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.

[Karen Hogan]

No matter the language of the request, I still hold the right to refuse to do an audit. When I can't do that is when it's obviously put into legislation, as was the work that was included in Bill C-2. That's a matter of law, and I will comply and follow with the law.

I always take seriously requests that committees make, and I think there are different weights. Sometimes we were already going to look at a topic and we might have advanced the work that we intended to do. We take it seriously when our stakeholder has an interest in something and we try to adjust our work plan when we can, but I absolutely believe that being able to decide when and what we audit is very important. At times we will say no and at times we will say yes.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on the concurrence report.

I want to say something for my constituents back home who have been wondering what this is. Oftentimes, I have to explain to residents in my riding what exactly Parliament is doing during report stage like this. It is the opportunity for any group of members in the House to highlight a particular report that is coming out of a standing committee of the House. This means that a group of parliamentarians met. They met with witnesses, discussed it, had analysts go over it and then agreed on a set of recommendations to report back to everyone in the chamber and everyone in the House of Commons. It is an opportunity to weigh in on the contents.

This particular report goes back all the way to June 2021. The reason the government was not able to respond to this report was that we had an election in August 2021, one that many of my constituents believe was wholly unnecessary because it was an election done during a national pandemic and they do not believe it was needed. It returned mostly the same results all across the country, including in my riding, so I make sure that when I rise, I thank my constituents for sending me back here for a third time and, I will note, with the second-largest vote count, once again, across all the Canadian ridings. I always lose out to my friend and colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, who has an even larger riding than I do, with even more electors to serve. He consistently gets more votes than I do.

This report goes back to June 2021. The report was on what is colloquially known as the WE Charity scandal. It is one that I have received a lot of emails about, especially at that time. I have a lot of constituents who continue to ask me about it. I probably get five to 10 emails and a few phone calls a week still asking me whatever happened with that. They always ask about the follow-up on it. What was the follow-up? What was the outcome of it? I often refer them to this report, and I have not heard back from the Government of Canada on whether it is going to act, whether it is going to respond or whether it knows about it.

That is what is happening today. This is a concurrence report debate. We are going to want to hear from members in the House of Commons on the report.

What I thought I would do today is actually go through the 23 recommendations of the report so that my constituents back home can better understand what the follow-up was from the WE Charity scandal. What did parliamentarians do? From whom did they get information? To whom did they give recommendations? I am still hoping the Government of Canada will respond to these recommendations and implement some of the findings so we can do better.

In this House, we often debate legislation and amendments. Some of those ideas are then taken up in particular committees. They discuss policy ideas and hear from witnesses. Experts come in from the government side, and officials try to weigh the pros and cons with parliamentarians. It is also an opportunity for parliamentarians to get on the record on particular issues they care about. I have served on many standing committees of the House, so I have some measure of facility with these particular rules and how it is supposed to work.

Then, when members write the report, they are hoping to get as much agreement at the committee level as they possibly can. It is always interesting in a minority Parliament, where the government does not always have a majority of the votes available to it. Nowadays, with this coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberal caucus, it is a unique situation where there is effectively a majority at the committees for the government, but then the NDP also gets to pretend that it is an opposition party.

That list of recommendations is what I want to go into. I want to read them into the record, just to provide an opportunity to have that debate. I intend to report this back, through my newsletter, to my constituents on Friday so they can see there was an actual debate in the House on the WE Charity report and these were the recommendations. I can maybe provide some of my ideas and feedback on the contents.

Recommendation 1 was on cabinet decisions:

That the Government of Canada consider making mandatory, prior to all Cabinet decisions on awarding a contract or contribution agreement, an evaluation and determination as to whether a conflict of interest screen, agreed upon pursuant to section 29 of the Conflict of Interest Act by a public office holder and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, should be put in place for any member of Cabinet, as a preventative measure to avoid conflict of interest.

This is a perfectly reasonable recommendation. I am glad the committee was able to report back. This is a committee chaired by a member of the official opposition.

This is infinitely reasonable. I do not see why anybody in the House would oppose having an ethics screen to ensure that decisions are being made by cabinet ministers at the cabinet table who understand where every single person is coming from and if they have any particular reasons for maybe wanting to recuse themselves from that debate. I think it is perfectly fair and it should be done.

“Recommendation 2 on decisions made in the Finance Minister’s Office” states:

That the Government of Canada make mandatory, prior to decisions made in the Finance Minister’s Office, an evaluation and determination as to whether a conflict of interest screen, agreed upon pursuant to section 29 of the Conflict of Interest Act by a public office holder and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, should be put in place for the minister or any public office holder involved in that decision and that it conduct a review to examine how groups not registered to lobby were able to have direct access to the Finance Minister.

