qualify for the other programs they have tried to rely on this regional relief fund and it is not working. It was over-subscribed instantly. Again, people in my riding had to be told, no, the government is not going to be there for them. It is a problem.

Hospitality and tourism is probably the hardest-hit sector of our economy. I know that the restaurants and coffee shops have had a really tough time. I know they used some of the programs for those who qualify. They used the wage subsidy for those who qualified. However, it is not just these folks. There is a whole sector of our economy, and my colleague from B.C. brought this up during question period today. There are guides and outfitters. I am going to talk about this because I used to be a guide on Great Bear Lake.

When I was in university, I did not wait for the government to hand me a cheque. When I was a university student, I actually went out and got a job as a fishing guide on Great Bear Lake, and I worked my tail off from sun-up until sundown, which in the north is the whole day. That is what I did, and I was proud of the work I did. It was hard work in in a rough environment. I was getting bitten by mosquitoes, blackflies, name it. I was in six- or seven-foot waves on an icy cold lake trying to catch fish for people who paid an awesome, large sum of money, in my mind at that time as a 19-year-old, to come for the pleasure of catching a fish. Not a single one of those lodges on Great Bear Lake, to my knowledge, is open and there is absolutely no help through any of the programs that have been offered. How do they demonstrate a loss of revenue in March, April or May when their guests do not show up until June, July, August and September?

Fishing guide operators on Vancouver Island, who have been trounced by the DFO regulations and this minister's regulations for the last couple of years, are now being trounced by COVID regulations. If 80% of their clients are from outside of Canada, what has the government done to help these folks? Well, the government has done nothing, because a whole lot of people who own firearms and go hunting and fishing probably do not vote for the Liberal Party of Canada. Where is the help for them? It is the same for the oil and gas sector and the same for the farmers of this country. The help is not coming, not at all.

There was another opportunity here when it comes to making the difference. The government, back in early 2015-16, had a problem with something called “cash for access”. Cash for access was that scandal, and it was a big deal because it showed and exposed the cozy relationship of a bunch of Liberal insiders with the government who were getting quid pro quo for donations to the party. The Prime Minister said that it could not be them; the problem had to be the rules. Therefore, he changed the rules when it comes to how fundraising is actually done. He changed the Canada Elections Act because he had to blame the rules, but never mind the ethical blind spots that had been pointed out by the previous ethics commissioner. That was what the Prime Minister and the Liberal government of the day did. They changed the law

They could have changed the law today to deal with the WE scandal. The Liberals could have changed the ethics laws to create a repeat offender designation, for a government that seems to have a few repeat offenders. We all know that the Liberals' criminal justice approach is to let people go and give them a slap on the wrist, so why would we expect anything different when it comes to a change in the ethical law? Nonetheless, they had that ability before them.

In fact, the Liberals could have set mandatory minimum fines on an escalating scale for repeat offenders, and we know that the government is okay with registries. They could have created a registry of repeat ethical offenders for their own government. Think of the job creation in the Ethics Commissioner's office, if only the government were focused on actually doing something positive for Canadians.

There were a lot of missed opportunities, and I think we can agree that the current government does not have Canadians' interests at heart.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech.

He began his speech by saying that there was absolutely nothing in this bill to support our farmers. I am glad he brought that up because, over the past two weeks, I have been meeting with farmers in my riding, and they all tell me that the best solution is to make sure supply management is never compromised again.

My party introduced a bill calling for a supply management exemption along the same lines as the cultural exemption in negotiations with trading partners.

I do not know if my colleague agrees that the same kind of system should be in place and if he is prepared to support an exemption for supply management, because his party has never stated its position on the subject.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague would be interested to know that probably the largest segment of the supply-managed farmers in Alberta lies within my riding in the counties of Lacombe and Ponoka, and the party position of the Conservative Party of Canada has always been to support the supply-managed sector. In fact, the House has convened earlier for emergency legislation to deal with extending credit to the supply-managed sector.

If there is something more that is needed, and my colleague from Beauce spoke about this earlier today, then we would always do something reasonable to support any aspect of the agricultural sector.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe talked about a lot of missed opportunities, and I know there is a gap within this legislation that will make the legislation inaccessible to many employers, particularly in week four of the wage subsidy. However, it is a complex web, and the hon. member for Carleton said earlier that one would basically need to be an astrophysicist or have a degree in mathematics to figure it out.

It is going to cost businesses a tremendous amount of money from hiring accountants and consultants, so I want to ask my hon. colleague about this particular piece of legislation and the impact it's going to have on businesses that are still suffering in his riding and across the country, as it relates to the wage subsidy.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken to many businesses in my constituency over the last number of months. Many of these business owners and operators have called me with despair in their voices about their frustration with the current programs the government is offering, because they either did not qualify or the thresholds seemed to be changing. I remember in the early days of the programs being announced that people had to pay attention, because every day it seemed like rubrics for all of the programs were about to change, but the frustration is still there and my colleague is absolutely right.

I am just going to reiterate what my colleague from Carleton said earlier today: If it is easier for a person to make money sitting at home, getting a benefit from the government, there is no incentive for that person to work. There will be no incentive for these businesses to even apply for these programs, or try to get the help they need, if it is going to be a net negative cost for them, because they have to hire the expertise in order to do so.

This is a typical shell game that is played by the Liberal government, where it is more interested in the announcement than the actual benefit it will have for Canadians. The programs are going to be so complicated and so onerous that we are going to exclude people just because they do not have time right now. They are too busy trying to keep their doors open, keep their employees paid, and keep the hounds away on the personal finances of their home, outside of their business, to sit here and try to go through a bureaucratic flowchart to try to access a little more government money. When we take a look at some of the problems that some of the businesses are having right now and some of the calls, especially on the CERB where the clawbacks are coming, we can ask if the risk is really going to be worth the reward. That is something I am going to have to leave in the hands of the businesses in my riding, but it is another missed opportunity.

We should keep things simple, make programs that work for the benefit of Canadians, and always incentivize people working and earning a living. The dignity of a job and the dignity of a business, running in a profitable scenario, is always what the government should be striving for.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for sharing his time with me today.

COVID-19 has truly delivered a devastating blow to the world that we used to know. This pandemic has claimed the lives of so many, and I want to express my sincerest thoughts to all those who have lost family and loved ones to COVID-19, including in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk. My prayers are with them all.

Right across Canada, we have seen the effects of the pandemic not just on our health but on our economy as well. Businesses are struggling and various industries have had to downsize, and as a result, many people have, unfortunately, lost their jobs. My riding of Haldimand—Norfolk has not been immune to these impacts, but down in Ontario's garden, we are not strangers to challenging times. We know how to pull up our socks, push through and adapt when necessary.

I would like to cite a couple of examples of this. As with many other businesses across our country, those in Haldimand—Norfolk have done what they have had to do not just to survive, but to contribute to the effort against COVID-19 as well.

The first example is a company called Battlefield International, in Cayuga. As soon as the pandemic began, this company, which normally develops products for the aerospace and defence sectors, began designing its own manual ventilator automation control, also known as the MVAC, for use in the health care community. Another example is a business called Hometown Brewing Company, which started making hand sanitizer and even donated some to community organizations in need. It is actions like these that shine a light during these dark times.

Even though many businesses and people in Haldimand—Norfolk have shown their strength through these difficult times, they continue to need our help as well. They need support, and the Conservatives are here to help them.

Today we are debating legislation that intends to extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy and change the eligibility criteria. The bill would also implement a one-time, tax-free payment of up to $600 for Canadians with disabilities.

Throughout this pandemic, the Conservatives have supported the wage subsidy, but we have consistently called for changes to be made that would better support businesses and workers. One of the changes that we have been advocating for is a sliding scale to allow companies with less than a 30% revenue decline to receive the wage subsidy. That way, as the economy starts to reopen, businesses could continue to receive much-needed support to get back on their feet. In fact, representatives from a car dealership in my riding contacted me recently to express their concern that the 30% revenue decline requirements were just too stringent, especially given the economy is beginning to open.

Flexibility in the eligibility requirement is needed, as we have been saying for quite some time, and while this should have been done much earlier, I am happy to see that the Liberals have finally listened to us. After this legislation passes, any business that can show a drop in revenue will be able to apply for the wage subsidy. The amount that employers will receive will depend on the percentage of revenue that they have lost, compared within a certain time frame.

This may sound simple, but unfortunately the formula that has been presented by the Liberals is anything but simple, as my colleague from Carleton has outlined well today. It will only cause confusion for small businesses, more paperwork and more hiring of outside expertise. I spoke with one businessman on the weekend who said that he is not even going to bother applying, because he figured he would have to pay his accountant more than what he would get out of the program. At a time when people are trying to get back on their feet, red tape and overly complex government policy are the last things that these small business owners need or deserve.

That said, I do support the extension and the changes made to the Canada emergency wage subsidy, but I hope the Liberals will listen to the concerns of the Conservatives and simplify the administration of it.

I will also be supporting the one-time, tax-free payment of up to $600 for persons with disabilities. It is unfortunate, though, that this did not come about sooner.

After waiting months before announcing support for Canadians with disabilities, the Liberals finally proposed a plan in June to distribute the payment. However, the problem was that too many people did not qualify because the plan was restricted to those who were already claiming the disability tax credit. A lot of people do not apply for that for a variety of reasons, maybe because they do not have enough taxable income or because the application process, once again, is just too onerous, but planning to give the special COVID-19 payments to persons with disabilities without doing it in a broader way has meant that a lot of people who really need it the most are not going to get it.

Today's proposal, which expands eligibility to include those on the Canada pension plan disability and veterans on the disability allowance, is a big improvement and I am pleased to see it. I just wish that it had been done last month, when the opportunity was first there.

The Conservatives have pointed out flaws in the programs, and proposed solutions to deliver them, for months now. If Parliament had been resumed, we could have had meaningful debate on this issue and made amendments that would have resulted in Canadians with disabilities receiving their support by now. Quite frankly, I think it is shameful that the Prime Minister and his party continue to block the return of Parliament. There are still too many people falling through the cracks, people who need and deserve our support.

By denying members of the opposition the ability to use the tools that we have as members of the opposition to bring forward these concerns in this chamber, many Canadians are not having their voices heard, or if they are, it is happening way later than it should. Parliament needs to return not only so that the problems with the Liberals' programs can be fixed in a timely manner, but also so that Canadians can get answers to why the Prime Minister and his cabinet decided to give a $900-million sole-source agreement to WE Charity.

Since learning that members of the Prime Minister's family were paid almost $300,000 to speak at WE Charity events, we have also found out that the Minister of Finance has direct family ties to the charity as well. Neither the Prime Minister nor his Minister of Finance thought that it was unethical to be part of a decision-making process where a contract was given to an organization that pays members of both of their families. Madam Speaker, I hope you agree with me that it is a serious problem when people in these positions do not recognize that conflict of interest.

Although the Liberals think that simply apologizing will make everything better and make the situation go away, the issue is that they keep having to apologize. They should not have had to in the first place, and they would not have had to if they had done the right thing. Canadians deserve answers, and the Conservatives will continue to hold the Prime Minister and the government accountable.

Before I close, I would like to bring up one last point, which has to do with what I did not see in the legislation today, something that I wish I had.

Since the pandemic began, the Conservatives have been putting forward constructive solutions to help Canadians. As provinces continue to reopen, people are optimistic about their futures and are anxious to get back to work. However, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, many employers are facing significant staffing challenges, even though we have record unemployment numbers in the country. Canadians want to work and businesses need workers, but the CERB is penalizing workers for picking up shifts.

I have had way too many stories on this issue come to me and my office in my constituency. Right now, Canadians making just one dollar more than the CERB limit of $1,000 lose the benefit completely. I know a woman who cannot work the fifth Sunday in the month in an essential job in an essential service because if she does, she will be two dollars over the limit and will lose it all. That is wrong.

Under the Conservative plan, workers making between $1,000 and $5,000 over the limit would qualify for the back-to-work bonus, so that whatever they did, the more they work, the more it is worth working. They would get a top-up that would be phased out by 50¢ on the dollar. It should always pay to work, and we believe that this should have been included in the plan. We would encourage everyone to push for that improvement going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, toward the end of her speech, the member made reference to the issue of employment. I cannot help but reflect on how well, prior to the pandemic, the Canadian economy was doing. In five years, well over a million jobs were created. If we compare that with the tenure of the Harper government, during which the member opposite was a minister, at least for part of those years, we outperformed the previous government in job creation by virtually 2:1 per capita, based on number of years.

Would the member agree that this government is in a far better position to deal with unemployment than the previous Conservative administration was? I think history will show that we were far more successful.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is very entertaining in his recollection of history, because he is ignoring the fact that the numbers he is reciting encouraged the greatest economic meltdown that the world has seen in over 50 years, going back to the late 1920s.

In this century, we are facing something that I do not think any developed country has ever seen. We are seeing record high levels of unemployment, yet we have record skill shortages. Employers cannot get the people they need, even the ones they had before, because they are getting paid not to work. I am even hearing stories that teachers who had been laid off for the summer and were going to go on EI for the usual $1,200 or $1,500 a month are now getting $500 a month more. They are saying they do not want to go back to teach until January because it is not worth it to them; they are better off staying home.

That is wrong. That is the wrong way to manage an economy. We need that talent. We need those skills out there. Our kids need to be educated, and we need to make sure that when people are working they are better off than when they are not.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague mention the increased support for Canadians with disabilities, which she welcomes.

For example, persons with disabilities, including those on veterans pensions, can receive the subsidy even if they have not applied for the tax credit. She also stated that she would have liked to see this type of amendment in the last iteration of Bill C-17, which was introduced in June.

I agree with her that it was urgent and it is even more urgent today to help persons with disabilities. My question is simple.

Had these changes been included in the last iteration of the bill, would my colleague have agreed to have unanimous consent to fast-track the bill at that time?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have a process in place right now to deal with this bill, and all the parties agreed to it unanimously this morning.

My big concern is that what is being offered now as support for persons with disabilities is what should have been offered a month ago. If it had been, there would have been a reasonable chance that the people who needed the money would already be getting it in their accounts. It is tax free. They need the money. They have been facing these expenses and trying to carry them for the four months we have been in lockdown.

The Liberal government could have done this.

They could have done it at least a month ago. What is taking so long?

They did not do the right thing, but they are finally doing it. That is good.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North talked about how great an economy the Liberals were a part of before COVID hit. I would like to remind him of our reality, where we are now.

For Canadians out there who are watching today, we have seen our debt increase by one-third within four months. This is at a time when our natural resource sector is on its knees, as my colleague for Red Deer—Lacombe mentioned, and is being pummelled even harder by the government. What we need for the future of our energy workers is a positive future so that those workers can get back to work and our natural resources can help to start paying off the debt.

Does the hon. member think the economy is better today, or was it better before?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, is the economy better today than before? There are certainly millions of fewer people working, and a lot more are actually being motivated not to work in the jobs they are qualified to do, which have a unique place in our society. The teachers I was just speaking about are an example.

There are jobs that need to be done, but the system as it stands now is a disincentive for too many people. Yes, a lot of people who need help are getting it, and that is good, but it should be managed in such a way that as the economy opens up—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Queen's Privy Council.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things I could speak about. It will be a challenge to keep my comments within 20 minutes, but I will give it my best shot.

A bit of misinformation has come up over the last few hours of debate. There is one item in particular that I have to address, because the member opposite just made reference to it, and that is the issue of when we could have had the relief for individuals with disabilities in Canada. Just so the record is very clear for my friend across the way and my Conservative colleagues in particular, the opportunity to implement this was there weeks ago when the government, the New Democrats, the Green Party and the Bloc Party were all prepared to allow the legislation to pass. There was only one political entity in the House of Commons that said “no”, and that was the Conservative Party.

I know the Conservatives like at times to rewrite history, but this was really not that long ago. Thinking of individuals living with disabilities and how serious of an issue that is, I am very pleased that we finally have the Conservatives on side to allow this bill to move forward, so those with disabilities will be able to receive the much-needed support we wanted to provide to them.

When I say “we”, I am talking about members on all sides of the House—

[An hon. member]

Spin at its finest. We see that a lot these days.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry. We have been very good at giving each other time to speak. Can we allow the parliamentary secretary to continue?

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was one comment. My other comment is based on a question that I had posed and that the Conservatives also posed. It is the question of how the economy is doing today compared to the way it was. It is a fair question.

We can look at the pre-pandemic economy, from prior to coronavirus. Coronavirus has had a very profound impact not only on Canada's economy but also on the economy around the world. This is something that is effecting every country, and some countries are doing a better job than others in terms of managing and providing for their citizens. Generally speaking, prior to the pandemic, Canada's economy was doing exceptionally well. When we compare it to the Stephen Harper days, members will find that it was doing exceptionally well, especially in terms of job creation.

There will always been a different approach from a Conservative administration than there will be from a Liberal administration. A Liberal government understands and appreciates the role a national government can play in providing the incentives necessary to support the economy and to move us forward in terms of creating jobs, opportunities and hope. We provide individuals who do not have much, through tax incentives and directed grants, the ability to become that much better off. We have demonstrated that very clearly.

What I want to say to Canadians today is that when the pandemic started and it was necessary for the government to engage, the government, without hesitation, made it very clear that it did not want Canadians to have to worry about paying bills. We wanted to ensure that Canadians knew we were going to be there for them in a very real and tangible way.

A Conservative member was being somewhat critical and said that the Liberals spent a lot of money. Yes, we have spent a lot of money. However, I believe that money has been well spent. If we listen to Conservatives, we do not hear any of them saying to cut back on any of the specific program dollars we have allocated. Conservatives recognize that programs like CERB are helping more than eight million people. Over eight million people are being helped by CERB.

We must remember that the CERB program started from nothing. Previously, there was no CERB program. It came into its very existence because of the coronavirus. That process, from the creation of the program to its getting money into the pockets of Canadians, happened relatively quickly. The program was not that complicated. It was more important that we put money in the pockets of Canadians so they could buy groceries, pay their bills and stay in their homes. That was the priority of this government, and we have seen the results.

The impact the coronavirus has had is second to no other. We would have to go back generations and generations to find this type of economical and social impact. There are people who have had to go through a great deal of hardship. I send my condolences to the families and friends of those who have passed from the coronavirus, to those who have been infected and to the individuals going through some very difficult times.

I recognize, appreciate and value the work of essential workers. We often talk about health care workers or first responders, as we should, and recognize the important role they have played. What about the long haul truck drivers who are ensuring groceries get to the supermarkets we are so dependent upon? What about the taxi drivers who are driving individuals to health care facilities?

Many essential workers have stepped up to ensure that we are able to continue to provide the types of services that are absolutely critical for us as a society. I express my appreciation, and the government's appreciation, to all those individuals who continue to contribute to the lives of individuals in a very real way.

There comes a point when we recognize that it is not just the government's cabinet ministers who sit around the table. The leader of the New Democrat Party said the NDP forced the Liberals to do this or that. If we listen to the leader of the NDP, everything we have ever done is because the NDP forced us to. The reality is that this government listens to what Canadians are saying. We introduce the programs. I was on virtual phone calls every day to the cabinet indirectly providing input, as many of my colleagues were. There were technical briefings provided for all members of the House. It did not matter which political party members were part of.

With regard to the coronavirus, our Prime Minister challenged us to consult and work with our constituents and report what we needed to do to ensure that Canada comes out okay. There should be no surprise that when we generate programs from nothing that there is going to be a need for modification of those programs. One would expect that.

I made reference to the Canada emergency response benefit allotment of $2,000. It was very simple so that we could get money into the pockets of Canadians as quickly as possible. I remember the former government House leader would say that small business is the backbone of Canada's economy. Other members have said likewise. We understand that if we want to see the economy grow, or minimize the negative impact on the economy, we have to recognize the important role that small businesses play and support them. This government is doing just that.

We see that through loans and from dialogue created with financial institutions, in terms of their important obligations to businesses and directing money through wage subsidies. That is what this legislation is changing. It is taking into consideration many changes that are necessary. These things are having a very real impact. They are not necessarily all coming from the mind of the leader of the New Democratic Party. These are flowing from ideas from constituencies and from Canadians in every region of our country. This is a government that is committed to working with other levels of government. It is brilliant. We just committed $19 billion to help restart the economy working with the provinces.

From the get-go, we have understood how important it was to work with the different levels of government because we each have a very important role to play in serving our constituents and Canadians. The Minister of Employment embodies a great deal of what many of us hope to achieve, and she shared that in some of her comments, if not directly, then indirectly. I will be a little more direct. The minister is very passionate about disabilities. We saw that with the historic disability accessibility legislation we brought in last year. It was quite a moment. I was not only happy for Canadians, but I felt good that a minister who felt so strongly about that issue was able to see it come to light.

Today, she was talking about the importance of somehow fixing the disability system and the way we allocate money out, whether it is tax credits or direct cash. What provides me comfort is that we have ministers like that, who are so committed to trying to make a difference, who share that personal story and are prepared to fight for those individuals with disabilities. It is individuals such as her, and I would suggest that she does not have a monopoly on it, because many, if not all of us in our own way, either directly or indirectly, try to influence government policy.

For myself, I can think of a wide spectrum of things that I would like to kindly gesture the government to move toward. There is no end to the things that I would like to see happen, but I recognize that it takes time. I think one of the issues that will come out of the coronavirus is that we will see a number of future modifications to programs that will be in the long-term best interest of a wide spectrum of people. I am anxious to see those types of changes take place in the coming years.

I want to highlight the impact at the grassroots level, and what is happening at the grassroots level today, compared to January or the beginning of February. For example, I have many constituents who travelled to India, particularly Punjab, and to the Phillippines, on holidays. They were enjoying their holiday, but unfortunately, with the coronavirus and the shutdown of airports and all sorts of issues, thousands of individuals were trapped abroad, hundreds from my own riding. For many, it has taken weeks, if not months, to ultimately be able to return, but we do not really hear about those examples.

The examples we typically hear about are of small businesses having a difficult time being able to keep their doors open, and it does become an issue of cash flow. When we look at the wage subsidy program, I believe it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.5 million jobs that have been subsidized to date. I believe this is the minimum; it is probably quite a bit more than that, but I am not 100% sure. I can tell members that many of those jobs would have completely disappeared without the wage subsidy program. When an employer might have just as well laid someone off indefinitely, that program provided the employer an option instead. As a direct result, two million to three million Canadians were able to continue with the jobs they had.

I make reference to the eight million people in the CERB program. I am very much interested to see how that shakes out in the riding of Winnipeg North, but I do know there are tens of thousands of people in my home province of Manitoba. I hate to imagine what the economic plight of many of those individuals who have collected the CERB would have been like had it not been for that program. I have a family member who was dependent on that program. We all have friends and know of others who needed that sort of general program to be there as a backstop to support Canadians. I am very proud of that particular program.

When we think of other ways in which we can support Canadians, the Canada child benefit program allows for a direct deposit of cash into the accounts of families. Some of those families, because of COVID-19, are that much more challenged. The government brought through a top-up for the Canada child benefit program, helping thousands of people in virtually every province. I know I often refer to the Canada child benefit program. Under a normal situation, just over $9 million every month goes into the riding of Winnipeg North. That was topped up because it is easily identified and it is a good way to get money into the pockets of Canadians.

The GST affects us all. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 million people benefited from the GST one-time payment also.

One of the things I am very proud of is that many of us have been wanting to support seniors. I tabled a petition earlier today about how we can support seniors. I am very grateful that the current Minister of Seniors, through an email, said she would love to be able to speak to the group at a meeting of my committee on seniors. It was wonderful. Seniors are important to all of us. It was so nice to see that we were able to create one-time payments for individuals on OAS. For the poorest seniors in Canada, we gave a separate increase to the GIS, which totalled about $500 for individuals who qualified for the GIS and OAS increase.

The point of this is to recognize that the coronavirus changed things profoundly. This government worked with everyone it could to ensure it could provide programming to make sure that Canadians would get out of this coronavirus situation and be well served when it comes time to restart the economy. We are starting to see that today. We are in a better position today to deal with a second wave, if it occurs, because of the hard work of legislators in the House of Commons and because of the fine work being done by the provinces, city councils, non-profits and private individuals.

With that, I will leave myself open for questions.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been a very entertaining free market of speech topics today by the member opposite. There are so many channels he changed. It is typical of a remote-control handler. One thing is that he did not stop at the WE channel. He did not touch on that.

Why does he not tell us about his Prime Minister's scandalous contract with the WE foundation to benefit his Prime Minister's, and his cabinet's, friends?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, speaking of channel changers, the Conservatives since day one have always been on the same channel of character assassination. It does not matter what issue is facing Canadians, the Conservatives really do not care. They are more focused on character assassination.

I did not comment on the WE charity because we have spent billions and billions of dollars. We have brought in new programs. We have been trying to minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus on Canadians as a whole. We are getting our country in a position where we will be stronger and healthier going forward. We are remaining focused on doing work for Canadians. That is our priority.

We will let the Conservatives dwell at the bottom of the cellar and figure out the crisis, or how they can attack what character next on the agenda.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed watching my colleague beat his chest and go on about economic growth to find out who did more, the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Since I would like to help them reconcile, I will simply tell my colleague that the parties are a lot alike in times of crisis because the Liberals and the Conservatives have the same tendencies.

By that I mean that the Liberals were quick to support the oil and gas industry. One figure that comes to mind is the $500 million that was given to Coastal GasLink. That $500 million from the Business Development Bank of Canada, the BDC, was equivalent to what was spent on Quebec's entire forestry strategy from 2017 to 2020. The government gave $500 million to one project and the same amount to the entire forestry industry over three years.

They have reconciled, but can my colleague explain to me why there is a double standard for the forestry industry and the oil industry in times of crisis?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is not reconciliation. The Conservatives say we have shut down the oil industry. The member opposite just said that we have opened up a whole new area. I guess the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives and New Democrats, and possibly even the Bloc, is that Liberals recognize that the environment and the economy can in fact go hand in hand.

If we do the proper environmental work and consultations with different levels of government, indigenous people and stakeholders, we can develop the economy and protect the environment. I guess that is where Liberals differ from what I would qualify as the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and New Democrats. I will leave the Bloc out, for now.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here today to hear on the record the credit being given to our party for pushing the Liberal government to do the right thing. Unfortunately, those who are just tuning in may think that the member for Winnipeg North is the only member of the Liberal Party who gets a chance to speak in the House.

The question is simple. We need to know the answer right here on the record. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this. When the Liberals first proposed a program for people struggling to get by on the disability tax credit, they left out 60% of people with disabilities. The second attempt they have brought here today leaves out 40% of people living with a disability.

Will the hon. member acknowledge that this disability tax credit program leaves out everybody who is designated on ODSP provincially?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the last thing I would want to do is to give the impression I know everything about all things.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I do not know the details the member is referencing, but what I can tell the House is that as a government, we have been developing programs that have been to the benefit of Canadians as a whole. There has been special targeting of seniors, and now individuals with disabilities.

There are opportunities going forward, no doubt, as we see in this legislation, for modifications or changes. There are ongoing discussions that take place with provinces. I made reference to the $19 billion restart program that incorporates health. I do not know all of the details, but where it is valid for us to make some changes or to ensure that we have the support necessary to do that, I am glad we have a government in Ottawa that is open to listening.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the hon. member. I am glad he acknowledged that he does not know all things about all things, so I appreciate his moment of transparency in that regard.

I would make a quick note, before my simple question, regarding the rewriting of history. I was speaking with another colleague just before coming back to the House, and we said how incredible it is that this year started out with what very well could have been the issue of the year, which was the rail blockade. For the member to suggest that the economy was moving along in the right direction prior to COVID is a rewriting of history in an epic way, so I would encourage the member to look carefully at his government's record in that regard.

One of the things I have heard from many constituents about a number of the programs, including the wage subsidy, is that they are concerned about the complexities associated with the application and the accounting. For large corporations that have accounting departments, legal teams and whatnot, it is quite straightforward: They send the application to their department and it gets all sorted out. However, for a small business, a mom-and-pop shop or those smaller entities that need the support, I do not think that increasing the complexity of the wage subsidy was the right direction, so I would certainly like to hear from the member across the way how he can reconcile the increasing of complexities in the program.

Instead of increasing the complexity, should it not have been made simpler, especially for those small and medium-sized enterprises, to access these applications with ease so the economy can get moving in the right direction again?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first, with regard to the indigenous issue or the blockades that were taking place, there were actually a number of issues, as there are in any given year, that made it to the national level. I know there was an airplane that was tragically shot down, which many people, at least on this side of the House, felt very passionate about, and I would like to think all members of the House did. There were a number of different issues.

I was here for a number of those years when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. If we do a cross-comparison, we will find, in terms of economic performance, that we did better 2:1 when it came to issues like jobs, compared to the Harper administration. That is the type of history we cannot change, and that is what I was referencing.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my good friend from Winnipeg North for his impassioned speech.

I want to talk about big cities. As a member representing part of the city of Toronto, I got a lot of feedback from the mayor, as well as local city councillors such as my counterpart Jennifer McKelvie, on the need for us to support cities with a safe restart. There is $19 billion that has been allocated, and we have an agreement with the provinces to invest in cities to make sure we have a safe restart. Can my friend tell us how this will impact his home province of Manitoba and what kind of direct supports the City of Winnipeg will be getting as a result of this agreement?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that municipalities in general, whether smaller rural municipalities or larger urban centres, are more challenged in terms of being able to generate the revenues necessary in order to perform many of the responsibilities they have. Public transit would be a good example, or even, to a certain degree, child care support in the provinces. The federal restart program goes a long way in supporting municipalities and encouraging provinces to become engaged to ensure that we have things such as child care, which enables—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Skyview.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this rare opportunity to participate in a parliamentary debate ever since democracy was shut down by the government. The legislation before us today, Bill C-20, consists of several random diversionary payouts and other changes that more properly should have had extensive examination in a parliamentary committee before being passed into law.

I support helping Canadians who are struggling with the unprecedented events of our time, like the COVID-19 pandemic. I do not support the transfer of large amounts of taxpayer dollars to organizations that personally benefit family members of Liberal MPs. The decision to accept an unconfirmed, unsolicited proposal from an unregistered lobbyist representing an organization that had members of the Prime Minister's family, and perhaps others with close association to the Liberal Party, on its payroll in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars, is a level of corruption beyond the comprehension of most Canadians.

When the Canada student service grant was announced, WE Charity was not in the announcement. Even after sordid detail after sordid detail was revealed, the Prime Minister defended his ethical lapse in the same way he responded to groping a female reporter and dressing up in blackface. He repeatedly lied: deny, deny, deny. He could get away with that in a neutered media. The floor of the House of Commons, however, is another matter.

The amount of money in the WE Charity scandal is staggering: almost $1 billion. What reasonable Canadians fear is that this revelation of payments to individuals directly associated with the Liberal Party is the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason the Prime Minister is hiding from Canadians by not facing Parliament, conveniently taking a so-called vacation day, a “we” day. The Prime Minister likes his daily cuckoo-clock appearances where he can avoid actual questions. Awarding an unsolicited contract with no fair, competitive tendering process should require resignations. The fact that the contract was awarded to an organization with family members of Liberal MPs on the payroll is indefensible.

Let us look at where the millions in administration fees were going until somebody pulled the plug, waiting for the heat to die down. WE Charity has been effectively described as operating like a cult. First was its scheme to pay for volunteer labour and next was the plan to pay students for volunteer labour at below minimum wage. That proposal raised a few eyebrows, except now we have learned this is how the WE organization operated its various companies: with naive, idealistic young people put on a salary and then being required to work 60 to 70 hours a week. The salary was calculated at a normal 37-and-a-half-hour week, so effectively, the WE Charity found a loophole to get around provincial minimum wage laws.

With the backing of the federal government, WE Charity figured it found another loophole to avoid minimum wage laws. If young people complained, they were shamed into accepting workplace conditions by being reminded that the school children who donated their pennies, nickels and dimes to the WE Charity expected all the money to go to help underprivileged children in Africa. Little did those school children know that their pennies were being collected to buy commercial real estate in downtown Toronto and to pay fat speaking fees to family members of Liberal MPs. This is what happens when Parliament is shut down and people with no ethics or scruples are in charge. There is a total lack of accountability.

Let us look more closely at the legislation before us today. Of all of the measures contained in Bill C-20, I am particularly interested in measures that support Canadians living with disabilities. Bill C-20 proposes to direct a payment to individuals who qualify for the disability tax credit.

Seven years ago, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-462, restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit. My intention for bringing that legislation before Parliament was straightforward. I wanted to see increased protection for disabled Canadians from the predatory practices of certain individuals who referred to themselves as “tax credit promoters”. They see the tax credit as an opportunity to profit on the reduced circumstances of others.

The disability tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit that reduces the amount of income tax that either individuals living with disabilities or their supporting persons have to pay. Parliament voted in this tax credit, with the recognition that Canadians with disabilities faced extra financial challenges. Bill C-20 proposes payments of up to $620 for Canadians living with disabilities.

My constituents question whether the reason for the lump sum payment contained in Bill C-20 can be accepted at face value or whether it is a taxpayer inducement to get Canadians to forget about the WE Charity corruption scandal.

When I found out that some individuals were being charged 20%, 30% or as much as 40% of the tax credit, I thought that Liberal members of Parliament agreed that those kinds of charges were unfair. This is especially true when considering that the purpose of the disability tax credit is to support Canadians living with serious disabilities.

As the member of Parliament that includes Garrison Petawawa, I am acutely aware of the number of Canadians living with disabilities who are in my riding. The soldiers and veterans in my community are at a greater risk for a number of disabilities because of the sacrifices they have made for our country. The tax credit is of special importance to them.

In bringing forward Bill C-462, I also wanted my constituents and all other Canadians to know that they could access their local member of Parliament regarding any federal tax credit, without being charged a percentage of the tax credit. Seven years ago my private member's legislation to help disabled Canadians received unanimous support of that Parliament. Even the current Prime Minister, who at that time was an opposition MP on the WE Charity speaker circuit, voted to support my legislation.

What happened? There was an unfortunate change in government. Canadians are still waiting for the regulations for that legislation to be enacted.

Why the delay? The change of government brought the usual Liberal hangers on, the lobbyists who look for ways to game the system at the expense of other Canadians. Liberal lobbyists derailed protections for disabled Canadians with the full support of the Prime Minister and his party.

Disabled Canadians are some of the most vulnerable in our society. With all the money the federal government is shovelling out the door, like today's legislation and the WE Charity scandal, and without the proper scrutiny of Parliament, money intended to help Canadians goes elsewhere.

These same disability tax consultants saw a big payday when the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, was introduced. One such consultant started offering a service that charged clients a fee of $160 to assist them with their CERB application. This is what can be read on its website, “We have no upfront fee, you pay us only when you get your CERB payment. Due to these rough times, Canada Tax Reviews has reduced our fee from 33 per cent to an 8 per cent fee for this program.” Every four weeks, those who still have not found jobs have to reapply for CERB. Each time a person uses that tax consultant to apply for CERB, as fees vary, a $160 is charged. That is a payday of almost $1,000 to a tax consultant from somebody who collects the full CERB, someone who could have used that money to pay rent or to put food on the table.

If the government audits a taxpayer and finds that he or she did not qualify for CERB, that taxpayer will be required to pay back the full amount, including any fees paid to tax consultants. If the government had carried through with the will of Parliament and implemented Bill C-462, , an act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit, the abuses happening today would not be happening.

Bill C-20 needs to go before a parliamentary committee the same way the sweetheart $912 million Canadian student service grant contract to a Liberal insider should have. Canadians deserve no less. The last time I looked, Canada was still a democracy. It is time Canada started acting like one.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for laying out, honestly, what is going on around here. One thing she failed to mention was this. How much of a role does she think Gerald Butts is playing in all of what is going on right now?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, this scandal is like so many we saw in governments that Gerald Butts participated in before this one, the Wynne government and the McGuinty government. We are seeing all the same types of scandals going on. They paid Liberal insiders large amounts of money for contracts. In Ontario, it was the hydro consumers who ended up paying inflated electricity fees and that money went directly from the consumers' pockets to the big Liberal supporters who got the contracts for the wind turbines and solar farms. We are seeing the fingerprints of Gerald Butts all over the scandals that are ongoing today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments.

She talked a lot about people with disabilities. She seems to really care about this. It is also an important issue for the Bloc Québécois. In fact, last month we proposed splitting Bill C-17 to give people with disabilities access to financial support so they could deal with the pandemic like many other groups. Last month, the government once again ignored people with disabilities.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts. Would she agree that it was unfortunate that, because of the Conservative position, these individuals had to wait another month to get the assistance they should have gotten a long time ago, or even at the very beginning of the pandemic?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Actually, Madam Speaker, were it not for the Liberals trying to put forth legislation and ram through money, not putting a separate bill forward in the first place to cover individuals living with disabilities, we would not have this discussion right now.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference extensively with respect to parliamentary process. One of the things we have witnessed over the last number of months is more questions than have previously been asked. In fact, today we are sitting during the summer. We have had four regular days of sittings for parliamentarians. We have had extended question and answer periods.

It seems to me, with the exception of opposition days and private members' business, that we have seen probably a great deal more accountability on the issue of questions and answers than we saw with the previous administration. I would remind the member that she was part of a previous administration that actually prorogued Parliament.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I accept this opportunity to continue the statement I was giving during statements by members, when I was interrupted by the deputy House leader, who knows very well that we cannot propose points of orders during those statements, and cut off summarily.

The part that people did not hear was that the unfortunate reality was this abuse of charity, a charity wherein the money is supposed to go to less privileged people in under-developed parts of the world, meant that the people most affected by this WE scandal were some of the poorest on this planet.

Unlike dressing up in blackface or groping a female reporter, this time the Prime Minister is not going to get away with hiding on some fantasy island or avoiding scrutiny by shutting down Parliament. We are going to ensure that the entire scandal, piece by piece, as deep and as wide as it might be, is uncovered for Canadians to know.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, COVID-19 has impacted every aspect of our lives, and we have heard it said many times before, but I have not had a chance to deliver a speech in this place since the pandemic began. While this is certainly not ideal, here we are, and I feel the need to speak for my constituents and have it on the record.

This pandemic has not only had an economic cost, but has also had a human cost, and not just in loss of life. My heart goes out to all those who have suffered a loss, and also to families who have been separated by borders and quarantine measures. I have heard from so many of my constituents who were and are still stranded abroad, desperately trying to get home to see their families. I have worked very hard to reunite families when possible. This has been a stressful time for everyone, and not being able to be with loved ones only makes the situation worse. I had to self-isolate from my family, which was very difficult to do, and so I sympathize and empathize with everyone going through this.

The emotional toll this has taken will need to be evaluated for years to come. The impact on the immigration department and its response times will also need to be addressed. The backlog we are facing is unprecedented.

Now, I know we are here to debate Bill C-20, but I would be remiss if I did not thank my constituents for their efforts during this truly difficult time. We had charities and businesses step up to provide for our community in the hardest of times. Meals were made and distributed, hand sanitizer and masks were delivered, and front-line workers have been exceptional. I am so proud of how we came together.

I also feel the need to express my thoughts for those who were directly impacted by the hail storm that ravished my riding on June 13. Many homes, vehicles and properties were damaged, causing further stress to those who were impacted. I would like to thank my provincial and municipal counterparts for all they are doing for emergency relief for my constituents. I will continue to work with all levels of government on this.