That is a lot in a recommendation, I would say. Now that he is not a member of the House, I get to say something generous about the former member for Malpeque, Wayne Easter, who used to counsel rookie members, as I was two Parliaments ago, to keep recommendations short. If we want the government to listen to us and understand what we are trying to do, we should keep recommendations short. If Wayne is listening for some reason, I miss him dearly. He was a good committee chair who was very fair.

To explain this to my constituents, this is fairly simple. This is a catch-all for this growing concern that there are groups out there lobbying or advocating on behalf of a group: an association, perhaps, or a group of concerned citizens. Typically in the past, we would not require them to register as lobbyists because they were like a public advocacy group. They wanted some public good to come from their talks with a minister's office, a minister or a department. What has evolved over time is that these groups are in between. They have a pecuniary interest and a public advocacy interest. The WE Charity fell into this type of grouping, and this is where many people have concerns about how they were able to get this Government of Canada program tailor-made to their own benefit. That is where there were a lot of concerns for people.

This is a good recommendation. It is seeking clarity on how to capture that particular group so that information is provided to the public and the public can then make a judgment call on whether it is right or wrong. It would also ensure that in the future, those types of public advocacy groups know when they have crossed the line from advocacy to actively lobbying for a pecuniary interest they may have.

Recommendation 3 states:

That, given the failure of [the member for Waterloo] to reveal her 17 April 2020 meeting with Mr. Craig Kielburger, a review of ministerial accountability to committees must be undertaken.

Recommendation 3 is one of the recommendations I like, not because I have any particular issues with the member for Waterloo, but because ministerial accountability to standing committees of the House is under threat. I remember many years ago that in a certain committee, I believe it was the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, a certain member, maybe the chair occupant at the moment, wrote a letter with others being highly concerned that the Auditor General was being tasked with more and more audits and was not able to conduct them.

That is an issue I have seen consistently now across many committees: A minister is invited and either the minister refuses to come, which is typically not a direct refusal, but a refusal due to scheduling difficulties; or the minister could come only at a certain time or for a limited period; or the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister or the parliamentary secretary is sometimes offered instead. Accountability in the House of Commons has to come from the ministers. They are at the apex of their departments. They are supposed to be the ones held accountable for the management and administration of everything that happens in their departments, and they are supposed to be held to account.

These are the most powerful men and women in Canada in our political system. These individuals have drivers and very high salaries. They make decisions that literally have serious impacts on people's businesses, livelihoods, families and whether someone can enter or exit Canada. Profoundly, they should be held accountable and it should not be too much to ask that ministerial accountability in this Recommendation 3 be reviewed to make sure that we have only the highest standards for them.

In fact, I would say the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, PACP, has the highest standard of any committee before the House of Commons. The expectation is that only the deputy minister can come as the financial officer for the department to explain him or herself, and ministers are expected to come and explain the running of their departments and the details of what the departments have done with the monies that have been given to them, because they are stewards of the resources of the taxpayers, and that is what this whole place is supposed to be about. There was a reason we agreed on the fields of Runnymede, where the first members of Parliament met. The exact thought and idea was to keep the Crown accountable for the way it was spending money and the policy decisions it made.

Moving on to Recommendation 4 and record-keeping in the context of a meeting with lobbyists, it states:

That the Government of Canada implement a mandatory rule requiring, except in exceptional circumstances, that senior public office holders be accompanied by at least one staff during any meeting with lobbyists for the purpose of taking notes.

I am a great lover of the access to information system. I believe it is broken. I filed an ATIP, I remember, with the Department of Defence in 2020 and I had to launch complaints in order to obtain documentation. Back in June, the Privacy and Information Commissioner found that 13 or 14 of my complaints were justified in order to release access to information documents. Those notes are taken by staff. Those notes taken by public servants in such meetings would be available. They are not transitory documents. They would be available for an access to information request that is dutifully filed by a member of the public, a member of Parliament, a senator or whomever. I think it is the minimum to expect: that public office holders can make information available to the public on request obviously through, in shorthand, the ATIP system.

There are 23 recommendations. I do not know whether I will be able to go through all of them. I do have a Yiddish proverb. I will come to that and explain how it ties in to all of this, too. I will just move on to a few of the other recommendations that I have highlighted for myself because I think these are the ones that some of my constituents have raised with me before.