On Bill C-20, while I support getting help to Canadians who are struggling, I would be doing a disservice to my constituents if I did not pause and reflect on the timing of this. I have been very vocal in my displeasure that the House has been suspended. While I am pleased that the House is sitting today, it is certainly convenient timing. I have had constituents contact me who have been very concerned about the behaviour of members of the government in recent weeks as it relates to the WE Charity. It is unconscionable, to me, that this has happened. It is terribly concerning. I am pleased that the Ethics Commissioner is conducting an investigation, which is the third investigation of this Prime Minister.

I have been watching the finance committee and ethics committee, although I will say that I have been left wanting, given the quality of responses from this government. Even the simple questions cannot be answered. Now, we have seen charities come out and say publicly that that they had been afraid to comment on WE in the past, given its ties to this government. There is a charity in my riding that reached out. It is ready to contribute and has all the necessary structures in place to do so. It is asking when it will hear back on this failed program, which brings us to today.

Parliament has been shut down since March, and this week, the government has decided that it is time to sit again, which is very convenient timing. What I can tell members is that, despite the government's best efforts to divert attention away from the WE scandal, Conservatives will continue to scrutinize its actions and hold it to account since it has proven that it cannot be trusted with taxpayers' money or to make ethical decisions.

As we have heard debated today, Bill C-20 would extend and expand the eligibility criteria for the wage subsidy, implement a one-time $600 payment for persons with disabilities and extend or suspend certain legislated and judicial timelines. We in the official opposition have been proposing solutions to fix the wage subsidy program since April. It is now the middle of July, and instead of implementing our changes to help businesses and workers, the government is making things worse by overcomplicating it. We know that the original subsidy that was announced left businesses falling through the cracks, which meant that the program saw less than one-quarter uptake. I have had businesses in my riding contact me indicating that they do not qualify, and we have raised examples with the government, but no action has been taken.

This new wage subsidy we are speaking about today is unnecessarily complex, with rules and regulations that will trap businesses in paperwork and accounting fees, making it harder for them to get the help they need, the help they needed back in April.

When we make a policy on the fly without listening to proposals, it proves the government is lacking a plan to help Canadians to get back to work and restart our economy. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has either been wrong or slow to act. This failure has cost Canadians.

The Liberals were slow to close borders, which left people stranded who were trying to determine whether they should return. They were wrong on PPE and did not replace the medical supplies sent abroad in February. They were slow to enhance airport screening, allowing the virus to spread from passengers returning to Canada. They were slow to roll out programs for those who were struggling. They were wrong not to include gender-based analysis, which could have helped fix their programs to keep Canadians, especially women, from falling through the cracks. The Liberals were wrong to leave small businesses behind, forcing many to close permanently. We know that small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. The Liberals were wrong to raise taxes, in the form of the carbon tax, when Canadians were already struggling to make ends meet. They were wrong to abandon the oil and gas sector, promising help within hours or days, but offering nothing, which was felt very strongly by those in my community. They were wrong not to fully fund the Auditor General's office so constituents could see how their tax dollars were being spent. They were wrong to shut down Parliament, refusing to let MPs do their job and provide crucial oversight.

I am hopeful that the government will listen to our suggestions. Part of our proposal is to implement the back-to-work bonus. Our plan is to make the Canada emergency response benefit more flexible and generous so that workers can earn higher wages as businesses begin to open. Under our plan, Canadians who lost their jobs through no fault of their own during the pandemic would continue to receive their full $2,000 from CERB. In addition, as businesses reopen, workers who make between $1,000 and $5,000 per month would qualify for the back-to-work bonus. This CERB top-up would be gradually phased out by 50 cents for every dollar earned over $1,000.

As I stated earlier, I support help for those who are struggling. A one-time payment, as proposed in Bill C-20, is a result of our efforts in the opposition to better serve those with disabilities. We were prepared and offered to recall Parliament to debate this measure. Sadly, that did not occur, which further delayed this payment. My hope is that those who qualify and apply for the disability tax credit, as proposed in Bill C-20, will be able to access it in a timely manner.

The judicial aspects of the proposed legislation does not address how court backlogs, particularly those in the criminal justice system, will be resolved. The rights of victims and their families must be central as we move forward. The government must ensure that victims see justice in a timely manner. It is fundamental.

Finally, since the pandemic began, the official opposition have been putting forward constructive solutions to help Canadians. Our goal has been, and continues to be, to help get workers and local businesses back on their feet as quickly as possible. We know that our economic recovery will be driven by Canadians' hard work, innovation and good spirits. We know that to be competitive, we need to unleash the power of the private sector to help Canadians get back to work.

We need to support small businesses. We need lower taxes. We need to cut the red tape and make Canada an attractive place to do business once again. This is how we approach constructive solutions. We will continue to fight to get Canadians the help they need and will continue to call on the government to put forward a transparent plan to guide Canada's recovery. Canadians deserve no less.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Skyview touched on a number of things. One thing she did not touch on was the energy sector and the significant impact that COVID has had on top of all the bad policies that have come from the government.

The Minister of Finance stated back in March that relief was hours or days away. It is 118 days later and there is no relief. Some are suspicious that it is not an accident, but rather a deliberate plan on the part of the government to put the final nail in the coffin of the energy sector.

Could the member comment on that?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, it seems like the hours and weeks may turn into years. There has been no focus on the energy sector, and a lot of my constituents feel the pain. It was bad before COVID-19 and it has only gotten worse since then. We are very disappointed with the government's response on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about immigration and processing delays. In fact, the Bloc had asked for unanimous consent to move a motion to fast-track the files of “guardian angel” asylum seekers who work in long-term care facilities and in the health care sector. This proposal was rejected by the Conservatives.

What is my colleague's opinion on this type of request to prioritize and fast-track certain cases for processing?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I was talking about the response in immigration, I was talking about the constituents who were stuck outside of Canada and the response to bring them back to Canada. In regard to anything that helps Canadians deal with the pandemic, that would be something I would support.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a number of areas where the government had failed throughout this course of time. There is another area specifically, which is the Canada summer jobs program. The Liberals decided to extend the amount of time that it could run, they increased the wages to minimum wage, they included part-time work, they gave more opportunities for businesses to apply and yet they provided no more funding for the program.

This was set up. We had our wonderful, professional public service ready to run it. Instead, the Liberals chose to roll the dice, with an ethical violation as the outcome.

Could my colleague comment on the importance of that program and how the government failed to implement it?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I came here, I had to make calls to people who had received the funding, but so many had applied and were left out. Some of those were crucial services, especially during this pandemic. It was very important for the government to ensure that funds were available for those people who had applied and who were categorized as crucial service programs.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on a number of very important issues.

We have heard rumours in the last number of days, like we did in the last election, about a home equity tax. There is an old adage, and I was a volunteer firefighter for a number of years, that where there is smoke, there is fire. When one sees smoke a number of times, one must see that there must be fire.

Could my colleague talk about how devastating a home equity tax would be on Canadian taxpayers?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we all know that side of the House raises taxes, so this is not a surprise to us. The carbon tax is an example at this time.

The House resumed from July 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vimy, who will be giving her maiden speech in this venerable House.

It is an honour for me to be in the House today and to speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport.

It is also an honour to join my colleagues to participate in this important debate on Bill C-20, which includes three key parts. The first part makes a number of adjustments that will expand the eligibility criteria around the Canada emergency wage. Part two covers a number of changes that must occur in order for us to provide a one-time payment to persons with disabilities for reasons related to COVID-19. In part three are a number of appropriate changes to certain acts that will provide some flexibility to certain time limits that were difficult or impossible to meet as a result of the exceptional circumstances produced by COVID-19. I will be talking to part two.

This bill would allow information sharing among several federal departments and agencies and Employment and Social Development Canada, so that a one-time payment can be made to support persons with disabilities during this pandemic. We have to allow for information to be shared among several departments in order to deliver this one-time payment as soon as we possibly can.

This one-time payment of $600 will help approximately 1.7 million Canadians with disabilities who are recipients of the disability tax credit certificate, CPP disability or QPP disability benefits and/or disability supports provided by Veterans Affairs Canada.

Bill C-20 is just one part of a much larger plan that our government has dedicated to supporting Canadians with disabilities. Today I want to talk about the evolution of our plan, the actions we have undertaken and our government's next steps toward creating an inclusive and barrier-free Canada.

In 2015, our government named the first-ever cabinet minister responsible for persons with disabilities and promised Canadians that we would pass legislation aimed at removing barriers to inclusion. This signalled our commitment to doing things differently in order to ensure that all Canadians have an equal chance at success.

One of the key milestones on this journey was the National Disability Summit that we held in May 2019, in the days prior to COVID. The summit provided an opportunity for participants to exchange best practices and to create and build on partnerships. It allowed us to understand the next steps to truly realize an inclusive and accessible Canada.

At the same time as the summit was taking place, the federal government's landmark legislation for the Accessible Canada Act was being finalized, following the most comprehensive consultations with the disability community in our country's history. More than 6,000 Canadians and 100 disability organizations shared their views and ideas about an accessible Canada. As we know, the act received royal assent on June 21, 2019 and came into force in July of that year.

The legislation builds upon existing mechanisms and ensures compliance and accountability. The Accessible Canada Act takes a proactive and systemic approach to identifying, removing and preventing barriers to accessibility in key areas within federal jurisdiction. The goal was to ensure that the act was based on safeguarding human rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The act also created new entities such as Accessibility Standards Canada, which creates and reviews accessibility standards for federally regulated organizations.

I am proud of this legislation because it sends a clear message to Canadians that persons with disabilities will no longer be treated as an afterthought. From the start, systems will be designed to be inclusive for all Canadians. This is because it is our systems, our policies, our practices and our laws that need to be fixed, not our people.

I also want to point out that in the mandate letter of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, a number of important additional measures will continue to ensure that we promote disability inclusion. These include, among other measures, undertaking initiatives to improve the economic inclusion of persons with disabilities, targeting barriers to full participation in the labour force including discrimination and stigma, raising public awareness, and working with employers and businesses in a coordinated way.

As the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has said, we move from “Nothing about us, without us” to “Nothing without us”, because everything in society touches the lives of Canadians with disabilities.

The Government of Canada is leading the way in ensuring communities and workplaces are accessible and inclusive for persons with disabilities. It is the largest federal employer. It is also the single-largest purchaser of goods and services in the country, and provides vital programs and services to Canadians. As such, we have committed to hiring at least 5,000 persons with disabilities over the next five years in the federal public service. We are also committed to applying an accessibility lens to government procurement and project planning.

Over the last five years, our government has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities. I wish to share some of the highlights over our two mandates, which began in 2015.

Our government applied a disability lens to our flagship policies and programs such as the Canada child benefit, the national housing strategy and the infrastructure program. The result is that families of children with disabilities receive an additional amount under the CCB. For example, from 2017 to 2018, 1.75 million children benefited from the disability supplement.

Under the national housing strategy, there is a commitment to promote universal design and visitability. This includes a requirement that public and shared spaces meet accessibility standards, and that at least 2,400 new affordable housing units for persons with developmental disabilities are created.

In the area of infrastructure we have approved nearly 800 accessibility projects, including almost 500 new para-transit buses and improvements to 81 existing transit facilities to make them more accessible to Canadians. This was made possible by ensuring that accessibility was an eligible expense in public transit projects. In just one year, almost $800 million was invested into our public transit systems to make them more accessible.

We have also increased our investments in existing programs such as the enabling accessibility fund, the social development partnerships program and the opportunities fund. All three of these programs were significantly enhanced, allowing people to keep doing the good work they are doing to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities.

Current COVID-19 supports have been amply covered by my colleagues over the last 24 hours, but I want to bring them to mind briefly. Since the pandemic was declared, our government has taken a disability-inclusive response to the pandemic. This included adhering to the principle of “Nothing without us”, from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the creation of the COVID-19 Disability Advisory Group to bring the lived experience of persons with disabilities to our government's response to the pandemic.

We provided additional support to students with permanent disabilities and the one-time payment that is part of the debate today. We invested in mental health for the Wellness Together portal. We launched calls for proposals under two components of the enabling accessibility fund, and created a national workplace accessibility stream of the opportunities fund to help people with disabilities find jobs right now. Finally, we added funding to the social development partnerships program to enhance accessibility communications during this crisis, and invested $1.18 million in five new projects across the country through the accessible technology program to help develop dynamic and affordable technology.

In conclusion, from the Canadian Survey on Disability, we know Canadians with disabilities are underemployed compared with the general population, a situation made worse by this pandemic. As the economy opens up again, this represents an opportunity for a vast and largely untapped pool of talent: people who are available to work, who want to join the workforce and who are ready to apply their innovative ideas to our new normal.

In the meantime, I call upon my colleagues to quickly pass the legislation before us so we can get support out to the people who urgently and immediately need it.

I am now ready to take questions.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is the number of disability payment recipients in Canada now?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I actually do not have the answer to that question.

I do know that the changes we are about to make would, we believe, benefit 1.7 million Canadians. The other thing to point out is that the changes we want to make would make it more inclusive. We want as many people as possible, who have disabilities and need emergency support, to be able to access it. That is the reason we are proposing these changes in the legislation today.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the disability tax credit application is quite arduous. I am not sure if the member has had a chance to go through that with some of her constituents, but it is a very heavy bureaucratic process and does take time.

I am wondering if she is aware of that process, the challenges that many Canadians have in applying for that credit and the fact that those who are either in the midst of applying or do not qualify are being left behind by aspects of this legislation.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very intently to the minister yesterday. She spoke about the system behind the benefits available to persons with disabilities in Canada, and basically said that the system needs to be changed. It has to be simplified as it is not easy to navigate. She has made a commitment to do everything in her power to simplify the system and make it easier for us to get benefits directly to those who need them immediately.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard my colleague mention social housing, it occurred to me that if we wanted to make life easier for people living with disabilities, maybe we should fund the health care system properly. Health care is still underfunded. As for social housing, Quebec is still waiting for the transfers from the federal government.

Would my colleague agree that it is urgent to transfer that money if we want to truly support people living with disabilities?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I read a number of the elements of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion's mandate letter and we are going to take a number of additional steps to try to be more helpful to our disability community.

In terms of health care, my understanding is that we have health agreements with every single province, except Quebec, and we are very happy to step up to the plate and continue those discussions with Quebec to ensure that persons with disabilities, as well as all Quebeckers, will have access to better health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that members of the opposition would question how long it takes for these disability tax credits given that we would be two months further ahead had they not been playing politics with this issue a couple of months ago.

The member talked about the lower employment levels of people with disabilities. I know first-hand that my cousin Aidan, who has Down syndrome, has all the supports he needs to get through his education, but after that there is a real lack of opportunity for employment. What this bill seeks to do, in particular, is create the economic environment for people with disabilities to prosper to their fullest potential. The federal government is looking to employ 5,000 more people with disabilities.

I am wondering if the member can comment on how she sees this impacting people in her own community of Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have also liked to see this legislation pass two months ago. One of the positive aspects of waiting, turning lemons into lemonade, is that this time we expanded on who can apply and access this one-time emergency funding.

We are providing a number of avenues for more people to apply for the disability tax credit. If more people apply for the disability tax credit, more of them will be able to access the one-time emergency support. I know that is going to benefit many more people in my riding of Davenport.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has followed the guidance of public health officials. Governments across Canada put lockdown measures in place to slow the spread of the virus and ensure that our health care systems were well prepared.

The lockdown measures that governments put in place to control the outbreak meant that many Canadians lost their jobs or a significant portion of their incomes. Without question, the nature of this crisis is completely unprecedented. We are confronting a public health and economic crisis. Canadians have managed to control the virus, and gradually and safely, our economy is restarting across the country.

Canadians have made great sacrifices to get here. Businesses of all sizes closed their doors during the emergency phase and are still facing uncertainty.

Our government acted quickly in March, when we launched the first measures of our COVID-19 economic response plan. Through rapid and broad support, the government has been able to protect millions of jobs, provide emergency income support to families and help keep businesses afloat during the worst of the storm. This support is helping Canadians get back on their feet and has prevented serious, long-term damage to our economy.

With the Canada emergency response benefit, we are providing temporary income support to Canadians across the country who have stopped working because of COVID-19. More than eight million Canadians have applied for the CERB.

We provided a special, one-time $300 top-up to the Canada child benefit for the month of May, delivering almost $2 billion in additional support to families who needed it. The government also provided a special top-up payment in April through the goods and services tax credit for low- and modest-income individuals and families, giving on average a single adult almost $400 more and couples almost $600 more.

We have worked to support our most vulnerable as well, providing support for the food banks, charities and non-profits that provide services to those in need. We have also provided $158 million to support Canadians experiencing homelessness, ensuring that the shelters they rely on have the equipment they need to prevent outbreaks.

We know that during the lockdown, home was not always a safe place to be. We provided funding that has helped over 500 organizations that support women and children experiencing violence. We want to work to keep our communities safe and vibrant.

We know that preserving the small businesses that give our neighbourhoods life is key to keeping our community strong. The Canada emergency business account, or CEBA, has helped over 690,000 small businesses. Through this support, small businesses and non-profit organizations can receive an interest-free loan of up to $40,000, 25% of which is forgivable if paid back by the end of 2022. We recently expanded the CEBA so that more small businesses can access it. The CEBA is making a real difference in addressing the cash-flow challenges we see businesses facing as a result of COVID.

We know making rent can be a challenge for our hardest hit businesses. That is why we launched the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, or CECRA, which provides eligible small-business tenants with a rent reduction of 50%. We recently announced that we are extending the program to cover eligible small-business rents for July. The program provides support by offering forgivable loans to qualifying commercial property owners, whether they have a mortgage on their property or not.

The CECRA also offers another key support to help businesses through the current challenges. Overall, since the beginning of the COVID-19 global outbreak, the Government of Canada has taken swift and significant action to support Canadians and protect jobs. The Canada emergency wage subsidy is one of the cornerstones of the government's economic response plan.

That is why with this week's legislation we are proposing to extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy until November 21, 2020. Furthermore, the government is announcing its intent to provide further support through the wage subsidy, up to December 19, 2020. The bill would make the program accessible to a broader range of employers and would help protect more jobs and promote growth as the economy continues to reopen.

To ensure strong subsidy support for those who need it, effective July 5, 2020, the Canada emergency wage subsidy would consist of two parts: a base subsidy available to all eligible employers experiencing a decline in revenues with a varying subsidy amount depending on the scale of revenue decline, and a top-up subsidy of up to an additional 25% for employers that have been most adversely affected by the COVID-19 crisis. If businesses are experiencing a revenue drop of 50% or more, they would receive the maximum base subsidy rate. If they are experiencing a decline between 49% and zero, their base subsidy rate would gradually decline in accordance with their revenue decrease. By removing the 30% revenue decline threshold, these adjustments would make the Canada emergency wage subsidy accessible to a broader range of employers. The introduction of a gradually declining base subsidy would allow the program to be extended to more employers and continue to support recovering businesses.

As well, the top-up subsidy rate of up to 25% would be available to employers that were the most adversely affected during the pandemic, which is to say those having experienced an average revenue drop of more than 50% over the preceding three months. This would be particularly helpful to employers and sectors that are recovering more slowly.

We will also make sure eligible employers that were making plans for the next two CEWS periods based on the existing design would be entitled to an amount of subsidy not less than the amount they would be entitled to under the wage subsidy rules that were in place before that period. This would provide a safe harbour so employers that already made business decisions for the period between July 5 and August 29 would not receive a subsidy rate lower than they would have under the previous rules.

By helping more workers return to work and supporting businesses as they recover, these changes would make businesses more competitive and would ensure that our economy returns to growth.

In conclusion, with this legislation the government is addressing the challenges employers are facing and is providing the support they need to participate in the restart. Therefore, I strongly recommend that all members of the House support the bill so that together we deliver on our collective commitment to be there for Canadians and help them bridge through to better times.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and agree with the fact it has been two months since this was first presented. However, significantly more people with disabilities are included now because of the time that was invested in making the bill better.

One area the bill improves is support for veterans. They are included in this payment. Over 50,000 of them are without funding. I have a concern regarding what the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion said when she presented this in the House and referred to veterans. She said, “this is going to be super complicated at the back end”.