Recommendation 13, regarding compliance with orders from the House of Commons, states:

That the Government of Canada comply with orders of the House of Commons and not block testimony of key witnesses in studies relating to conflict of interest and lobbying.

While this is a good recommendation, I would expand that recommendation even farther for the committee. The House of Commons is supposed to be the highest political body in the land. The Government of Canada, which is represented by the cabinet ministers here, is held accountable by the House, including the members of the back bench on the government caucus side. Their role as well is to hold the government to account.

To their credit, some of the members have, I know, held the government accountable for decisions made. That can take on many different forms. It can be critiquing the government, heavily criticizing it in a very negative way. It can also be offering up amendments and offering up solutions. It can be voting down certain measures. It can be abstaining on certain measures to make a point. It can be public advocacy. It can be with petitions. There are any number of ways to achieve that goal, but I have seen now in the House the government defy the House of Commons, and at times obstruct the House of Commons. It even obtained documents, as with the Winnipeg lab situation in the last Parliament.

I think it is critically important for constituents in Alberta, but also across the country, to know that the elected officials they send actually do productive work for them: We actually fulfill a constitutional function on their behalf, which is accountability. That is what this place is for. It is to demand accountability from the government, receive and obtain it back. I could actually expand this recommendation far more broadly to include many more things.

Recommendation 15 is on the use of new technology. I often get residents back home asking me about the House of Commons. The way and manner in which we conduct business seems a little archaic to them at times. Recommendation 15 states:

That the Government of Canada refrain from using any new technology that has the potential of violating the privacy rights of Canadians until it has been examined by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and given the parameters of use.

I think that is a very reasonable one. Since the time of this report, I think there have been more concerns raised by members of the public on how the government obtains their private information, how it uses the information, how it shares it across departments and how international organizations may obtain and use Canadian-obtained information on our citizens. Where does it go, how is it used and what is the purpose?

I think more transparency in this situation would make people feel far more comfortable knowing that they can track what the government is tracking on them, and know what the government knows about them. I think that is entirely reasonable as a safeguard recommendation, so that is what I wanted to highlight to constituents back home.

Another recommendation I wanted to highlight is Recommendation 20. On oversight and accountability during emergencies, it states:

That the Government of Canada establish oversight and accountability mechanisms specifically designed to ensure rapid and transparent allocation of federal funds during emergency situations.

This was far before the protests in Ottawa, and far before the illegal blockades at our borders. This was way before any of that happened. This was specifically dealing with emergency situational spending, and there was an attempt by government ministers to allow themselves two years of unlimited taxing and spending during the pandemic.

We had to meet on Easter Saturday in order to discuss and debate the bills. I remember debating Bill C-20, in a previous Parliament, that had such a complex mechanism in it for the allocation of funds. I even asked the minister during the COVID-19 special committee that was meeting in the House about it. I could not make heads or tails of the bill, and I asked the minister to explain it to me and take as much time as he wanted, because I honestly could not grasp how the bill was going to function. I had accountants in my riding asking me questions on the emergency relief programs and how they were going to work. This recommendation is absolutely critical.

We saw, in the House of Commons, the government try to direct funds, and not go through all the accountability measures during an emergency. On one side, we have to account for the fact that it was an emergency and the government was trying to ensure the safety of its citizens during a global health pandemic, but I think that the right question to ask is: How could we do this better? What could we do differently? That is what this recommendation is asking. It is asking for a specific design to ensure rapid and transparent allocation of federal funds during emergency situations.

I am not as well versed in the estimates as I should be, but the member for Edmonton West is, indeed. He is far more interested in them than I think most members of the House of Commons are. He has a finer knowledge of where the money goes, and there are many people who would rely on his expertise. I think that is fair to say. However, that is where accountability happens, and the estimates are quite a Byzantine process that is hard to understand for many. I often have questions from constituents who ask me: “How is this government money spent?” I usually refer them to the Public Accounts of Canada, and then I call them and we have a walk-through over the phone on where they can find the spending details. I think it is reasonable, and something the government should be working on, to make not just the budget side, which are the proposals on how to spend, but the accounting side, accounting for how the money was spent, and informing Canadians of where the money went.

A good example that I can give members is that there was a promise a few budget cycles ago, I think it was in budget 2019, to spend $1 billion on rare disease programs. It was in two tranches of $500 million over two fiscal years. I still cannot figure out where that money went and where it is going. I have been here almost seven years, and I am still trying to sort out where that money is going. I tend to file some Order Paper questions to discover where the money in this particular situation went.