Does the member have any idea of the process that has been put in place to do this in an expeditious manner for veterans so that they do not lose hope again and this isn't another situation where the government is not providing them something they have been promised?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is listening actively and working with various partners to make sure that no one is left behind. Certainly, we should not forget our veterans.

As we all know, this is the first time we are dealing with this. The disability act should have been debated and changed two months ago. We lost precious time, but I am sure, and can assure the House, that the minister, her team and the great people of our public service are going to find the solutions we need to make sure our veterans have the support they need.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech from my colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I am going to ask her a somewhat technical question. I should probably ask the government, but I will see if she can answer. It is about support for people living with disabilities as drafted in Bill C-20.

In his announcement on June 1, the Prime Minister mentioned a refundable tax credit. However, Bill C-20 calls it a payment out of the consolidated revenue fund. On closer scrutiny, it seems like the payment could be considered taxable income for the taxpayer.

Does my colleague know whether this tax credit is taxable?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance for his question. I honestly do not know the details. I do not know if it is taxable or not, but I will find out and get back to him.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the recovery of the economy, obviously a huge part of it is child care. Workplaces have continually expressed the need for a national public system of affordable child care.

The government has put forward an economic recovery plan, but the $625 million that has been allocated to child care is simply not enough. Some are calling for $2.5 billion.

I am wondering what the member across the way has to say about the huge difference in realities and the need to do a lot more on child care.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am part of the finance committee, and we have heard time and time again through our witnesses that there will be no recovery unless we have affordable and proper child care. Our government is committed to that. I know that our various ministers have been working very closely with partners in various provinces. It is not an easy fix, but I know the discussions are going on. Our goal is to make sure that affordable child care is in place as our economy starts to recover.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on her maiden speech. I recently had to do one and I appreciate the stress that comes with it.

I have a quick question on the CEWS legislation. In the backgrounder that is produced by the Department of Finance, there is an example that talks about businesses that now qualify because of the reduction in the 30% limit. In that example there is no reference, and in fact this is quite clear, to a retroactive application of this legislation for some very significant businesses that would qualify now but have been waiting for over 100 days for help in this legislation.

I am curious if the member believes that there should have been a retroactive component to the CEWS legislation for businesses that now qualify for the benefit but only on a go-forward basis.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the CEWS has supported over three million employees by helping them stay in their workforces or return to work. I am not certain whether at this moment we are looking to see whether we are able to give retroactive payments or not, but I am certain this government will do everything possible to listen. We are flexible. We were not looking for perfection. We do not want to allow perfection to stand in the way of the good. I can safely say, in my opinion, that if there is a way to give retroactive payments, I am sure this government is willing to listen to that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to let you know that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Manicouagan. I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members of the House to visit that magnificent region this summer. It might be far, but it is worth the trip.

Bill C-20 leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is the embodiment of everything I most abhor about this federation. It is a reminder that my people, my nation, is still controlled by the nation next door. I am sure my colleagues will have understood by now that I am referring to the Bill C-20 that was passed just over 20 years ago, the clarity act, which set out the majority threshold and was tabled by Stéphane Dion. This bill reminded Quebeckers that Quebec would be ruled by the will of the Canadian majority to the very end. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons applauding that. That is just pathetic.

Twenty years ago, this Parliament came out and said that Quebec is not the master of its own house, so much so that its neighbour decided to give itself a say and even veto power not just over the next referendum, but also over the very definition of a majority, since it felt 50% + 1 was not enough for a majority anymore. So much for a people's right to self-determination. Quebec does not know what is good for it. There are echoes of Lord Durham's lamentable report here. This gets applause to this day.

As for Bill C-20, which is being debated today, the Bloc Québécois will obviously support it. Our logic is straightforward. Quite simply, since the bill is good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois will support it. However, I would like to address the manner in which the bill was introduced and will likely be passed.

Over the past four months, the pandemic has shaped our daily lives. That is true for all of society and also for this Parliament. Its usual operations were suspended because of health guidelines. For four months, this Parliament and its legislators have no longer carried out their roles as they should. That is also true for the study of this bill. We will pass it with a sham procedure, ramming it through without being able to study it properly. I completely understand that it is urgent that we help those paying the economic price of health measures, namely our workers, businesses and people with disabilities. However, after four months, I feel that it is time to strike a balance and to put an end to this travesty of democracy, I would even say, this quasi-dictatorial government.

I will explain. Here is how it works. The government presents its bill to each party under embargo and then, just a day or two later, it introduces the bill in the House and insists that it be passed as is. In so doing, the government is short-circuiting the usual analysis and study process. We do not have time to examine the bill in detail, but, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. What worries me the most about this flippant approach is that, for the past four months, we have been passing bills without even giving members the opportunity to hear from the individuals and groups that are affected by those bills. The current process is too rushed. It does not make any sense.

I would like to give an example to illustrate this problem, that of Bill C-17. There was a section in Bill C-17 that sought to provide support to people living with disabilities. That support was intended for people who applied for the disability tax credit. However, since this was a non-refundable tax credit, many low-income people did not apply for it because they do not pay taxes. They were not going to fill out all the paperwork for something that did not apply to them. We know that far too many people with disabilities are living in extreme poverty. As written, Bill C-17 excluded the poorest people from the support program. Those who needed help the most were excluded, which was outrageous. This type of problem is usually fixed during the legislative process when committees have time to hear from the groups concerned and provide recommendations on how to improve bills.

In fact, it was groups like those who contacted us to complain about that aspect of Bill C-17. The bill affected their members. They are in the best position to analyze it, and they must be given time to take a close look at it and analyze it so that the government can hear what they have to say and make changes accordingly. As I have said before, the whole process that is crucial to passing good laws has been on hold for four months. That has to change. We need to get back to a democratic process. Let me just remind everyone that the government was unequivocal: Bill C-17 had to be passed as it was, and there was no room for improvement.

Even though it is in a minority situation, the government is behaving like a dictator. That is unacceptable. We said that we were in favour of Bill C-17, but that we needed time to study and analyze it. The government refused, saying that there would be no changes, and it chose to withdraw the bill and pout.

Fortunately for Canadians living with disabilities, just over a month later, Bill C-20 corrects the mistakes of Bill C-17 by adding three flexible elements.

First, individuals receiving a disability pension from the Quebec pension plan, Canada pension plan or Veterans Affairs will be entitled to the payment, even if they have not applied for the disability tax credit. However, this does not include those who receive a disability pension from the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec following an automobile accident, or the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail following a workplace accident. That could be improved.

Finally, individuals who apply for the disability tax credit within 60 days will be entitled to the payment, even if they did not previously claim it. This flexibility was not found in Bill C-17.

I would also like to talk about another point concerning the assistance for people with disabilities, which my colleague was asked about earlier. In his announcement on June 1, the Prime Minister talked about a refundable tax credit. However, Bill C-20 talks about a payment paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. It is not inconceivable that this could mean the payment is considered taxable income for taxpayers. I would like the government to clarify this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to you and to my colleagues from all parties here, in the House. We need to change how bills get passed. This chamber, its elected officials, its legislators and its committees must be able to actually do their jobs. We need to find a way that complies with health guidelines, but it is possible.

The government is comfortable governing without Parliament, but that infringes on our democracy. This has been going on for four months, which is far too long, and it needs to change.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech.

I find it a bit ridiculous to hear members say that there was an opportunity to vote for a bill to help people living with disabilities last month, but today, a month later, they are justifying having voted against it.

Today, we have the opportunity to vote in favour of the bill. Once again, it is easy to say that the bill is not perfect. Could my colleague opposite tell us whether it would have been better to vote in favour the first time, thereby avoiding all the political games?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is our first opportunity to vote on support for persons with disabilities. In fact, Bill C-17 was not even introduced in the House. We were not able to vote on that bill. The government chose to sulk by not introducing it.

Everyone in the House said that support for people living with disabilities was important. We just had to ensure that it was done right. My speech mainly focused on the fact that it was badly done and rushed. That is also the opinion of groups representing persons with disabilities.

Now, Bill C-20 is properly drafted. It is everything we asked for. The government must stop acting like a dictator and saying take it or leave it, and if we do not take it as it is, it does not work.

We have to return to a process that lets all elected members of every party to participate fully as legislators.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has not responded to my colleague in a fully accurate way.

The Bloc, the New Democrats and the Conservatives were provided an opportunity not that long ago to give their unanimous consent. Unanimous consent is often given for a wide variety of bills, not only with this administration, but also previous administrations, so it is not as though it is unprecedented. There was an opportunity for us to see this legislation, or a form of it, pass.

It was not necessarily the Bloc as much as the Conservatives, but to try to imply that the government did not attempt to bring forward legislation that would have seen money in the pockets of individuals with a disability gives the wrong impression.

Would the member not acknowledge that there was a genuine attempt to make that happen?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government chose to introduce Bill C-17 as one bill made up of four different parts that could not be amended.

The part regarding support payments for people living with disabilities had the unanimous consent of the House. Had the government chosen to seek unanimous consent to pass that part of Bill C-17, it would have immediately gotten that consent. Every party publicly expressed its support for that part of the bill, so there would not have been any problem with that.

The government said no. The parties had to take the whole bill or leave it. That is the problem that we are once again seeing in this catastrophic approach to urgently passing bills imposed by the government. The part of Bill C-17 that helps people living with disabilities would have excluded the poorest members of that group because it was poorly written. The government is short-circuiting the usual process for passing bills in the House. That is what I have a problem with.

I hope I have made that clear to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. This way of doing things needs to change. We have been doing things this way for four months and that is too long.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really liked what he had to say.

I think Bill C-20 would have been a good opportunity for the government to simplify to some degree the fairly complex measures introduced in Bill C-17. It is still complex. It is written in very complex jargon. We are afraid it might prevent some businesses and individuals from getting the help they need, which is what happened with the emergency commercial rent assistance. We realized that applying for it was so complicated, people just gave up.

Does my colleague think Bill C-20 would have been a good opportunity for the government to simplify the process?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act is such incomprehensible gobbledygook that a physicist or a mechanical or electrical engineer would struggle to do the math. The equations are full of variables. There are more letters than numbers. There are cross references. It is endless. It is impossible to understand.

During the technical briefing on this bill provided by officials, we were assured that the government would be able to present the extension of the wage subsidy and all its various forms in a comprehensible way. That is a huge but necessary challenge. As my colleague said, that was not the case at all for the commercial rent assistance.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members bring their personal experiences to the House of Commons. I am here to represent the people of Quebec and my riding. I am also the critic for families, children and social development.

I want to talk a bit about my experience. There is a lot of talk about what is being proposed in Bill C-20, and it is clear that the matter of accessibility is a sticking point. I am a mother of three children, one of whom has a disability.

For several weeks now, I have heard people talking about the bill that was tabled and that would make certain things possible. I, of course, see the bill from a parliamentary perspective, but also from a personal perspective, as I think about people who are living with a disability and who are vulnerable. The government is implying that everything is easy and available and that these people were taken into account, but all along it has been dragging its feet and taking its time.

Today, listening to the questions being asked in the House, it is unclear how the assistance for people with disabilities will be provided. The government is unable to tell us whether the $600 they get will be taxable. In my opinion, we are far from a comprehensive, clear proposal and from providing assistance for those who need it most.

I wanted to mention that, not only is this measure long overdue, but there is still the matter of accessibility. That is why debates and committees are an important part of the process of perfecting bills, as my hon. colleague from Joliette mentioned earlier. Of course, for the Bloc Québécois, the goal is to help the most vulnerable.

I mentioned that it is too late and that it is unclear, and I feel the same way about the Canada emergency wage subsidy. I have spoken to a number of people and entrepreneurs in my riding who did not have access to the CEWS. Now the government is trying to improve it, apparently so that more people can have access to it.

I went to Gaspé, where I spoke to entrepreneurs. Applying for the wage subsidy is a burden for companies large and small. It is not an easy task. Some were ineligible, and now the government has made some adjustments based on other criteria that are so convoluted as to be almost incomprehensible. Once again, my concern is that the subsidy will not be accessible to people who cannot apply themselves or who cannot do so properly, since the program is so convoluted, as I was saying. We need to clarify and simplify things if we want people to benefit, and the same goes for the $600.

Are we really providing assistance if people are unable to apply for it? In the case of the disability benefit, will people with disabilities be able to receive the whole amount, or will we only be sending them half? Once again, it is too late.

I would like to know if businesses that were not entitled to it may be entitled and may qualify. This could be good for those who were unable to before. The reason it is being adjusted is that we know there were problems with the emergency wage subsidy. Will businesses have retroactive access? Those are my suggestions for this bill.

There are other problems the government could have fixed. Members were talking about vulnerable people earlier. That brings to mind employment insurance sickness benefits. People who are sick now, people with cancer, for example, need money to keep fighting. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît actually introduced a bill to extend the benefit period for these people, who really need it.

I had hoped that we would be able to add this element. That was what happened with Bill C-17, which included several elements. There are three elements here as well. This is something the government could very easily have done, and that people would have applauded, because they have been waiting a long time.

I will come back to the stories of other vulnerable people in my riding, in particular in seasonal industries where people are still waiting. We are halfway through summer, and we have not yet begun addressing their situation. They are wondering what is going to happen to them in the fall. The emergency wage subsidy is all well and good, but it does not apply to seasonal industries when people are not working.

We need to find something for them. We are being told that something is coming. However, when a seasonal worker knows that he is going to lose his job in the forestry or fishing industries, or in tourism, which has been struggling in many areas back home, he needs to know if he will be able to feed his family in the fall, that he will be able to keep working in his field and supporting his community, and that he will be going back to work in 2021.

We want our communities to retain their vitality and to bounce back from COVID-19. These people truly need help. I want to see this happen fast; I do not want to wait for summer to be over. Once again, we are falling behind on getting assistance to the people who are most vulnerable and who bear the brunt of COVID-19.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a substantial piece of legislation that would bring in new support for individuals with disabilities. It makes significant changes to the wage subsidy program, a program that has, I would argue, saved millions of jobs. It has allowed employers to continue to employ their employees.

One of the concerns I have is the misinformation that has been put on the record in regard to the legislation itself. We have already had a couple of people speak about the disability aspect of the legislation, saying that it is taxable when, in fact, it is not taxable. The Bloc should be aware of that. If the members believe that it is taxable, they need to show me precisely what it is in the legislation that is giving them the impression that it is taxable. Not only is it not taxable, but it is also not reportable.

This is a direct benefit for individuals with disabilities, and this is something that we have previously attempted to get through the House of Commons. It is some members of the opposition who have caused the delay. This government has been aggressively trying to get it done as quickly as possible.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has the right to disagree with the government. I think that is one of our freedoms, however modest it may be.

I have here an excerpt from the June 1 announcement, in which the Prime Minister mentioned a refundable tax credit. However, Bill C-20 talks about the payment being paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, which indicates just a possibility. It it not stated explicitly, but it is also not ruled out. If I do not see something explicitly stated in a contract, I want to clarify it and have it stipulated. If that is truly what the government intended to do, why did it not just write it down?

I do not want to mislead people. I am simply being a responsible member of Parliament and I am asking questions that, I think, are of interest to my constituents and to the people of Quebec and Canada.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to what the member had to say. Today we had the opportunity to walk up the hill together and get to know each other a bit. We have a lot in common in our two ridings, and our concerns are very similar as well.

I do appreciate the Bloc members who have made the wise decision to tell the government that they are not happy with what it has done, with the help of the NDP, to our rights and privileges as the opposition on this side of the floor.

Would the member be interested in encouraging the rest of her caucus to fully support petition e-2629, which calls on the government to do the right thing and return, in full, to the House in September? We need to return so that we can carry on in the role we have to hold the government to account; bring forward our own supply day motions, which, as we have worked together, have been very successful; and have private member's bills.

All the roles we should have on this side of the floor have been hijacked by the government. We need to stand together, not just us parliamentarians in the House, but also every person in each of our ridings, and call on the Liberals to do what they should do and re-engage Parliament, rather than meeting virtually. We are no longer provided with opportunities to hold them accountable, other than through virtual means, or the Prime Minister stepping out of his door.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question. In fact, I have not read the petition she mentioned.

However, I believe that members have heard me make a request in the House on several occasions. I find that the Wednesday sittings are committee meetings and not real sittings of the House of Commons.

The ten or twenty hours my colleague and I must spend each week to get here will not prevent us from working in the House to hold the government to account. That is what we are doing today, even though it does not really want to answer our questions and seems to believe that we are biased. We need answers and we need to be responsible, which is something I truly appreciate. I believe it is the duty of every parliamentarian.

The Bloc Québécois caucus wants to do its job of course. We, the members, want to do our job as parliamentarians as it is usually understood in the House, with concern for our safety and that of all Canadians.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to discuss, in particular, part 3 of Bill C-20 that would enact an act respecting the suspension or extension of time limits and the extension of other periods as part of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019.

As members are all aware, the COVID-19 pandemic has created many challenges on several fronts, not only for individual Canadians and businesses, but also for the operations of federal and provincial governments. Governments are working hard to respond to the pandemic and protect the well-being and safety of Canadians. Today, I would like to speak about one particular set of challenges that we are proposing to address with this legislation.

This issue has important implications on the rule of law, as well as significant practical implications not only for our justice system but also for the federally regulated sphere in which individuals are governed and businesses operate. I am referring to the issue of fixed statutory deadlines.

Members may wonder what these deadlines are. Canadians normally rely on the certainty of knowing that, if they have a decision from a court, there is a limited time to bring an appeal. They want to know that if they are in a process of trying to comply with a requirement, such as working with creditors, they will not be in default and subject to serious consequences, through no fault of their own, if they continue to follow the steps set out in the law.

Overnight, the certainty offered by fixed time limits became an obstacle rather than a comfort. If an act provides no discretion to extend time limits, there could be serious consequences for Canadians.

Let us take the example of someone who wants to challenge the terms of a divorce settlement ordered by a judge. Suppose this person has lost their job and is caring for the children at home. If the current situation prevents the person from filing an appeal within 30 days as required by the Divorce Act, that person is out of options.

Let us also consider employees under federal jurisdiction who work in essential sectors like transportation and need valid certification. The pandemic could be making it hard or even impossible for them to renew their certification. Can we expect businesses to continue to operate without that certification, potentially putting themselves at risk?

The measures in this bill will provide a level of certainty that will enable individuals, businesses and the government to focus on maintaining or resuming operations in the context of the pandemic.

I am therefore pleased to present a series of measures grouped in one act, an act respecting the suspension or extension of time limits and the extension of other periods as part of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019. The short title of this act is the time limits and other periods act with regard to COVID-19.

The act would apply to two categories of problematic time limits that require immediate attention: first, time limits in civil proceedings, and second, legislative time limits and periods set out in federal acts and regulations.

With respect to civil litigation, should deadlines not be extended, it would risk forcing people to choose between ignoring public health advice and protecting their legal interests for preparing for or attending court. This risk is highest for self-represented litigants, who many not know where to go or what to do to secure their legal rights in the current circumstances. Chief justices have done as much as they can within their powers and have asked for a more complete solution from the federal government. Other stakeholders, such as the bar associations, have also called for the federal government to act quickly.

A number of federal laws include deadlines, and failure to meet these deadlines could have serious and irreversible consequences for Canadians and for Canada as a whole. Even government activities have been affected by the pandemic. A large amount of resources is being allocated to the fight against COVID-19, which prevents us from supporting other activities and meeting certain deadlines.

Under the Food and Drug Regulations, the sale of drugs intended for clinical trials is authorized by default unless Canada sends a notice of refusal before the specified deadline. If we cannot meet these deadlines, Canadians' safety could be at risk. In addition, many companies and organizations will now have more time to hold their annual meetings, without having to ask the courts for an extension.

These are only a few examples. There are many others. If Parliament does not take action and find solutions, Canadians will soon feel the real-life consequences. It is important to point out that several provinces have recognized the need to extend legal and regulatory deadlines and have acted accordingly.