Lastly, I want to raise Recommendation 23, because it talks about contracting. It states:

That the Government of Canada provide an independent organization, such as the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman, the powers necessary to proactively review departmental contracting processes, including their use of sole-sourced contracts.

That has become even more important now that we have found out that the Treasury Board has been allowing people to slice contracts to under $25,000 to allow themselves the opportunity to sole source them under that limit. We are not allowed to do that. The Treasury Board has been very clear that we are not allowed to cut contracts in two just to fall underneath the $25,000 limit. One minister is writing an article today and being published.

“One who wants to know is better than one who already knows.” I will admit that this is a Yiddish proverb. I have gone through the contents of the report that we are debating today, and I would like to know if the government is going to actually implement the recommendations. Which of these is it going to implement, and which is it going to review? The report was dropped in the last Parliament and resurrected in this Parliament, and now we can have an opportunity for debate and for a vote. I want constituents to know, back home in the riding of Calgary Shepard, that this is part of the representation and work that I do on their behalf.

The WE Charity scandal, I think, shook the confidence of Canadians in the government's ability, specifically cabinet's ability, to deliver on major government programs. It shook their trust in the government. A series of scandals led to that particular one, and I do not think that the government has recovered from that loss of trust. It is one that will go on into future governments as well. It is a shaking of trust in our institutions when we should be shoring up our civic institutions, strengthening bodies such as Parliament and strengthening standing committees of the House. We should be ensuring that members of Parliament have the resources they need to hold the government to account, whether that is through better measures in the House: better tools, such as Order Paper questions that are maybe reported faster, or that have an obligation for a response from the government, and a clear response would be even better. It could also be through more obligations to release more documents publicly, and more obligations, as listed in this report, to oblige the government so that we can know. This is where I think the proverb is most important. It is better that we all know.

With that, I will take my seat and I will be happy to take questions.

Employment Insurance Act

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

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

Now I will get to Bill C-24.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I am going to ask Canadians whom they trust. Do they trust the current government and its handling of the pandemic, or do they trust the Conservative Party? I hope we will earn their trust in the future and form a government.

I have gone through the Parliamentary Budget Officer's review of the fall economic statement, including the contents of the fall economic statement the government has proposed, so I think whom they trust is the best question to ask.

I love Yiddish proverbs, and there is a Yiddish proverb that states, “Trust one eye more than two ears.” I have heard the debate so far, from various members, on the statement's contents and on what is going to happen over the next few months regarding this update and what the government expects to do.

Let us admit a few things. The government does not have guardrails. We used to call these “fiscal anchors”, which were the fiscal measures the government was going to test itself against to make sure it was not going to get Canada's public finances off the rails. Then it started calling them “guardrails”. That is the language that appears in the fall economic statement. It also appears in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's review. In that review, the PBO said that between $70 billion and $100 billion of spending had nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, but rather with pet projects of the Liberals. That spending really had nothing to do with addressing a national health emergency.

In that same fall economic statement, when we look at the different figures the government is proposing, $86.8 billion is being proposed in new spending measures including add-ons to programs, new programs entirely and other changes. The biggest difference the PBO found between its analysis of the numbers, its projections and its modelling was that the economic assumptions on how fast the economy will rebound varied greatly. The biggest difference we find, when we look at the numbers, is that the government has very rosy projections on job growth, economic growth and the opportunities Canadians and residents of my riding will have to find a job post-pandemic, once everything returns to normal. That normal keeps being put off because the government has botched the vaccine distribution and has not made it possible for the provinces to get vaccines to the people who want them. A supporter in Lethbridge sent me a picture of a completely empty vaccination facility. It was waiting for vaccines to come from the federal government so it could get them to the people who want them. That is what we are facing in Alberta. We are facing a federal government that either does not care, is not competent enough or cannot be trusted to get it right.

We can look at the PBO's figures for jobs. In July 2020, the CBC reported that we were about two million jobs behind, based on Statistics Canada information that was probably the labour force survey. Two million Canadians had lost their jobs during the pandemic. It started to go down again in the summer months. More people were being employed or returning to the work they had before, but many of those jobs were lost again.

Looking at the employment numbers predicted in the fall economic statement, it will take five years to recover the jobs we lost to get to the same level of employment we had pre-pandemic. That ignores things like population growth. It completely ignores the fact we had a high unemployment rate before, especially in Alberta and among young people. We have an unemployment rate of 9.4% officially, but that hides the fact that a lot of young people and students are underemployed and a lot of people are furloughed. Constituents in my riding are facing this. They have employment but are not being paid or they are only working one day a week. One cannot raise a family on one day a week of work. That is the reality. This is not captured in these employment numbers.

Looking at the employment numbers in the fall economic statement, it will take five years to get back to pre-COVID numbers. That does not account for population growth: the people who will immigrate to Canada to pick up jobs, grow our economy and start small businesses. That is a huge indictment and failure of the government to plan and put forward something people can actually trust. At the end of the day, small businesses, entrepreneurs and larger businesses will make investments based on their confidence in the economy, and in earning a return on the people they hire to manufacture new goods and provide new services to Canadians.

To me, that is an indictment. That is saying they do not trust the government. They do not trust the fall economic statement. They do not trust the numbers. They do not trust the plans. They have no trust in the future, so they are not going to invest large sums.

I am going to mention something the member for Abbotsford mentioned before, because I think he was exactly on point. On February 16, 2021, our leader received a letter from the finance minister, claiming that we were somehow delaying the passage of Bill C-14. I have looked at the Business of the House during this week, and the bill was up for debate once this week. Once.

The government sets the agenda. The government can decide which bills are being debated. If Bill C-14 is a priority, then the members of the Chamber should be given the chance to debate the merits of the bill, present the facts, look at the numbers and provide input from our constituents, instead of claiming that we are delaying something.

We have already seen this during the pandemic. We were pretty reasonable. Our leader has said that we were aggressively reasonable. When it was required, we made sure that the government got emergency legislation passed so that programs could be set up to help Canadians, every single time. We even met on Easter Saturday to pass a bill. We let Bill C-20 pass, despite the fact that we had a lot of questions about how the different reporting periods were going to work. We passed it in July 2020. Then, after the fact, we had to go back and fix the mistakes, or the government would have had to find regulatory means to fix various mistakes in the legislation.

Now we are being told, again, to rush things. Perhaps a member of the government caucus will stand and say that we voted for all the programs, and because we voted for them then we should keep voting for them now. We agreed to set up programs. If the government takes away Canadians' ability to earn a living, the government owes them compensation. It is a regulatory taking. It is a national health emergency, so we should take it seriously. I agree with those ideas and those concepts.

It is important to pass meaningful legislation that would help people who need it. However, the government is claiming that we are somehow delaying it because we simply want to do the role of the opposition, which is to review the bill correctly and provide the voice of our constituents. People are frustrated at home. They have been stuck at home now for almost a year, in many cases. Depending on which province people live in, the restrictions have been deeper and more broad than in other provinces. People are frustrated because they want to see an out. They want to know what the plan is, and what normal will look like once the pandemic is over. It is a legitimate question.

Many members on my side have also pointed out that the unemployment numbers today are higher than at any point, going all the way back to the fiscal fourth quarter of 2015. That is how bad things have become. We are behind G7 countries. We are behind many of the G20 countries, our main competitors for new markets and our main competitors for manufacturing, factory building and services. We are behind.

When it comes down to the issue of trust, a lot of people in my constituency who are energy workers, oil and gas workers, have skill sets that could be used by the marketplace, but they just cannot find employment. I have been going around to businesses in my riding, big and small, to find out what the federal government could do to support them and come alongside them. The business owners do not want subsidies. They just want to be able to earn a living again by providing a service or product that other people want.

Last, on the claim that we are somehow delaying this unnecessarily, we are simply doing due diligence. This is an incredibly important fall economic statement that updates the numbers ahead of the budget that will come down. It is incredibly important, because how we get out of this pandemic will determine whether millions of Canadians will have opportunities to find jobs or not.

The question is, do Canadians trust the Liberal government? I do not.

Government Business No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the pandemic, Canadians have come together, made sacrifices and done their part to help limit the spread of the virus. As we safely restart our economy, the Government of Canada remains committed to providing Canadians the support they need to continue to make ends meet while staying safe and healthy.

Throughout the pandemic, I received feedback from citizens in my riding of Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne on the various measures put in place by our government to support them. I heard first-hand how the Canada emergency response benefit was there for them when their offices closed and they found themselves without income because of COVID. They were able to put food on the table and keep the lights on. Businesses in my riding were able to keep their employees thanks to the Canada emergency wage benefit. However, while some businesses have reopened and many Canadians have returned to work, some Canadians are still unable to return to work or find employment. We will not leave them behind.