British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have taken measures to suspend or extend time limits in proceedings under their emergency legislation. In some cases, these provinces have also extended deadlines not related to proceedings. Of course, no provincial measures can resolve the issue of time limits in federal legislation. Newfoundland and Labrador and Manitoba have also passed legislation giving them similar powers.

Our government also received feedback from various stakeholders and parliamentarians on this legislative proposal and considered their comments, as members will see from changes to the bill resulting from those considerations.

The purpose of the bill is clearly set out. It is to temporarily suspend certain time limits and to temporarily authorize the suspension and extension of certain other time limits in order to prevent any exceptional circumstances from making it difficult or impossible to meet those timelines and time limits. It also aims to temporarily authorize the extension of other periods, for instance the validity of licences, in order to prevent unfair or undesirable effects that may result from their expiry in the current circumstances.

It is clearly stated at the outset that the bill is to be interpreted and to provide certainty in legal proceedings and ensure respect for the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I want to emphasize that the bill would not apply in respect of the investigation of an offence or in respect of a proceeding respecting an offence, nor does it apply in respect of a time limit or other period that is established by or under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The bill is divided into two substantive parts, one dealing with civil litigation and one dealing with a limited number of regulatory deadlines. For civil litigation, the new act would provide for the suspension of civil limitation periods established in federal legislation. These include time limits for commencing a civil proceeding before a court, for doing something in the course of proceedings, or for making an application for leave to commence a proceeding, or to do something in relation to a proceeding. These provisions would apply to any court referred to in federal legislation.

The suspension is for a maximum period of six months, which starts on March 13 of this year and ends on September 13 of this year, or an earlier day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. Even though the suspension of limitation periods will be automatic, the legislation is flexible in nature. Courts will be empowered to vary the length of a suspension when they feel it is necessary, as long as the commencement date of the suspension remains the same and the duration of the suspension does not exceed six months. They will also have the power to make orders to remedy a failure to meet a time limit that is later suspended. In addition, to deal with the possibility of unintended consequences, the Governor in Council may lift a suspension in specified circumstances.

Once again, the duration of the suspensions or extensions cannot exceed a maximum of six months. It is important to point that out. This also includes renewals. The orders do not apply in respect of a time limit or other period that ends on December 31, 2020, nor can they be used to extend a time limit beyond December 31, 2020. What is more, the suspension provided for by an order cannot allow a time limit to continue after December 31, 2020.

However, ministerial orders can be retroactive to March 13, 2020, and can include provisions respecting the effects of a failure to meet the time limit or of the expiry of a period that was then suspended or extended. In order to provide some flexibility, orders may provide that a suspension or extension applies only with the consent of the decision-maker in question or that the decision-maker can refuse to apply the order or make changes regarding its application.

We recognize the unique nature of this legislation. As such, numerous safeguards have been built into the bill right from the beginning. First and foremost, the bill clearly indicates that the powers to make orders cannot be used after September 30, 2020. It also ensures that no order can remain in effect after December 31, 2020. The bill would also give the Governor in Council the power to make regulations restricting or imposing conditions on the power of ministers to make orders regarding time limits and other periods.

What is more, in order to ensure full transparency and ensure that Canadians are being kept informed of what is being done, the new law will require that a ministerial order or order in council regarding suspensions or extensions, together with the reason for making them, be published on a Government of Canada website no later than five days after the day on which it is made for a period of at least six months. It must also be published in the Canada Gazette within 14 days after the day on which it is made.

That is very important. It is a way of ensuring that all parties and all stakeholders are made aware of the extension or suspension of the provisions of this act.

As is clear from this overview, our proposed legislation is targeted, flexible and transparent. It provides the certainty that all Canadians deserve when dealing the legal system, while promoting the rule of law and giving needed flexibility in key regulatory areas. At the same time, it ensures that needed protections are in place and it recognizes the key role that Parliament plays in holding government to account.

For these reasons, I hope we will find support, not only from this side of the House but from the other side of the House, to make sure that we provide the needed flexibility that Canadians deserve during the pandemic, and to also make sure that they get that information to understand why we would need to prolong or suspend the measures that are applicable in this law.

I look forward to questions from hon. members.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. He showed us how important it is to extend deadlines during a crisis like this one.

That reminds me of the answer we got yesterday from his colleague, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who said the Liberal Party, as an organization, was struggling. The Prime Minister refused to confirm that when my party asked him about it.

I wonder if the Liberal Party will continue to struggle until November 21 or, as the Prime Minister said, until December 31. Does my colleague have a sense of just how badly the Liberal Party is struggling?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, although he is fully aware that that is not what this bill is about. This is a bill specifically about suspending legislative provisions that include a time limit. Rather than making a connection, I would prefer to stick to the framework of the bill. It is not that I do not want to say anything, but I fail to see any logical connection between the two things my colleague is trying to conflate in his question.

What I can tell him is that this bill is very important for reassuring Canadians that the law will continue to apply to them despite the usual time limits if they are doing what is required by law. That is why we added this flexibility, so we could make sure that certain provisions could be suspended and others could be extended for up to six months, as well as those that go to the end of this year, that is, December 31, 2020.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very detailed and precise speech.

I would like to ask a question about direct assistance for people with disabilities. The number or percentage of people with disabilities who are eligible for this additional $600 has increased compared with the previous Bill C-17. However, the bill still falls short of covering all people with disabilities. I know there are differences between how the federal and provincial governments consider these data.

Could my colleague make a commitment, as a member of the Liberal Party, to do whatever is necessary to increase this assistance so that all people with disabilities can be helped, as called for by the NDP?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.

As I said to our Bloc Québécois colleague, I would prefer to limit the debate to the provisions and framework of this bill.

As I said, the bill addresses two categories of problematic time limits that need immediate attention. The first is time limits in civil litigation. The second is regulatory deadlines in federal acts and regulations. Again, I cannot connect this to any other situation. That particular situation does not fall within the context of civil litigation. This is specifically about regulations where Canadians might find themselves in a situation that violates the usual time limits set out in other legislation. The bill we just introduced allows certain aspects to be suspended for up to six months or extended in order to ensure that Canadians who are trying to do the right thing can comply with the law. We will ensure that by following the regulations, they are not breaking any laws.

How they would find themselves outside of the positions of respecting the timelines that are already contained in previous legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always learn something when the member for Hull—Aylmer addresses the House. It struck me that we are thinking of deadlines and time limits and legal technicalities that would be not normally the subject here in the House during this confinement because of the coronavirus, which is already a terrible and difficult time for people. Imagine if someone were also going through a divorce or a court hearing and the outcomes were in jeopardy.

I am glad to hear there is flexibility and discretion being given to the courts, but I want to understand more about the safeguards so that we do not see abuse either from this flexibility, but certainly that the aims of justice are served.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to answer questions from my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle, who is doing an outstanding job of representing her constituents here in the House of Commons, especially in a serious situation like this pandemic.

She is perfectly right, and this matter is extremely important to all Canadians, especially those going through a divorce, for instance. They have certain time limits they need to meet, but the pandemic is getting in the way. We are introducing a housekeeping bill to give Canadians some degree of flexibility so they can do what they have to do in certain situations, such as divorce proceedings, which are not easy. We will make sure they are able to meet the stated time limits thanks to the flexibility that this bill provides.

This is a great way to reassure Canadians that even though they are in this pandemic, which is stressful enough, and whatever situation they are in, such as in the case of a divorce, for example, which is extremely upsetting and difficult for those parties, that we have created the flexibility in the legislation to allow them to continue with two tough things, making sure they are not sacrificing their rights or the opportunity to seek out justice or reparations.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I raised the issue of how complex this bill is. Many questions are left unanswered. For instance, Bill C-20 expands access to include seasonal businesses, businesses that were not eligible for assistance before.

There are several questions in my mind. Will the assistance be retroactive? Will it also apply retroactively for those who have been receiving it for months or for new businesses? This could change a lot of things for a business, helping it survive. Being able to get retroactive financial support could be good for a business. I am wondering if that will be on offer.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The bill provides individuals and businesses with the certainty that if they take legal or regulatory steps, they will now have the flexibility to ensure that they can deal with matters during the pandemic.

If, because of the pandemic, they cannot meet certain time limits set out in the bill, this legislation gives them some flexibility. This will allow them to continue their activities and meet the time limits stipulated in the bill or any deadlines they may have to meet in their particular situation.

The bill introduces a certain flexibility. This gives Canadians, businesses and individuals, the certainty that they can continue their activities and meet all the established time limits.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise in the House and enter into debate. It is good to be back in Parliament, regardless of the time of year. Even though summer is not normally a time Parliament sits, we have important business to do, so it is good to be back.

In my 10-minute speech, I hope to cover a whole range of subjects, but I want to bring up something that constituents talk to me on a regular basis about, and that is the deterioration in trust that has taken place between Canadians and their government.

On October 21, Canadians sent a minority Liberal government to Ottawa and a strong Conservative opposition and two other parties. Throughout the last number of months, we have not seen an attitude from the Liberal government that it has clearly had its hand slapped by Canadians for a series of ethical failings, among other things. Rather, we have seen a government that clearly seems to want to maintain an aura of not just majority rule, but one in which the current Prime Minister also feels he has a divine right to rule this country in whatever regard he feels according to the whim of the day.

That has caused a deterioration in trust. What I hear from constituents time and again every day, whether by email or phone or when stopped in a grocery store, is that there has been a deterioration in trust between Canadians and the institutions of government. That trust is a sacred thing. It builds the very foundation of what our democratic process is all about.

We have seen a number of ethical violations. In fact, the current Prime Minister is the only prime minister to have been found guilty of ethics violations not once, not twice, but now one that would seem to be well on his way to a third violation. Yet we have seen investigations stymied and documents not being released and cabinet confidences not being waived, although I note that the parliamentary secretary to the House leader made an impassioned defence of why the Prime Minister did not mislead the House earlier, saying instead that they took unprecedented action to release everything.

The facts simply speak for themselves. There is so much more to the story than what we are learning. We find ourselves in the midst of the WE scandal. We find once again that the Prime Minister does not know the line. He seems to wander back and forth between politics and government, and even seeing his family and friends benefit from the power entrusted to the government to govern the country. That is causing an erosion of the sacred trust that exists between the institution of government, including the House, and Canadians.

It is increasingly clear, and I certainly hear about it on a daily basis, that trust has been lost. In fact, in question period yesterday, I asked the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth if she knew about the Prime Minister's conflict of interest. It was not an hour after question period that an article came out revealing that she had met with WE only a few days prior to this announcement. That deterioration of trust is having a significant impact.

I have the honour of sitting on the ethics committee, where we saw something truly unprecedented. There was a quite simple motion to say that we should shine the light on this scandal and get the information we need, yet we saw government members of that committee filibuster and try to shut down the proceedings. Canadians expect better from their government. I wrote down a number of quotes and checked the minutes of the meeting afterward, and a lot of the things the government members said show a stunning level of hypocrisy.

I will be splitting my time with one of my hon. colleagues from Quebec, and I will not try to pronounce his riding's name out of respect for the French language. I appreciate the reminder to say that.

We have a government that is being rocked by another ethics scandal.

With respect to the bill we are debating today, I have heard a number of the members opposite say that it is all the fault of the Conservatives. In fact, it is probably Stephen Harper. That seems to be the thing they say most regularly. I see the parliamentary secretary to the House leader is probably preparing a question right now. When we were faced with a pandemic that changed the way all of us, all Canadians, and pretty much everybody around the world, lived our daily lives, instead of rising to the challenge regarding where we were as a parliament, we saw a shutting down of Parliament.

The members opposite have said very clearly that we have asked more questions now than we ever have, and it is probably Stephen Harper's fault again. What is very clear is that the government emphasizes style over substance. We admit there were a lot of questions, and we were happy to work within the context of ensuring there was democratic accountability. However, we saw a shutdown of all other aspects of Parliament, including committees. In fact, it was only a few days ago that we saw the opening up of a few other committees.

The ethics committee only met for the first time this past Friday, after a break of a number of months. When I tell my constituents that I am on the ethics committee, their first comment is that it must be really busy or they ask if the Prime Minister actually allows it to do anything. It is unfortunate. I will note that shortly after the ethics committee was struck in this new Parliament, we attempted to have the Ethics Commissioner come to committee to have an honest dialogue about what was found to be a second violation of the Prime Minister with respect to ethics rules and the Liberal members voted against it.

There are so many aspects of the ethical failings of the government. My constituents have continually referred to them as the “cottage chronicles”. Quite often the Prime Minister would make an announcement, with few details and clarification on those details later in the day. A whole host of questions would remain on any of the programs that had been announced and in some cases there would be months of delay before seeing those programs implemented.

Regarding the bill at hand, specifically with respect to the disability portion of this, the Conservatives support ensuring that those who need support get it. The members opposite have said that these delays are the Conservatives fault. Let the record state very clearly that the Conservatives made it clear that we were happy to deal with the legislation and that Parliament should be the body to do so. However, the Liberals played politics with that and shut it down.

There are three main aspects to the bill. We have the wage subsidy, for which a lot of businesses are applying. Some are benefiting, but when I speak to small and medium-sized businesses specifically, they talk about how complicated some of these applications are. When I read through the portions of the bill that deal with the wage subsidy, we see further complications. For a large firm with a corporate office in a large city, that is okay, because it has accounting and legal departments. The accounting and legal departments of the small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in a rural constituency such as mine, is often one person, or a part-time role, or a hired accountant or they simply do the books themselves. Therefore, the unnecessarily complicated nature and aspects of the bill make it more difficult for people to apply.

I have a brief comment on the justice elements of the bill. Certainly, with the times we find ourselves in, it is necessary to have a look at these, but I would note that deterioration of trust, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. When I read the aspects of the justice portion of the bill, the thought in the back of my mind was whether the Liberals were trying to sneak something into this that would have that negative impact on Canadians?

I look forward to answering questions on this and trying to dive into many aspects of this important debate today.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about substance versus style, I am afraid you would not provide me the amount of time that would be required for me to address the member's statement, especially if we want to compare this government to the previous government. The substance has been plenty on this side since we have been in government, and I sat in opposition benches when it was all style. It was called it the Harper bubble.

Having said that, the member makes reference to the legislation, trying to give the impression that when it comes to the issue of disabilities, maybe we could have done it earlier. The member needs to be a bit more forthright with members and those who are following the debate. The Conservative Party did have the opportunity to support the passage, as did other political parties in the chamber. We could have had support for people with disabilities weeks ago had it not been for the tactics of the Conservatives.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right in as far as it could have been passed. However, because the Liberals have shut down Parliament and refused to allow Parliament to do its job, it was not.

When it comes to playing politics, it is a shame really that the Liberals would play politics with an institution like this, that they would use this very House of Commons, which is the pinnacle of Canadian democracy, as a bargaining chip in political discourse in the country. It is the only body where we can be assured that it is not a small group of reporters where the state broadcaster gets a disproportionate number of the questions, but it is truly members who represent every corner of our great country.

The member suggests that somehow the Conservatives tried to shut it down or would not allow it. It is shameful that the Liberals are not allowing Parliament to do its function, not only with respect to its constitutional function but also with respect to the ability for Parliament to do the job that Canadians expected it to do: the essential service of ensuring for my constituents, like the constituents of every member within every corner of the country, that I am doing the job they sent me here to do. It is unfortunate that this continues to be the attitude represented from the other side.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for raising a fundamental aspect of democracy, namely trust.

My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I often say that we must never forget who we work for. We work for our constituents. My colleague aptly and rightly pointed that out.

My colleague talked about the erosion of our constituents' trust in us. I liked his comment that some people are saying that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics must be really busy. That speaks to the cynicism that we see in society.

Many ethics issues have been raised, and the Prime Minister's ethics violations have been brought up. Something just sprang to mind. If we want to keep our constituents' trust and prevent that trust from deteriorating, maybe we should not personally benefit from the measures we are talking about. I am referring to the emergency wage subsidy.

Does my colleague agree that if a political party is benefiting from the emergency wage subsidy, it is contributing to the erosion of the public's trust in us and feeding public cynicism?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the decisions made within the party to which he has referred, it was a party decision in which MPs had no involvement. I will leave it to the party to answer those questions.

However, he does talk about trust. During the ethics committee last week, the hon. member who spoke before me, the member for Hull—Aylmer, made the comment that democracy was fragile.

I see one of the other committee members sitting across the way, whose constituency I fail to remember. She made a number of comments around the stereotype of politicians, and she is right. There is this negative stereotype around politicians. When we see a prime minister's family benefiting $300,000 from an organization with close ties to the Liberal government, a $900-million sole-sourced contract that would have resulted in $42 million in fees and a whole host of questions surrounding that, the stereotype, unfortunately, of politicians and pork barrel politics is true. It causes a deterioration of that trust, that fundamental and sacred trust that exists between Parliament, its members and Canadians. It is a trust that is difficult to earn and unfortunately it is being eroded.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-20, which seeks to provide new support for Canadians in need, and to make my voice and that of my Conservative colleagues heard. We have repeatedly asked the government to make changes to the tax programs and support programs for the forgotten members of our society.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to extend my condolences to anyone who has tragically lost a loved one, or loved ones, to COVID-19. I would also like to thank all of the essential front-line workers and those who are still working to help anyone who is vulnerable and sick because of this terrible virus that has left us all powerless.

Summer is here, but unfortunately, the time for resiliency is not over. We are still facing a lot of uncertainty as a result of new pandemic-related setbacks. Canadians old and young have had their lives, their health and their well-being upended as they face an uncertain future. While I support the measures set out in the bill before us today, I am still outraged. I would be remiss if I failed to mention my indignation against the Liberal government, which was slow to close our borders even though we pushed for it to do so at the first sign of the virus.

We also had to demand a mandatory quarantine for foreign nationals arriving in Canada. That was non-negotiable for our own protection. The Conservative members were the first to support increasing the wage subsidy from 10% to 75%. The Conservative members were also the first to say that the CERB should be opened up to include volunteer firefighters and other low-income earners who were slipping between the cracks. The Conservative members were also the first to say that the agricultural sector should be designated as essential infrastructure.

Members will remember that the previous economic crisis in 2008 happened under a Conservative government, which, I would point out, succeeded in balancing Canada's budget while stimulating economic growth and bouncing back from a crisis that hit Canada harder than any other G7 country.

Faced with the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis, many of my constituents are so worried about what lies ahead for themselves, their children and future generations that they do not know where to turn. I certainly understand how they feel.

This minority Liberal government has been on a spending spree since 2015, although we were in good shape at the time. We have therefore had to work hard and work together to reach a consensus and expose any possible fraud or potential risks in the various programs being announced. We demanded that any infrastructure projects that were ready to go in Quebec get started right away to help with the economic recovery.

We pressured the government to support local media. We also advocated for high-speed Internet access throughout the regions, which the Liberals have been promising for five years now. We are keeping a close eye on the public purse, and always will, for we can no longer afford Liberal extravagances that are unjustified or reserved for their close friends and donors.

The Conservative members of the official opposition are paying close attention to both the reasonable measures that need to be implemented and the unthinkable ones. We are involved in policy development via video conference. We are taking part in many virtual advisory committees and sharing the concerns of Canada's small businesses, which are struggling to survive. As one might expect, a good many sectors have been overlooked.

We are all rising to the challenge of doing things differently and changing the way we live and protect ourselves. For many of us, not being able to go to work every day has shown us how proud we are, how independent we are, and how much our daily work plays into our sense of identity. Bolstered by our values, we are going back to work, in solidarity, to help create wealth and economic prosperity.

The Liberal government's economic and fiscal snapshot showed a massive $343-billion deficit, and total federal debt this year will hit more than $1 trillion. That will be a deep hole to climb out of.

Canada has never fallen so far. It has the highest unemployment rate in the G7. It is the only G7 country that has lost its AAA credit rating. Worse yet, it is the only G7 country without a recovery plan.

While we plan on supporting this assistance, we are well aware that we cannot trust this Prime Minister to lead Canada's recovery.

The government’s excessive taxes, wasteful spending and massive deficits put Canada in an incredibly weak and precarious position even before the pandemic started.

Conservative members want to help Canadians who need assistance. We proposed the back-to-work bonus, a plan to make the Canada emergency response benefit more flexible and more generous, so that workers could earn more as businesses gradually reopened. We are on the road to economic recovery. The Conservative official opposition is responsible for the financial future of my grandchildren and all future generations of Canadians and it is focused on finding concrete, effective solutions for our industries that create jobs, our workers who pay taxes and the growth sectors that generate revenue for Canada. We all know that the Conservative Party is the only party that can replace the current government, but this is not the time for such decisions, because we are convinced that we can continue to work together to face the critical months of the second wave of the virus.

I have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The pandemic has obviously not affected the Prime Minister’s overwhelming desire to flout the law and the rules of ethics and transparency.

I can tell you that on Friday, July 17, 2020, I would not have wanted to be a Liberal member of Parliament. My pride would have been seriously wounded, having to deal with the Prime Minister’s third major instance of wrongdoing and the Liberal members’ filibustering. The Liberals had a lot to say before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. They systematically obstructed the committee's work, preventing Canadians with serious questions about the close ties between the Prime Minister and WE from finding out what is really going on. It is Canadians’ democratic right to know the full truth about this new Liberal scandal. Transparency is important in the deliberations of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Although I seriously doubt it, will the Prime Minister waive cabinet confidence this time and finally tell us the truth? Media reports indicate that three members of the Prime Minister’s family were paid $300,000 to attend WE Charity events, some of which took place during the Prime Minister’s first term. Since 2016, the Prime Minister’s mother has spoken at approximately 28 events and received $250,000. The Prime Minister’s brother spoke at eight events and received about $32,000. The media also reported that the current Finance Minister did not recuse himself from the Liberal cabinet review of the WE contract despite the involvement of two members of his immediate family in the charitable organization, one of them as a paid contract worker.

We should also note that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Prime Minister's chief of staff apparently also helped raise $400,000 for the charitable organization in 2010 and 2011, before the Liberals took office.

During a pandemic, we need to implement exceptional measures. We are certainly not going to let this Prime Minister, his family and friends receive or give preferential treatment to take advantage of the situation and profit from it. This Prime Minister, like a spoiled child who only apologizes when he gets caught red-handed, will be watched very closely and continually to make him accountable, and will have to continue to work with us to plan our country's economic recovery. He sometimes seems to forget that he has a minority government.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about ethics. There was the private island, SNC-Lavalin and now WE Charity. This is the third strike, as my colleague from La Prairie mentioned yesterday. He also said the the Prime Minister should perhaps get a direct line to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. The Bloc Québécois proposed that the Prime Minister step aside until we shed light on this whole affair.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Ideally, perhaps the Prime Minister would step down, but given how Parliament works, I would be really surprised if he did. Still, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for being willing to stand with us at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics over the next few days.

We think the committee will meet tomorrow, and we expect obstruction. We hope the Bloc Québécois will stay and vote with us so we can finally shed some light on this and get the full truth on the Prime Minister's ethics.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the opposition for his comments today.

A few weeks ago, the opposition had an opportunity to support legislation that would have helped people with disabilities who are struggling.

My question is very straightforward. Is the official opposition going to support the government on this provision, which is very clear and seeks to support people with disabilities and increase the emergency wage subsidy? Are the Conservatives going to support the government, yes or no?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I indicated in my speech that we were in favour of this provision, which is more in line with the help that is needed now that an adjustment has been made.

We always agreed with supporting persons with disabilities. The last time, it was presented with other provisions that we did not agree with. Today we will move forward.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.

Often people say that this side of the House does not offer any proposals. However, the Conservatives proposed that a change be made to the CERB, that it be regressive in order to make it more accessible to people who would want to go back to work. The emergency wage subsidy is interesting, but it could also be paired with the Canada emergency response benefit to better coordinate both programs.

I would like to have a few more details on this proposal.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauce. He is very active in his riding and works for the people of Beauce. I want to congratulate him personally.

Whenever the government needs to act—in collaboration with the opposition parties, because this is a minority government after all—we need to ensure that the focus is on investing in the economy.

Canadian companies, small and medium-sized businesses and their millions of employees are the ones who will support the Canadian economy. We must ensure that those jobs are not lost this year, next year or in the years to come. This money should go to the businesses and those who are maintaining jobs, to help them overcome this massive, global challenge. Canada's main challenge will be to maintain jobs, and we need to work with Canadian companies on this. All federal assistance must go towards helping businesses keep people employed.

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

Madam Speaker, the government has, in fact, been investing in Canada's small businesses, whether it is through working with financial institutions for loans or through the wage subsidy program. The legislation that we are debating today would assist in making some of the changes to modify the program so that, again, even more businesses will benefit from it.

Would the member, as a general thought, agree that the government is in fact putting the right amount of resources into supporting Canada's small businesses and our communities through the CERB program?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised an important point.

In the beginning, the government's earliest initiatives were only for individuals. Members on this side of the House put a lot of pressure on the government to make sure businesses were not forgotten. We asked the government to make changes so that Canadian businesses could keep their employees in the short term and through the coming months. If businesses lose their employees, we will lose our businesses, which make up the economic fabric of this country. Businesses drive our economy, and the future depends on helping them.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to be here this afternoon to talk about Bill C-20 and the government's response to COVID-19. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

Before I go on, I want to take a moment. Usually we never meet in July, and this is a very important week for me personally, and the entire Tamil community, so I want to just take a moment to acknowledge the horrific events of Black July, which started on the evening of July 22, 1983. Mobs armed with an electoral list of Tamil homes went door to door in Colombo, Sri Lanka, beat and killed over 3,000 Tamils, and looted their homes and businesses.

This period, known as Black July, sparked an armed conflict and the mass exodus of Tamils out of Sri Lanka. The anti-Tamil pogroms forced many, including my family, to seek refuge in Canada. The government of Pierre Trudeau at that time enacted a special measures program to assist over 1,800 Tamils to settle in Canada. Today, this community is over 300,000 strong, and I am so very proud to be part of this community from coast to coast to coast.

With that, I want to take a moment to reflect on the most vulnerable in our society, particularly as a result of COVID-19. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the refugees who are in many camps around the world, struggling in cramped conditions in UNHCR tents or displaced altogether. There are over 80 million displaced people around the world and over 30 million refugees. I want to recognize them and all those who support refugees, both abroad and in Canada, and particularly those who are vulnerable in Canada, who have come in search of freedom but are unfortunately struggling with COVID-19, as are all of us across the globe.

This pandemic has had a very profound effect on all of us, but none more than our seniors. I want to talk about long-term care homes in my province of Ontario, and also locally at the Altamont Care Community in Scarborough—Rouge Park. We lost 52 residents and one staff member to COVID-19, so we have lost 53 people as a result of COVID-19. This is just in one home. There are four other homes: Orchard Villa in Pickering—Uxbridge, Holland Christian Grace Manor in Brampton South, Hawthorne Place Care Centre in Humber River—Black Creek, and Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke Centre. All five MPs who correspond to these homes have written to Premier Doug Ford, as well as the Prime Minister.

We are asking the premier to initiate a public inquiry, similar to that of Ipperwash, to make sure that we do not make the mistakes that we made in long-term care homes. Some 80% of deaths associated with the COVID-19 pandemic are a result of people living in long-term care homes. These are our seniors, and it is a national shame. I would say that we have failed our seniors, those who are in long-term care homes, and I am saddened to stand here today to even talk about it. The report from the Canadian Armed Forces, who were deployed to these five care homes, really does shed light on what we need to do, and I want to emphasize and ask the Premier of Ontario to make sure that we do right and get to the bottom of this.

Equally, the five colleagues, including myself, wrote to the Prime Minister seeking national standards for long-term care homes. I realize that there are challenges, in terms of jurisdiction. As a federal government, we are not directly responsible for long-term care homes. Nevertheless, as a government that is responsible for Canadians and to Canadians, it would be incumbent upon us to take some leadership and make sure that we have national standards of care for all those who are in long-term care homes. As a government, we regulate everything from plastic bags to toothpaste and all kinds of consumer products, and, for the life of me, it is hard to imagine why we cannot have some form of minimum standards set for long-term care homes.

I think it is long overdue, and that conversation needs to take place. I look forward to working with the government, as well as our friends across the aisle, to ensure that this does not happen again.

I also want to note that the government recently announced $19 billion toward a safe restart program. This is part of our government's response to COVID-19. This $19 billion will go, in part, toward supporting long-term care homes, especially the deficiencies that are outlined in the report by the Canadian Armed Forces. We are hopeful that the immediate response, in case there is a second or third wave, will be mitigated by the additional financial support that our government is giving to the provinces and, in turn, that should filter in toward long-term care homes.

I also want to address another issue that has been quite troubling to me, and that is the issue of systemic racism. I have spoken about this many, many times in this House and with many of my colleagues, including colleagues from across the aisle. I want to acknowledge that a couple of weeks ago many of us got together and wrote a letter that was signed by many members, led by the member for Hull—Aylmer and of course supported by people like my friend from Hamilton Centre, where we highlighted the need for the government to address the issues of systemic racism.

One thing that COVID-19 has shown us is that it has an impact on racialized people. Whether it is people working on the front lines as workers at hospitals, working as cashiers or working in the restaurant industry, for example, there is a significant impact of COVID-19 on racialized people.

In places like the United States and England, we have specific numbers that speak to this racial divide, but in Canada we do not keep those kinds of statistics. I believe that one of the things we really need to do is gather that information and make sure that we connect the dots between race, poverty and health services. I hope that this is an opportunity for us to learn and, again, mitigate in terms of a second wave.

With respect to overall systemic racism, it is very clear that racism affects many people and it affects them differently. Anti-black racism is profound in our history. It continues. The social results are very obvious. The numbers kind of speak for themselves. Whether it is with respect to the social determinants of health, issues of incarceration or issues of education streaming, there is a profound impact on Canada's black community, as well as indigenous peoples, who, since Confederation, have been rendered to be second-class citizens in all aspects.

This conversation was sparked by the tragic killing of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police, but of course in Canada we have seen our share of these tragedies, including the brutal attack on Chief Allan Adam at the hands of the RCMP, and the death of Chantel Moore.

We have seen calls for governments at all levels to reimagine what policing looks like, to reimagine how interaction between police and individuals is, especially those who may have mental health issues and those in racialized communities. I think the moment is now for us to seize and make sure we address the systemic issues that have led to these devastating results. I hope that we will be able to work collaboratively to advance these issues in the months to come.

Support for Canadians with disabilities is something our government has been trying to do from the beginning. There have been a number of measures we have put in to support all Canadians, and I will speak to that at the end. However, with respect to this legislation, it will directly assist people with disabilities with a non-reportable payment of $600 to all eligible individuals who receive the disability tax credit.

We have worked hard since the start of this pandemic to provide support for vulnerable Canadians and to ensure that the response plan leaves no one behind. We need to make sure that Canadians with disabilities who are facing additional costs related to the pandemic get the support they need. This payment would also flow to those who are eligible for other disability benefits or supports, such as the Canada pension plan disability benefits, the Quebec pension plan disability benefits or one of the disability supports provided by Veterans Affairs Canada. This would benefit approximately 1.7 million Canadians with disabilities who are facing additional expenses due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the 2017 Canadian survey on disability, 22% of Canadians aged 15 and over identify as having a disability. The rate goes up with age, with 38% of Canadians over 65 and 47% of Canadians over 75. We know that among working-age Canadians with disabilities, more than 1.5 million, or 41%, are unemployed or out of the labour market entirely. Among those with severe disabilities, the rate increases to over 60%.

These Canadians face challenges each and every day, and they do it with determination. They deserve the support of their government. Our government has worked closely with the disability community during this time of crisis, including the COVID-19 disability advisory group, which is advising the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. The group has shared details about the lived experiences of persons with disabilities during the pandemic, along with disability-specific issues, systemic gaps and potential responses. Our government will continue to work hard to increase accessibility and remove barriers, and it remains committed to a disability-inclusive pandemic response and recovery.

I want to take a minute to acknowledge some of the incredible organizations in Scarborough that have been working to address and support people with disabilities during this pandemic. I want to start by thanking the South Asian Autism Awareness Centre, which does magnificent work with young people with autism who are on the spectrum. The Wellspring Centre, which I was able to visit last week, is a respite care facility that just reopened. I was able to meet with its team and some of its clients. It is a relatively new organization, but one that is very promising and that will really support a lot of people with disabilities.

Community Living is another one. Many of us in Parliament have very important Community Living locations in our ridings. There are several in my riding, and I am always awed by the work they do and the level of commitment their staff and volunteers have in supporting those with disabilities. TAIBU Community Health Centre is located in Scarborough North, adjacent to my riding. It is the only black-focused community health centre in North America. They do some great work, especially supporting those with sickle cell disease and other issues related to the black community, and I want to thank them for their work.

The next aspect of my discussion today is about broadening the Canada emergency wage subsidy. It is now one of the pillars of the government's COVID-19 economic response plan. The Canada emergency wage subsidy was introduced to prevent further job losses, encourage employers to quickly rehire workers previously laid off because of COVID-19, and help better position the Canadian economy as we transition into the post-pandemic recovery.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy can continue to protect jobs by helping businesses keep employees on the payroll and encouraging employers to rehire workers previously laid off. We are already seeing lower unemployment numbers because people are being rehired. It offers more flexibility to employers so that a large number of them can benefit from this subsidy. Employers of all sizes and in all sectors of the economy may be eligible.

Since we launched this program this spring, about three million Canadian employees have had their jobs supported through the Canada emergency wage subsidy, and that number continues to grow. To help support these Canadians, our bill would redesign the Canada emergency wage subsidy and tailor it to the needs of more businesses. This bill would extend the program to the end of 2020, with the intent of providing further support until the end of the year.

The wage subsidy would be made more accessible by making the base subsidy available to all eligible employees who are experiencing any decline in revenues. This would allow businesses, small and large, that have been struggling throughout this pandemic to get access to the support for the first time and help more Canadian workers get support as a result. This would remove any barriers to growth for firms currently using the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. By removing the threshold for support, they will know that they have support as they work to grow, invest and re-hire workers.

Our government is also proposing to introduce a top-up subsidy for eligible employers that have been most adversely affected by the COVID-19 crisis. The redesigned wage subsidy would help position employers and workers for a strong rebound in the post-pandemic recovery.

I want to talk about this program in relation to my experience in the 2008 financial crisis. At that time, I had opened a law firm a couple of years earlier. I had about a dozen staff, and one of the toughest things I had to do at that time, because the economy was contracting, was to lay off staff. I lost a couple of really good people whom I was never able to get back.

From my experience, making sure that companies are supported in keeping their staffing levels is critical to the long-term viability of our economy. It is so important that Canadians be able to continue to work and receive a paycheque, because, ultimately, that is the best form of support any government could give. I am very pleased to say that this program has helped dozens of organizations in my riding and, I am sure, across many of my colleagues' ridings as well.

This is just part of our overall response to COVID-19. Here I want to say a thing or two about the restart program. I know that the city councillor in ward 25, Dr. Jennifer McKelvie, John Tory, the mayor of the City of Toronto, and others have been speaking to us over the last several weeks about their challenges with the city budget and that the $19 billion the federal government is giving to the provinces will inevitably support them with their restart. I really want to thank them for their advocacy.

The other programs we have, as we know, are the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency student benefit, the GST rebate back in April, the OAS and GIS top-ups, as well as the Canada emergency business account. These are all supports that we have given individual Canadians to make sure they can sustain the financial challenges they have incurred over the past four months.

I want to conclude by thanking all of those who have been working on the front lines, who have been heroic in their efforts. They never set out to be heroes, but they are our Canadian heroes. I want to thank the Canadian Armed Forces for the work they did in my riding, the front-line workers at the hospitals and in all of the different areas, including trucking, cashiers at grocery stores and, of course, Dr. Eileen de Villa, the medical officer of health for the City of Toronto, for her tremendous leadership.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the wage subsidy is very important for small businesses to survive. There is no doubt about that, but with the new bill, it seems there are a lot of complications. People probably need master's degrees in mathematics to understand it, plus a few accountants, if they can afford to hire them.

I will give an example to the parliamentary secretary. If a business experienced an average revenue drop of more than 50% over the last three months, it can get a top-up to its wage subsidy benefit to reach a final top-up number. If we add into the calculations the base wage subsidy, which is if it had lost under 49% of its revenue, it is up for another set of calculations.

So my question for the parliamentary secretary is this: If a business loses 60% of its revenue, what would be the wage subsidy percentage that it would receive in order to survive?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that my friend from Edmonton Manning and many others in the House are big advocates of small business.

The fact is that all of these supports are not meant to help each and every one who may be affected. They are supposed to help as many as possible, with the widest net possible in giving that support.

There was a lot of criticism of the existing wage subsidy program. I had a lot of employers who came up to me and said they did not meet the threshold. What this would do is open it up and allow more flexibility in the program, and hopefully will widen the net so that more employers can continue to keep Canadians employed.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, particularly since he talked about seniors, a matter that prompted me to come to the House on a regular basis during the pandemic so that I could take a stand to improve their situation.

I agree with him that we cannot continue to leave seniors out in the cold. However, we have different opinions on how to remedy that problem. I do not think that the solution is to set a standard for the health care systems of Quebec and the provinces.

The government has been making cuts to our health care system and failing to increase health transfers for years. Does he not think that now is the time to remedy that? Quebec and the provinces are unanimously calling for such action.

What is more, right now, our seniors are receiving just a single cheque for $300. Does my colleague not think that the government should commit to keeping its election promise and improve long-term support for seniors by increasing the old age security benefit and the guaranteed income supplement?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I do agree that we all need to do more for seniors. The $19 billion the federal government has agreed to give the provinces will ensure that seniors, particularly those in long-term care facilities, are supported during this pandemic, and it allows long-term care facilities as well as the provinces to restart.

I believe that to the extent there are ideological differences about how we fund health care, it is important that we have a national conversation and that the conversation include how provinces are currently supporting seniors and long-term care facilities, but also to have national standards that will ensure that all Canadians across the country who are living in long-term care facilities are able to have the same security.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park for providing a very comprehensive outlook on the response to COVID, even going beyond the bill that is here today. He raised very important points about the experiences of people around the world, quite frankly, including in refugee camps. He spoke about anti-racism. He spoke about people with disabilities and, of course, the economy.

One of the things that has been missing is the impacts of COVID on families who are trying to work their way through immigration. We know that currently there are people who have been waiting not 12 months, not 18 months, but close to two years. This situation happened well before COVID, but now during COVID, its impact on the families who have been separated throughout this crisis in this critical time is becoming much more apparent.

What are the hon. member and his government doing to help prioritize family reunification in this time of crisis?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very important question by my friend from Hamilton Centre.

I had a chance to speak to the Minister of Immigration just this afternoon on a number of issues relating to refugees in particular. I know the commitment is there to ensure there is a level of focus on family reunification. Just before the pandemic hit, family reunification in Canada took just about 12 months. I believe that time might have increased because of COVID-19, and I know the minister is committed to ensuring that those numbers are sustained.

One of the concerns I continue to have is the number of refugee cases being prolonged because of this. It is something that really does put people in limbo, and I am hopeful that the government and the IRB, an independent body of the government, will move toward ensuring that cases are fast-tracked and decisions are rendered sooner than later.

This is an overall disruption to many elements of our justice system, and I think the bill before us does help us in advancing some of those issues within the criminal justice system.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations about struggling through the challenges of owning a law practice during the previous recession. As a former small business owner as well, as an accountant, I can appreciate that perspective.

With regard to the changes in the CEWS legislation, there are many companies that would now qualify with the removal of the restriction that they had to have lost 30% of their revenue. As a small business owner, I can empathize with those business owners who have been struggling with that decision for several months. However, in this proposed legislation, there is nothing that goes back to help these businesses that have been doing this for 120 days already, struggling to hang on to their employees.