I am therefore happy to support the three new recovery benefits to be administered by the Canada Revenue Agency: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

First and foremost, we have to recognize that the Canada Revenue Agency has worked quickly over the past few months to administer several important COVID-19 economic measures, namely the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, for individual Canadians; the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the 10% temporary wage subsidy for employers, both for Canadian businesses; and, finally, the Canada emergency student benefit for students. I can assure members that the CRA stands ready to meet this challenge again.

Committed to serving Canadians, according to its people first philosophy, the CRA would continue to provide a simple and efficient application process, similar to what millions of Canadians have relied on to access the previous benefits. Eligible individuals will be able to apply for recovery benefits online through the CRA's My Account portal or by phone through the CRA's automated phone line.

The CRA has sought to continuously improve delivery of these emergency benefits to Canadians in a way that is both safe and efficient. The Canada Revenue Agency's employees have demonstrated a commitment to leveraging the CRA's systems while in real time quickly delivering emergency payments to those most in need. To achieve this, the CRA has witnessed an unprecedented immobilization of their resources to build on past successes.

Early in April 2020, the CRA worked with Payments Canada, the Department of Finance, the Receiver General and financial institutions to on board banks and credit unions to a streamlined direct-deposit update capability to facilitate the issuance of COVID-19 relief payments to individuals. To date, there have been nearly 2.9 million direct-deposit enrolments through financial institutions. Overall, 85% of individuals are receiving benefit payments through direct deposit.

The CRA also collaborated with financial industry stakeholders to implement direct deposits for businesses to facilitate the issuance of Canada emergency wage subsidy payments. On April 27, the first bank successfully transmitted direct-deposit information for businesses to the CRA. To date, over 102,000 business payroll accounts have provided direct-deposit information through their financial institutions. Overall, 58% of businesses are receiving their Canada emergency wage subsidy payment through direct deposit.

Members of the House will recall that Bill C-20 received royal assent on July 27, 2020, and revised the eligibility criteria for the Canada emergency wage subsidy in order to support the employers hardest hit by COVID-19. The bill extended the program to November 21, 2020, with the ability to extend the wage subsidy, by regulation, to no later than December 31, 2020.

Canadians can have confidence in the CRA's ability to support the delivery of these proposed new benefits. By way of example, I would like to draw members' attention to the following successes.

Since April 6, almost 22.1 million CERB requests have been received and processed by the CRA, supporting nearly 5.3 million Canadian individuals. For the Canada emergency wage subsidy, as of September 20, the CRA has approved more than 1.14 million requests, for a total of nearly $37.5 billion paid to support more than 317,000 unique applicants from Canadian businesses. With regard to the Canada emergency student benefit, as of September 24, more than 2.13 million applications have been approved by the CRA, supporting more than 706,300 Canadian students.

I have to underscore another important fact. This work was accomplished while carefully adhering to compliance and security protocols. The CRA is committed to preserving the integrity of the Canadian tax system, and I can assure the House that the CRA would use the same level of rigour in the administration of the three Canada recovery benefits that it did to implement the CERB, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the temporary wage subsidy and the Canada emergency student benefit.

To ensure compliance with emergency benefits, since the start of this pandemic the CRA has designed electronic and manual verification measures with regard to the eligibility of applicants and the terms of reimbursement. On the one hand, and under guidance of its people first philosophy, the CRA has provided information regarding eligibility and support for Canadians who are endeavouring to comply with the benefit administration process.

The agency recognizes that applicants may make an honest mistake in applying for an emergency benefit period for which they later become ineligible. To support honest Canadian citizens who wish to comply, the CRA has published information on its website to explain how individuals in these situations can easily repay the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada emergency student benefit.

On May 11, the CRA introduced a tool in the My Account portal to allow individuals to make repayments with a few simple clicks. To date, nearly 70,000 repayments have been made through this repayment service. Rest assured: The CRA enforces measures for those who do not comply.

Allow me to detail the measures the CRA has put in place for increasing eligibility verification, curbing identity theft, preventing fraud and enhancing cybersecurity.

First, the CRA has robust systems and tools in place to monitor, detect, investigate and quickly neutralize potential threats. The monitoring of accounts for suspicious activity to detect fraud is performed routinely. Second, the CRA combines data analytics with business intelligence gathered from many sources, including law enforcement agencies, financial institutions and tips from Canadians, to support these efforts. During the administration of the emergency response benefit, the CRA also took steps to implement additional verification and security measures up front to help ensure they delivered benefit payments to the individuals who were entitled to receive them.

The proposed new recovery benefits outlined in the bill, if passed, will help ensure that Canadians continue to have access to the income support they need as they re-enter the workforce and regain their income. We have confidence in the CRA's ability to administer these proposed new measures.

The CRA has a strong capacity and a commitment to Canadians, and its dedicated and highly skilled workforce is committed to serving Canadians during their time of need. As we gradually and safely restart our economy, the CRA will continue to put Canadians first.

Government Business No. 9

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Chair, I want to take the opportunity to speak to the importance of something that has been lacking in the government's response to COVID, and that is transparency and accountability, which we just saw in the House of Commons a few seconds ago.

I will also be addressing how critical it is that Parliament be sitting to oversee the response to this pandemic. We have seen this week that we can, on all sides of the chamber, agree to sit for the first time in years, maybe even in history, in the summer and that we can have a great discussion on the disability bill, Bill C-20, that we talked about in this place on Monday and Tuesday.

Parliament granted special spending powers to the government so that it could provide emergency support to Canadian workers and many businesses in a fashion that was quick and responsive. I remember the day in the chamber, Friday, March 13, when we rose. We did not know when we would be back and then all of a sudden, three days later, the Prime Minister told everyone to go home. That was Monday, March 16.

Opposition parties have worked with the government to come to an agreement that is crucially important, particularly considering how difficult it was at the time to hold regular, proper sittings in the House of Commons. What Parliament did not consent to was a process to avoid transparency and accountability at every turn. The government has done everything it can to avoid some of the questions from opposition members.

Jobs were lost in the millions in this country. Businesses were shutting down, the economy was shrinking at an unprecedented rate, which we had never seen since the Second World War, and the projected deficit has ballooned to nearly $350 billion.

Why did it take the government until this month, July, nearly four months, to give us any information at all on the state of the economy and its budget? If we follow the pattern of behaviour of the government, it is easy to know that it was avoiding Parliament and its functions as an institution of accountability. I remember the day the finance minister stood and told everyone we had a deficit of $343 billion. It was unheard of. People were phoning my office in Saskatoon—Grasswood. They were stunned. That number was jolting. We now have a debt of over $1 trillion in this country. That is unaffordable for the 37 million Canadians who live in it.

I am not saying the significant levels of spending were not necessary. I do not think anyone in this chamber would say that. However, there is no good reason that the government could not be providing significantly more detail to Parliament about where the money is being allocated and what the money is for. In fact, I would argue that is the bare minimum expected of the Liberal government.

What is greatly concerning to me is that we have seen what happens when the Prime Minister thinks he has free rein to spend money wherever and however he wants, and he gives it to his friends. We have seen that with the WE scandal. We just talked about it in the House. It is exactly the reason that the government needs to be making itself available in the House of Commons proper.

When the Prime Minister thought he could allocate funding wherever he wished, he awarded a sole-sourced contract worth over $900 million to an organization with no real experience at all in managing that kind of massive program. Why was that? We do not know. The Prime Minister has been dodging or ignoring some of the questions from the opposition for over a week now.

Let us review what we do know about this. First, the Prime Minister's wife is actively involved in WE. Second, the Prime Minister's mother and brother have received a combined total of close to $300,000 in speaking fees from the organization. I have asked twice in the House, Monday and Tuesday, about the Prime Minister's mother receiving fees on July 2, 2017, for an event that was funded by the Government of Canada through the heritage department, $1.18 million to the WE organization.

Third, the finance minister has two immediate family members involved in WE.

We learned in the past hour that the finance minister wrote a cheque for $41,000 for illegal travel benefits from the WE organization following two family trips he took in 2017. He repaid the money today, just as he was set to testify at the finance committee. He took the trip in 2017, and today, months later in July 2020, he finally fessed up and wrote that cheque for $41,000. I think Canadians want a new finance minister. That is what Canadians are talking about today, when $41,000 later, he confessed to the WE Charity.

Fourth, neither the Prime Minister nor the finance minister recused themselves from the cabinet discussion about granting WE the $912-million contract. Fifth and last, it is a sole-sourced contract without any competitive process whatsoever.

It is said that if it looks like and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, and we saw that today from the finance minister at the finance committee here in the House of Commons. On top of that, the Prime Minister and the cabinet have had a long history of this kind of behaviour. Since the current government came to power in October 2015, it has been scandal after scandal after scandal. This is not the first time the Prime Minister, the finance minister or other members of the cabinet have been under investigation for violations of the Conflict of Interest Act.

The 2017 investigation found that the Prime Minister took a vacation to a millionaire's island with a registered lobbyist and found that he violated four provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act. That finding made him the first Prime Minister in the history of this country, in over 150 years, to have been found to violate the Conflict of Interest Act. He was the first ever in 150-plus years.