Does the member believe there should be a retroactive component to the changes in the CEWS legislation to help those businesses that would now be eligible but were not prior?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question, and I think my friend has framed it very well.

The fact remains that a lot of the measures we have put into place, the economic supports that we have had from day one, are working.

In terms of the health numbers, they are relatively low in relation to other countries. In terms of supports for individuals as well as businesses, they have been tremendously well received, but, as I indicated earlier, yes, there are people who may not have qualified.

The purpose of the government intervention right now with the extension of the wage subsidy is to make sure there is a lifeline for businesses to continue to what we believe is a safe restart and full recovery of our economy, but we need to bridge those businesses up until that time, and this is one additional support that will do that. Is it going to help everyone? No, probably not.

It is not retroactive, because we are looking forward. We are looking to make sure that those businesses are given the support they need to get to the end of the pandemic.

We will reevaluate these programs continuously, and we will come back as and if required.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to come back to the question asked by my colleague from Shefford.

In his speech, my colleague said that we have failed our seniors. That should raise eyebrows among anyone who has been following federal politics for the past 20 years.

I would simply like to point out that in 1996-97 and in 1997-98, under Paul Martin, the federal government cut $2 billion in health care transfers.

Heath care funding has been at an unacceptable level ever since. Today it is a little over 20%. The provinces assume the lion's share of health care funding.

Hearing an MP say we have failed our seniors leads me to conclude that he needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. It is the federal government that has failed seniors.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has five seconds to answer.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would disagree with that comment by the member.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Just as a reminder, we are starting the 10-minute rounds, and so the questions after the hon. member's speech will be for five minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions, because the last time I had the honour of providing a statement to the House, I believed that we could have done better by Canadians. During our debate, as we looked at how we were going to proceed over the summer, I tried to put forward what I thought was a compelling argument to ensure that no one would get left behind in this country.

I have mixed emotions because on one hand, I am proud as a New Democrat that we were able to ensure that the Liberal government removed the penalties in Bill C-20 related to CERB for people who are struggling to get by, and that we at least increased the amount for people with disabilities by adding the CPPD in the sections on disabilities.

I am proud that we have been given some kind of grace period to allow more people to apply for the disability tax credit because, at almost every step along the way, it seems that the response of the government has been an unnecessary obsession with means testing instead of universality, which continues to leave important people behind.

I am here today representing the constituents of Hamilton Centre. I have mentioned in the past that my riding has the third-lowest average household income. We also have a disproportionate number of people who are living with disabilities and are struggling to get by. In the evolution of the supports that we had during COVID-19, the first response of the Liberal government was to come up with a patchwork EI system that left so many people out. The panic in this crisis, and the prospect of facing the end of the month without the ability to pay the rent, was not just something felt by people living in poverty, but people who were facing poverty perhaps for the first time.

We remember that the Liberals tried to tie the disability tax credit to a program that would only account for 40% of the population living with disabilities. That leaves out the vast majority of the people in my riding. I suggested to the House that I had a moral obligation, and we all had a moral imperative, to ensure that the most vulnerable people in the country were not left behind, regardless of their citizenship, regardless of their ability to work, regardless of how long they had lived here or where they had lived.

However, here we are, back with Bill C-20. It has had an incremental improvement but still leaves far too many vulnerable people behind. The very definition of disability under the disability tax credit is far too restrictive. It is a non-refundable tax credit, and the lowest-income people living with disabilities do not make enough income to benefit from it.

What I found perverse in the discussion of people living with disabilities was the approach to seniors. The argument put forward by both Liberals and Conservatives was, “What have they lost, in terms of their income?” I say it was perverse because it is very apparent now that our most vulnerable people had absolutely the most to lose.

I shared yesterday that it is not just people infected by COVID-19 who are impacted. I think about my friend, Michael Hampson, who at 58 years old has lived the last part of his life struggling with disabilities and trying to get income support in Ontario. For a brief time, he had hope with the guaranteed basic income. For the first time in his life, he would have said that he could live with dignity because he was not living in the legislated poverty of the Ontario disability support program. Many of my constituents are sentenced to live in poverty under ODSP rates that have been set by both the Conservatives and the past Liberal governments in Ontario.

We come back here and ask what they have to lose, when they have literally lost lives. Seniors were sentenced to live in subpar, substandard long-term care facilities. We know the vast majority of people who died from COVID-19 were connected to these facilities.

When we argue and debate this bill, it is not just about what is in the bill but also about what is not in it. Who do we continue to leave behind? Why are we still trying to do this piecemeal incremental approach, which we heard by the admission of the previous speaker is designed to get as many people as it can, but not everybody?

Why can we not have universal supports? Why can we not have a government, in a country as prosperous as Canada, that can take care of every person living here?

We look at the $740 million to support one-time costs over the next six to eight months for measures to control and prevent infections in long-term care facilities that have a growing number of infections. We are not out of this crisis. We have only just begun. At $740 million, the reluctance from the Liberal government to take national leadership on the state of health care for our seniors in long-term care is the tragedy of this crisis.

There have been scandals in this crisis. I would suggest that WE is a scandal, but it is not the true scandal. The true scandal remains the ineffective way in which the Liberal government delivered or managed the national emergency stockpile supply. We ought to have had millions of pieces of critical PPE that would have protected Canadians at the onset of this. We took direction from medical professionals in the beginning that masks were not required. In my gut, I wondered why that was put forward. At the same time, the Liberal government threw out millions of pieces of critical PPE. I raise that today because we are not going to sit again for quite some time, and we are not out of this thing.

As the provinces continue to open up for business, what the Liberals have done is open us up for a second wave. I talked about the moral imperative to plan for the future. The future is going to be the new normal. COVID is not going away. People will continue to get infected and will continue to die. The question remains: What we are willing to do about it? What can we do to ensure that, next time, someone like my friend Michael Hampson is not found dead in his apartment after four days? How do we make sure we have a health care system that provides enough support to make sure people can check in on our most vulnerable people?

We have the ability to do this. We have the wealth in this country to deliver for all Canadians. It does not have to be piecemeal. We need to recognize that this does, in fact, impact our most vulnerable, and that throwing a $600 one-time payment to a very narrow section of people living with disabilities is quite frankly not good enough.

We are in a scenario over these next few weeks in which I support this legislation, because it is as good as the government is willing to do, but we deserve better. The people of Hamilton Centre deserve better. The people who are sentenced to live in legislated poverty deserve better. The question always becomes what would a New Democratic government have done differently?

What we would have done differently is that we would have done everything we said we were going to do in the beginning. We would have provided supports for people on EI. We would have provided housing for people and we would have had a just and fair transition for people into this new economy. We would have had a just recovery.

We have not heard any of those things. While it takes the Liberal government four days to put $750 billion out to Bay Street, we are stuck in the House still dealing with the government's scandals. Like many Canadians, I want to focus on the things that matter in here, which are the lives that have been lost. That is who I am here for. That is why I am here. When the Liberals make decisions on policy, I encourage the members who are on the opposite side and have all the power to not knowingly leave people behind. The $600 that is going to come as a one-time benefit is going to leave 40% of the population, the most low-income and vulnerable population, behind.

I invite questions from the government and the opposition to figure out how we can, in the House, support everybody throughout this crisis and into the next phase.

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

Madam Speaker, we continue to work with different levels of government. Whether it is the New Democratic government in B.C., Conservative or Liberal governments in Atlantic Canada or the governments in the Territories, we continue to work with stakeholders in municipalities: indigenous people and the many different stakeholders out there. We develop programs such as CERB and the wage loss program. We identify individuals in society such as our seniors, in particular, and those who are in poverty.

Today, we deal with individuals who have disabilities. It is not our first attempt. We cannot just click our heels and give everyone in society a million dollars. It does not work that way. We have to work within the reality of the situation. This government, with the support of other levels of government, has been very successful at meeting the needs of Canadian society so that we will be in a better position on the road to recovery.

To what degree, for example, would my New Democratic friend have gone further than a $600 one-time payment for people with a disability, a $500 one-time payment to our poorest seniors in Canada, $2,000 for CERB recipients for their paycheques or the millions of dollars being spent in support of small businesses?

What more would he have done?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the Liberals can click their heels and provide $750 billion to Bay Street. What we would have done is what we always said we would do: create a system like CERB that would be universal for people to get through this crisis.

The hon. member knows that $2,000 a month is what the government identified for people to get by. Simultaneously, people on ODSP are struggling to get by on $1,200 a month, which means that we are legislating people into poverty but we are bailing out the banks, the ultra-wealthy and the elite in this country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member who just spoke so eloquently has any idea of what percentage the wage subsidy actually amounts to, for example, for a company that had a downturn or loss of 60%.

Does he have any rough idea?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, no, I do not, actually. I have been paying attention to the people who are struggling to get by in my community.

I can share with my colleagues that every step of the way, much like the CERB application, the wage subsidy application was also a boondoggle, in terms of providing clear direction as to who does or does not qualify. Sole proprietors and unincorporated companies do not qualify.

Again, there is a lack of clarity. Not only do the public and businesses not know, but our own senior members do not know. We know that because they are online, coaching people on how to apply within parameters that may or may not meet the suitability of the programs that the government put forward.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passionate speech.

I would like to hear what he has to say about the Liberal government's priorities and how fast it can make decisions and get things done depending on who it is helping. When it comes to awarding a sole-source contract to an organization that has close ties to the Prime Minister and pays money to his mother and his brother, it is done instantly, without even getting the public service involved. When it comes to helping the banks, it happens at super speed. When it comes to backtracking on whether or not to give money to companies that cheat and stash their money in tax havens, it takes the Liberal government 24 hours to backpedal, but when it comes to helping self-employed and freelance workers, we have to fight for weeks. When it comes to helping students, we have to fight for weeks. Today is July 21, and yet again, people with disabilities have received no direct aid from the Liberal government.

What would my colleague say about how fast the Liberals can make decisions and take action depending on who they are helping?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very apparent that the Liberals cannot help themselves from helping themselves in this regard. They can click their heels, and do it quite often.

This is apparent because when we originally passed the motion to support seniors and people with disabilities it was supposed to be without delay, but to this day they are still waiting. There are still going to be people at the end of this bill, 40% of the population, who are going to continue to wait through this crisis.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about Bill C-20, an act respecting further COVID-19 measures.

Ever since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and through Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan, our government has done its best to support Canadians and their businesses.

The measures and programs introduced since March have given Canadians a sense of security and have provided them with financial security during a time of total uncertainty.

Many of my constituents have contacted me to say how satisfied they are with our government's pandemic response. They have asked me to thank the Prime Minister for his daily updates and for all the financial support we have provided during the crisis.

Canadians may have been quarantined and isolated, but they have not felt alone during the pandemic because we have been with them from the start.

The Canada emergency response benefit, more commonly referred to as the CERB, allowed those who lost their jobs because of COVID-19 to continue receiving an income in order to pay for life's necessities. This taxable amount of $2,000 per month was offered to Canadians because in these extraordinary times, they should not have to worry about being able to feed their families, about possibly losing their homes and about paying their bills. Millions of dollars went toward food banks, homeless shelters and women's shelters across the country to help the most vulnerable during these times, as not everybody was eligible for the CERB.

In order to encourage businesses to keep their employees on the payroll and to avoid more job losses, our government introduced the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the CEWS. So far this subsidy has allowed three million Canadian workers to stay on their employer's payroll.

Although this program has already helped millions of Canadians, part 1 of Bill C-20 proposes changes to the Income Tax Act to make the CEWS accessible to even more Canadian businesses, in order to help employers that have been hardest hit by this virus. Part 1 also extends the wage subsidy program until November 2020 and gives the government the possibility of extending it again until the very end of 2020.

Some may argue that as the economy is beginning to reopen and businesses are starting to rehire workers, this program may no longer be necessary. However, it is important to note that our businesses and workers are still facing significant challenges and uncertainty.

The changes that our government is proposing to the CEWS would provide better-targeted support to those who need it most. These changes would extend the subsidy until December 2020, ensure that all eligible employers facing a loss in revenue can qualify, introduce a top-up subsidy to those who have been the hardest hit by the pandemic and ensure that those who are currently using the program can continue to do so and receive support even as they recover.

The redesigned CEWS, the wage subsidy, would help employers rehire workers quickly as the economy improves and better position themselves for the future. Many of the business owners in my riding have relied heavily on the Canada emergency wage subsidy, and they need it to continue for the next while, until they have a better idea of what the second wave of the virus will look like. Businesses thrive when there is stability, and the CEWS provides some level of stability to our economy.

I want to take some time to talk about another part of the bill, part 2, which is very important to me. Part 2 of the bill would amend the Pension Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Well-being Act and the Children's Special Allowances Act to authorize the disclosure of information in order to administer a program that would get more help to people with disabilities, in the form of a one-time, tax-free payment of $600.

This is part of a series of measures to help Canadians with disabilities to pay additional expenses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

When this additional support for persons with disabilities was first announced, only people eligible for the disability tax credit would have been entitled to these payments.

Bill C-20 seeks to extend the scope of those who can receive this payment, allowing 1.7 million Canadians to have access to this benefit.

Recipients of the disability tax credit, CPP disability or QPP disability benefits, or disability support provided by Veterans Affairs Canada will be eligible for this payment.

Recipients of the disability tax credit, CPP disability or QPP disability benefits, or disability support provided by Veterans Affairs Canada will be eligible for this payment.

The Department of Employment and Social Development has the authority to issue a one-time payment to these groups, but strict confidentiality rules prohibit the Ministry of Veterans Affairs and others from sharing any information with other government departments. That is why amendments to these acts are required. If the proposed legislation is enacted, eligible Canadians would receive the payments automatically.

Canadians with disabilities are some of the most vulnerable and are often the first to be let go in times of economic hardship. The government will invest in projects and programs that help make the workplace more accessible in the coming months.

Other parties feel just as strongly as I do about people with disabilities and want to help as many people who need it as possible. That is why the bill reflects some of the concerns raised in previous legislation and strives to include everyone who needs the supports.

The third and final part of Bill C-20 enacts legislation on time limits and other periods in relation to COVID-19. This provides the flexibility needed with respect to certain time limits and other periods that cannot be met because of the exceptional circumstances caused by COVID-19. Specifically, passing Bill C-20 will suspend certain time limits regarding court proceedings for a maximum of six months. In addition, the bill will temporarily allow ministers to suspend or extend time limits regarding specific laws or regulations for a maximum of six months. This is extremely important, since failure to comply with those time limits could have a significant impact on individuals, businesses and the government.

Flexibility is necessary to ensure that Canadians are not penalized for things that are out of their control during these extraordinary times. In these exceptional circumstances, Canadians and businesses may be unable to meet the numerous time limits currently set out in federal legislation, including those for civil court cases and some key regulatory matters. Of course, giving such powers to the government does not happen in usual times, which is why these powers would have a limit. They are to be used only in the context of COVID-19, would no longer apply after September 30, 2020, and would no longer have any effect after December 31, 2020.

At the end of the day, Bill C-20 would help the government better help Canadians, and Canadians have never needed help more than they have during this pandemic, at least not in my lifetime. We must continue to support Canadians as they try their best to make it through these tough times, and we must help our businesses survive so that people have jobs to go back to once this pandemic is over.

I hope the bill gets the support it deserves from members across all party lines so that we can continue to be better and be there for those who need us during these unprecedented times.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member across the way.

With regard to the disability benefit, which is better because it is more comprehensive and includes our veterans, I wonder if she would make a comment on a statement that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion made when she was speaking to the disability tax credit that includes veterans. The member sat on the veterans committee for a while, and I am sure she is aware that the backlog has not diminished. It has actually grown to almost 50,000 cases, so this funding is important to our veterans. They desperately wait for months, if not years, to get the supports they need. However, the minister said, in regard to getting the disability tax credit, that it is incredibly complicated at the back end and that it will take up to 60 days for the bill to be implemented after being passed today. I am sure the member realizes why this makes veterans shudder.

If there were ways to make this process simpler, would they not be better for getting the money out the door as quickly in this case as we did with the CERB?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did sit on the veterans affairs committee for a year in the past and saw the hardships veterans were going through. Obviously the backlog was very big, and still is.

I believe the changes we are proposing in the bill may help, in a bigger context, make things a lot easier for veterans at the back end. A lot of the red tape was there because of the confidentiality clauses, which were preventing information from being passed from one department to another. Maybe this can shed some light to help us find new ways to share this information so that things can get passed along quicker when people go from the armed forces to Veterans Affairs. We are hoping the bill can help in that way.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Bill C-17 included the CERB, but the government decided not to include it in Bill C-20. The wage subsidy has been extended, which is good for new businesses. However, many businesses in my riding are having difficulty getting back on track. They are upset that employees want to stay home because they are comfortable with the CERB. This would have been an opportunity to change the CERB by including work incentives in the bill.

I would like to know why the CERB was not included in this bill and what is going to happen with this benefit.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

The aim of this bill is to quickly provide assistance to those most in need. At present, there are issues. Perhaps people feel comfortable with the CERB and we should find other ways to incentivize people to go back to work, but we are not done. This bill aims specifically to provide assistance to those most in need. We will definitely be taking another look at the CERB later.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I will continue. People in my riding are talking about veterans and application processing times. Mr. Vézina, a veteran who had a long career in the armed forces, is waiting and trying to get the benefits to which he is entitled, because he was wounded during his military career. We tried repeatedly to help get his case processed. We eventually heard back that Mr. Vézina had been in contact with an official from the department. He last heard from the department at the end of June, thanks to our efforts, but he had not previously heard anything since 2018. We were told that that was the normal time frame.

I would like to ask my colleague whether it is normal for a veteran who served his country and who is entitled to compensation to spend more than two years chasing down his benefits and to be told that this is a normal time frame. I would like to know what would be a normal time frame if the government decided to improve this procedure for our veterans.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank the member for his question.

Of course, every veteran has put his or her life on the line and fought for our country. It is important that he receive the support he needs. I am sure the minister responsible is working hard to improve things in this department.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the pandemic, the official opposition has been offering solutions to ensure that gaps are filled in programs imperative to restarting our economy. For example, on March 9, Conservatives called for a mandatory quarantine for travellers, and on March 25, it was announced. On March 21, we called for an increase to the CEWS program, and on March 27, it was announced. On April 6, we called for an increase in eligibility to CEBA, and finally, on May 19, it was announced.

There is a pattern here. When the government actually listens to Conservatives, Canadians get results. When it does not, such as when it ignored our practical plan to make CERB more flexible with a back-to-work bonus, Canadians lose.

Since April, my party has been offering solutions to simplify the Canada emergency wage subsidy, yet here we are in the middle of July looking at making changes to this program through new legislation. This will require businesses of all sizes to hire accountants, lawyers and consultants to figure out if they might even qualify. I am digressing, but as a former public practice accountant who was, up until a year ago, practising and serving many small clients, I can assure the members that this would have made for a very busy summer for me.

I want to take a few minutes to consider some examples from my riding in northern Saskatchewan, where there are still some concerns with this legislation. Cameco, a uranium mining company, announced on March 23 that its Cigar Lake operation was being placed in a safe care and maintenance mode for four weeks. This was to protect the health and safety of Cameco employees, their family members and Cameco's partner communities in northern Saskatchewan.

On April 13, as the effects of the pandemic persisted, Cameco announced that it was extending the temporary production suspension indefinitely until a safe and sustainable restart was possible. The precautions and restrictions put in place by governments and local public health agencies, the increasing and significant concern among leaders in the remote, isolated communities of northern Saskatchewan, and the challenges of maintaining the recommended physical distancing at fly-in, fly-out sites with a full workforce were critical factors that Cameco considered in reaching this decision.

Cameco's president and CEO, Tim Gitzel, said:

The global challenges posed by this pandemic are not abating — in fact, they are deepening. We therefore need to stay vigilant and do everything we can to keep people and families safe. We are especially sensitive to the situation in the remote, isolated communities of northern Saskatchewan that are home to a sizeable portion of the workforce at Cigar Lake.

Cameco firmly believes that the proactive decisions made to protect its employees and to slow down the spread of COVID-19 were necessary decisions, and they are consistent with the company's values. During this period, Cameco, for the benefit of its employees and the northern communities where they live, continues to pay 75% of the salaries of its employees. It has also advocated for infrastructure investments in northern Saskatchewan to support the indigenous and northern businesses that make up the uranium mining supply chain while uranium production is suspended.

Clearly, Cameco recognizes that corporate social responsibility, partnerships and community matter. Early in the pandemic, Cameco created a COVID-19 relief fund and put out a call for organizations in need to apply. Cameco supported 67 community projects in Saskatoon and northern Saskatchewan through this $1-million fund.

This company is vital to employment and the economy of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, where it employs hundreds of northerners. It has voluntarily chosen not to apply for the Canada emergency wage subsidy until it has clarity regarding its eligibility for the program. I spoke with Cameco yesterday, and its finance team is analyzing the legislation and the backgrounder provided by Finance Canada to determine if the changes offered provide the clarity it seeks.

It has been 120 days since Cameco first suspended operations to keep its employees and the northern Saskatchewan communities safe, and it is just one example of the many companies that have waited too long for the answers they need. To compound this, in the backgrounder provided on the Department of Finance Canada website, there is no provision for retroactive application of these new rules.

I offer a second example. I received an email yesterday from a gentleman who owns and operates a lodge in Saskatchewan's far north. I am going to read his email, because I think he says it better than I could. He wrote:

I do have concerns that while the government is modifying the financial assistance programs to help small and medium businesses, no consideration is being given to seasonal businesses that generate all of their annual income in 2, 3 or 4 months.

While it is welcome news that the Liberal government is extending the wage subsidy, this is providing virtually no assistance to seasonal lodges and outfitters due to the eligibility criteria being tied to the loss of monthly income. For lodges such as ours, where all of our income is generated in one, two, three or four months, we are ineligible for the extended assistance since our lodges aren't operating and therefore have no income - even though we still have employees and are incurring expenses for the...8, 9, 10 or 11 months [for the rest] of the year.

For seasonal businesses, such as in the Canadian lodge and outfitting industry, where many of the operators have had a 100% loss of income in 2020, we are only eligible for assistance for the months in which we generated income in 2019. [My business] has incurred a 100% loss of income in 2020. Our operation normally generates [hundreds of thousands of dollars] of revenue each year during [a short] 45 day operating season. We contribute [hundreds of thousands of dollars] annually to our Saskatchewan suppliers and employees as well as paying federal and provincial income taxes, GST, payroll taxes and retail sales taxes.

Under the current government financial aid programs, such as the wage subsidy, because we are a seasonal business, only generating income during June and July each year, we are being penalized. We can only claim the wage subsidy for two months while we are incurring wage and other costs [I might add] the other ten months of the year.

It appears that the...government has not considered the situation of most Canadian lodges and outfitters, and the needs of seasonal businesses such as ours when formulating and “tweaking” the financial aid packages for small and medium businesses. I don't know if this huge hole in financing assistance affecting the lodge and outfitting industry, which contributes billions of dollars to the Canadian economy, has even been considered in the debate regarding the financial aid packages.

He concludes his email by stating:

Without financial aid for the lodge and outfitting industry, which is at least equitable to that being given to other segments of the economy - many, many lodges and outfitters will fail and close permanently.

These are only two of the many stories I could tell that describe what is happening on the ground in my constituency in northern Saskatchewan. There is a stark contrast between the headlines versus the reality in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

This government, during the early days of the pandemic, when its attention should have been focused on helping Canadians or maybe, at the very least, avoiding conflicts of interest, issued an order in council on firearms. This provided the media with days of headlines that targeted law-abiding gun owners rather than actual criminals.

On January 24 of this year, Onion Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan declared a state of emergency as a result of a significant increase in drug and gang related activity. The leadership of Onion Lake and the surrounding first nation communities signed a western chiefs declaration with the support of the City of Lloydminster to tackle this very serious gang and rural crime problem. Unfortunately, the Liberal order in council does nothing to help these communities. It is headlines versus reality.

In 2015, the Prime Minister publicly claimed many times that the most important relationship for him was the one between his government and indigenous people. He even put it into all the mandate letters of his ministers at the time. Let us review what this relationship looks like for indigenous businesses during a pandemic.

First nation businesses that operate under a very common and limited partnership structure were initially left out of CEWS. On becoming more aware of this issue, I immediately contacted the finance minister's office, and I am still waiting for a reply. After much pressure from many organizations, this error was eventually corrected, and we appreciate that. There remained a gap in the forestry, mining, manufacturing, construction and consumer sales industries for indigenous people. It is headlines versus reality.

Indigenous small and medium-sized businesses heard an announcement on April 18 from the Prime Minister that would offer them short-term, interest-free loans and non-repayable contributions through aboriginal financial institutions, but they did not see any of that money flow until the middle of June, a full two months after the announcement. It is headlines versus reality.

Every time an announcement was made about support for businesses through programs like CEWS or CEBA, it required significant lobbying and exhaustive efforts before the government found a way to include indigenous businesses. It is headlines versus reality.

Being treated like an afterthought during a global pandemic does not strike me as being considered of high importance in a relationship. Again, headlines—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the wage subsidy program has assisted in wage subsidies for close to three million Canadians. That has literally saved hundreds of thousands of jobs and has provided the opportunity for many employers to keep the employees they had, as opposed to having to let them go. That would have potentially put their businesses in jeopardy.

By working with financial institutions, the government has also provided the opportunity to have more access to capital dollars, which is also important for small businesses. I am sure the member would recognize that Canada's business community is as diversified, if not more diversified, as most economies in the G7. As a direct result of that, even though our target is to hit 100% in terms of supporting small businesses, there are going to be situations that are truly unique and there are going to be situations in which it will be more challenging for the government to provide assistance.

Would the member not agree that, through our small businesses, we have great diversity, which has allowed our economy to grow during these difficult times and which will help in the recovery ahead?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, the question opens up an opportunity for me to talk about the limited partnership situation in my riding. This is something I advocated for in March. In my riding there are a number of very successful indigenous-owned businesses that operate under this limited partnership model. It is a very common business structure for indigenous businesses across this country.

I have a very clear example of being left out with the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, which operates an investment arm called Meadow Lake Tribal Council Industrial Investments. It has a sawmill and some other very significant businesses. The dividends from those businesses flow back to the nine first nations that make up the Meadow Lake Tribal Council.

One of those first nations is the same for which, on the week I was elected, I was in touch with the Minister of Indigenous Services' office because the first nation had declared a state of emergency over a suicide crisis. The flow of dividends from indigenous businesses to these communities is essential for them to provide health care, education and social support in their community. For them to be considered an afterthought in the provision of the wage subsidy is, frankly, appalling.

In fact, we had to stand and shout and scream as members of Parliament and as aboriginal business organizations across the country in order for that change to be made. I appreciate that the change was made. Let us give credit where credit is due. However, weeks or months is too long for them to operate on that uncertainty when dealing with what they are dealing with. Today, that same first nation is dealing with a five-year-old child on the bottom of the lake who they cannot find. That is the reality in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River and of the communities affected by these decisions. That is the reality of being the member of Parliament for Northern Saskatchewan and I advocate for those communities.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really appreciated what he said about his riding. I add my voice to his. In my riding too, many employers called me to tell me about how they are having difficulty recruiting workers. Even employers for community-based organizations told me that they were having trouble getting their employees to come back to work.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague whether he agrees with the proposal made by my party to include employment incentives in the Canada emergency response benefit. I want to ask him whether he believes it would have been worthwhile for Bill C-20 to include employment incentives related to the CERB.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River has 20 seconds to reply.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am going to reflect on a comment my colleague from Carleton made yesterday. Maybe there is a collective memory challenge of who presented the idea of back-to-work incentives first. It is an issue that we agree on with the Bloc, but on whether the chicken or the egg came first, maybe we will leave that for another day. Absolutely, we agree that there should be incentives because businesses in my riding are—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be in the House with my colleagues. Once again, it was quite a journey to get here, especially on short notice, but I know there is important work to be done.

I have been supportive of the government as we navigate COVID-19. I also want to thank fellow opposition members for their hard work and for getting things done. I am honoured to be a member of the 43rd Parliament and am proud to be Canadian.

I do have one regret: partisan politics. Quite simply, it has made a mockery of our institution. It has allowed us to perpetuate systemic issues within the House and has pitted us against each another. It inflames hatred and fear, the type that one can read about in the manifestos of domestic terrorists.

I want to offer my sincere concern for our Prime Minister and his family, as well as the Governor General. I think we should all reflect very deeply on what has occurred at Rideau Hall and commit to doing a better job of teaching love in our communities.

Our system sees its members fighting for credit and recognition, and tearing each other down at every available opportunity. It is the people of this country who are suffering. I think of all the Canadians who are eagerly awaiting the one-time payment for persons with disabilities that was proposed in June. It was poor planning and political posturing that has left these Canadians an extra month without aid.

I too have been made to draw lines in the sand where I did not want to. There is no definitive wrong or right side. If we are truly here in the best interests of Canadians, the taxpayers who elected us, then I must ask us all, what are we doing? Why pour our energy and resources into one-upping each other?

This is in no way to say that we are not to disagree, seek clarification, challenge evidence or hold the government to account. On the contrary, what I am calling for is increased participation and collaboration. I am calling for respect. Call it decorum or call it human decency.

On that note, I would like to speak about some of the specifics of Bill C-20. The most important thing we can be doing right now and in the coming months is to ensure that Canadians have the resources they need to meet their needs. I applaud the move by the government to support wages for Canadians. I question the complexity of the system it has devised and I am particularly concerned that the ongoing lack of clarity about the details of this program will make business owners vulnerable to audits and investigations to come.

It is essential that one year from now, or seven years from now, we remember that these programs were evolving in real time and that Canadians who accessed the wage subsidy, the emergency response benefit, the emergency student benefit, etc., did so in good faith based on the information they had available to them at the time. Heavy-handed, retroactive penalties will be the wrong approach.

I am pleased to finally see the one-time payment for persons with disabilities being passed, hopefully. My own province has the highest rates of disability in Canada, and many of those with disabilities live in rural communities. The nature of New Brunswick as Canada's only bilingual province means that many francophones living with disabilities are also trying to find adequate resources in their mother tongue. This funding is a step forward, but it should never have taken this long.

I would like to read an excerpt from a letter to the minister responsible for disability inclusion from a newly formed group, the New Brunswick Coalition for People with Disabilities:

...day after day during his daily briefings, the Hon. [Prime Minister] hardly ever even mentioned people with disabilities. Then, when a promised payment of $600.00 failed to get approved at the House of Commons, we told ourselves maybe we should "let the adults hash it out". But then, we said no. No, we will not sit quietly anymore. This is what has been expected of people with disabilities for too long.... Let's be honest here. [The Prime Minister] said that Covid19 had exposed some "uncomfortable truths" about how we look after our seniors. The truth of the matter is, should we not also be embarrassed of the way we have been treating people with disabilities in this country? Here we have a group of people who live below the poverty line month after month, year after year. With no chance of EVER going back to work.... And we sit in the sidelines, watching as the Prime Minister of our beloved country decides that $2000 per month is the amount needed to get by in this country. And yet... We are asking people with disabilities to get by on so much less. And then, in a time of crisis, we tell them—by not saying anything at all—that we will deal with them last. And when we do decide to help them with a one-time payment of $600.00, well...it doesn't go through. The only financial aid during this whole Covid nightmare that does not go through.

It is the responsibility of those with power to ensure that the most vulnerable among us are receiving the support they need. Many Canadians were already struggling to make ends meet, particularly because they could not access employment before COVID. For those relying on provincial social assistance programs, CPP or the disability benefit, their regular activities have been terribly interrupted by COVID.

The precariousness of housing, loss of community kitchens, closure of public spaces and limitations on public transit have all had financial consequences for people who are already living on the edge. These citizens should have been among the first to receive aid. Instead, most of them have still received nothing and those living with disabilities have waited five months for a one-time benefit. It is not good enough. There are two weeks before the House is scheduled to sit again and I encourage my colleagues in cabinet to come back to us in two weeks' time with a meaningful pitch to support all Canadians who are the most financially vulnerable.

I am also encouraged to see that the Canada-China relations committee will be able to continue its work. My hope is that we will be brave enough to be outspoken about China's occupation of Tibet and its treatment of religious minorities, including the Uighur concentration camps, and about the recent security law in Hong Kong.

I am also pleased to see the commencement of virtual meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We have incredibly important work to do as parliamentarians, and the more we enable this activity virtually, the better served each of our constituents will be.

I look forward to seeing how we address the question of virtual voting, especially as we expect a second wave of the pandemic to occur this fall. It would be irresponsible of us to become vectors of transmission in our communities. However, there is no question that we must get on with the regular business of the House to debate and pass important legislation.

This brings me back to my opening comments about partisan bickering hurting Canada. I encourage all members of the House across party lines to consider how we can work together to ensure that the needs of our constituents are best met, rather than the various partisan interests we represent. We have all been experiencing the pandemic as parliamentarians and as individuals. I wish my colleagues well. I hope they are all doing okay.

I know how this experience has affected my family and friends, my staff and their families. There is a collective struggle occurring across Canada and the globe. In this time of crisis, we need to tear down the barriers inherent to our ideologies and find ways that we can align. We need each other. We cannot get through the next phase of this virus without supporting each another as Canadians. We are stronger united. We must be able to have discussions, to challenge norms and stigmatization, but let our example of human decency in the House set the tone for the respect, kindness and compassion we want to see in communities across this country.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Fredericton for her fine speech, which was full of wisdom and empathy. It is immensely appreciated.

I would have appreciated my colleague's speech even more without the background noise, which is getting extremely loud these days. The House is sitting, and it would be nice if the people in the rooms around this one would realize it and be a little quieter.

That being said, to get back to my colleague's speech, I heard her mention seniors. First, I want to thank her for her concern about our families and loved ones. The crisis has affected us, but we are doing well. I think we are resilient and united.

We were talking about seniors and people with disabilities. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion about the idea that, rather than responding to the repeated demands of people with disabilities and the incessant demands of our seniors, we should improve their living conditions permanently. These are demands that have been put forward by the Bloc Québécois, but also by other opposition parties.

Why is the government stubbornly insisting on making one-time payments? A payment of $300 for seniors and $600 for people with disabilities seems pretty paltry.

What is my Green Party colleague's opinion on the matter?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I just think it shows so much about our society today, about how we prioritize, how we have completely lost the idea of eldership and how important seniors are in our communities. We are all going to be there, and we should definitely be trying to improve our quality of life at all stages, but particularly as we face our senior years.

To me, we need to do far more to protect those in our communities who are most vulnerable and who have years and years of experience being Canadian, who have gone through so many things, other difficult times and experiences similar to this. There is so much to learn from them. To support them with a one-time $300 payment is symbolic of how much we value them, and we should do so much more.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the importance of proper debate. Would she like to comment on the fact that we have not been allowed to debate the way the House should be allowed to do? Our rights and privileges, as the opposition, in holding the government to account have been shut down by the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus, with the support of the NDP, which means that we are not been able to do our job in the way the member is suggesting it should be done.

Also, given that she is here today, as we all are, have been and will be for three days in a row, could she comment on why we cannot reconvene the House to do the job it was meant to do, namely, to sit in this place safely and do our job as the official opposition and hold the government to account and improve bills, as we have done today in giving the disability benefit to more people, including veterans?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, to be honest, I have to disagree with the first part of my hon. colleague's question. I feel, especially as a Green Party member, that I have actually been given more opportunities to participate in debate. I particularly enjoy the virtual participation when we have the five-minute question slots, with the back-and-forth that occurs. We are getting our questions to Canadians. We are getting messages from the ministers responsible.

We are having adequate conversations and discussion, but I would love to see virtual voting, because that is the missing piece here. We can do the work we need to do in the House. We need to adapt to the changes that have been thrown our way during this pandemic, and the way to do that is through virtual voting.

I cannot see this room—

[An hon. member]

If you do not want to come to work, resign.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

I am at work right now, thanks very much. I am still speaking, so if you could respect the decorum—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order, please. Can we allow members to express their opinions civilly?

The member may conclude.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, we cannot fill this room with 338 MPs. It is already quite filled at the moment. Each of us has our own lives, families and communities to return to, and it would be very irresponsible of us to have everyone return. Without virtual voting, without giving members the equal opportunity to represent their constituencies, this is the way it has to be, and I am very supportive of that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very touching. It was a nice call for collaboration.

I, too, believe that we could modernize our way of doing things. We did it once with this hybrid Parliament and we could move toward virtual voting. I think that could help us do our jobs in our respective ridings. It would also help young mothers who want to go into politics while still being able to spend time at home with their children.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that since I know that she has young children.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, we do not have time to hear the answer to that question. I need to give what little time we have remaining before statements by members to the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe in helping Canadians, and I also believe this should not be a controversial statement. After all, all of us gathered here today have come together as elected members of Parliament to represent the larger body of Canadians and act in their best interests.

How did the government best help Canadians in this unprecedented time? Let us review.

At first the government believed that this goal would be best accomplished through a massive power grab. The Liberals shamefully tried to use a public health crisis to give themselves the power to raise taxes, debt and spending, without parliamentary approval, until January 1, 2022. When this failed, they reverted to the more tried and true strategy of reckless spending and handouts, telling bureaucrats to bypass necessary checks and balances. Many of the programs developed for aid were ill-conceived and poorly implemented. Parliament needed to be recalled multiple times to correct programs, as outlined by my esteemed colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. All the while, they were racking up a deficit of $343 billion, which will push our national debt over $1 trillion. We are the only G7 country that will receive a credit rating drop.

Of course, this has also culminated in scandals. As we are all aware, the Ethics Commissioner is investigating the $912-million contract to WE Charity, an organization with close ties to the Prime Minister's family. The Prime Minister is the only Canadian prime minister formally found to have broken ethics laws, and the only one who has achieved it multiple times. It has resulted in the steady erosion of the trust Canadians place in their governing body and in their politicians. It makes Canadians question the integrity of government leadership. They do not believe the programs in bills like Bill C-20 will help them in times of need, as they are just another way to line the pockets of certain friends.

The Prime Minister promised sunny ways. He said sunlight was the best disinfectant. Now we are in the middle of summer and there is plenty of sunlight to disinfect any dirty laundry. All he has to do now is agree to subject himself to such exposure by appearing before committees and co-operating honestly with the Ethics Commissioner to the fullest, or else he has failed to live up to his word, once again becoming another example of why Canadians doubt measures in Bill C-20.

I remind my esteemed Liberal colleagues of their duty to hold higher standards. If they stand behind such incompetence and corruption, are they not complicit in the degradation of Canadian governments and the betrayal of public trust? Surely they too must feel some tinge of betrayal from the actions of their leader. The trust they have placed in him to make Canada a better place for their constituencies is eroded, and they are no longer able to hold their heads high and take pride in what they represent, because many find what they represent to be mere sponsorship-scandal-type underhanded politics, a lust for power and a greed to line the pockets of friends.

What I would like to see is a change of mindset in our government and the restoration of the honour of the governing party. We must work together toward economic recovery. As the Prime Minister has stated, “Conservatives are not our enemies; they're our neighbours.” The government ought to do the neighbourly thing and listen when the Conservatives give voice in Parliament to the outcry of citizens impacted by the economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

While we encourage non-partisan efforts to help Canadians and wait for the government to accept them, the Conservatives will continue to press the government to implement the back-to-work bonus and plan to make the Canada emergency response benefit more flexible and generous so that workers can earn higher wages as businesses gradually open. This will truly improve the situations of Canadians in need and help place our economy on the path of recovery.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for his efforts to respect the time.