There was also the scandal in 2017 surrounding the finance minister's private company that owns a villa in France, which he somehow forgot about. Two years later he did not report that to the Ethics Commissioner. Of course, there was also the clam scam scandal involving the President of the Privy Council, and there are many, many more.

Then of course, who could forget about SNC Lavalin? That was the big scandal in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister improperly pressured the former attorney general into advancing the interests of a private company rather than the public interests. That scandal led to numerous resignations across the government. Some very good cabinet people left the Liberal government and were forced to sit on this side with opposition members.

By my count, there are five different cases where the Prime Minister or a member of his cabinet was found guilty of breaking at least one clause in our ethics law. We found out today we have another one with the finance minister admitting that the WE Charity did take $41,000 in benefits, writing that cheque out today.

The former ethics commissioner Mary Dawson told CBC last week that she thinks it would be difficult for her successor not to find that the Prime Minister contravened section 21. She said that the Prime Minister has a blind spot when it comes to ethics. I would add that the finance minister does as well.

How can Parliament, let alone Canadians from coast to coast, continue to trust that the Prime Minister will be acting in the country's best interests and handling the unprecedented powers given to him? What does the government do when this issue is raised at committee? We saw that the Prime Minister ignores calls to appear and Liberal MPs filibuster at committee so they can cover up their leader's tracks.

These are some of the questions that Parliament needs answers for. Unfortunately, we only had two days here on Monday and Tuesday to open Parliament. We had a lot of questions. Some of the answers came this afternoon at the finance committee with that stunning revelation by the finance minister of Canada.

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

Madam Chair, this is exactly why we have flexibility built into Bill C-20. The 30% drop in revenue requirement has been removed so businesses can have that kind of flexibility to rebuild.

In my riding specifically, companies are already opening because of that. They will have the flexibility to continue to get supports gradually as—

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for detailing what our government has been doing and will continue to do regarding COVID-19. One of the very important things we all have to keep is mind is that this is a work in progress. As things continue to evolve and change regarding COVID-19, we must adapt as well as a government. There are no automatic solutions.

How will yesterday's Bill C-20 further help Canadians and what we will do in the future?

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

Madam Chair, my hon. colleague's incredibly important question is one that almost all Canadians are now starting to ask themselves. That is precisely why we have the wage subsidy. The changes we made with Bill C-20 are specifically to ensure that as businesses are starting to reopen, maybe not fully, the connection between the worker and the employer is kept and those businesses can gradually—

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

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to be here today to speak about our government's response during the COVID-19 pandemic and how we are working to support the reopening of the economy, including the steps we took right here this week to move forward with a redesigned Canada emergency wage subsidy.

Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic is one of the greatest challenges we will face in our lifetime. This is an unprecedented crisis, and our government has been working tirelessly to protect jobs and stabilize the economy to ensure that our businesses can prepare for better days and to provide come certainty to the workers and families who depend on the jobs at those businesses in these extremely uncertain times.

Our government has put in place a rapid and substantial COVID-19 economic response plan that is supporting Canadians and Canadian businesses and working hard to leave no one behind. We did this to ensure that Canada is well positioned to recover as public health conditions allow. Since March, the government has been taking actions through the COVID-19 economic response plan to support Canadians and their families in this very difficult time. The economic response plan is providing broad-based support that is keeping our economy stable and protecting jobs.

Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan includes more than $230 billion in measures to protect the health and safety of Canadians and provide direct support to Canadian workers and businesses including liquidity support through tax and customs duty deferrals. This represents nearly 14% of Canada's GDP, making Canada's plan one of the most generous response plans in the world. The supports our government has put in place are making sure Canadians can pay their mortgages or rent, put food on the table and fill prescriptions. They help our workplaces remain in business during this time of incredible uncertainty.

Last week, the Prime Minister announced the safe restart agreement, supported by over $19 billion in federal investments, to help the provinces and territories restart the economy over the months ahead while making Canada more resilient to possible future waves of the virus. We have already made major funding announcements and will continue to do so in many areas, including health care, child care and municipal services.

A pillar of our government's support has been the Canada emergency wage subsidy. The Canada emergency wage subsidy provides qualified employers with a subsidy for remuneration paid to employees. The CEWS protects jobs by helping businesses keep employees on their payroll and encourages employers to rehire the workers who were previously laid off. To date, this program has supported nearly three million workers.

Bold and ambitious programs like the Canada emergency wage subsidy are one of the key reasons Canada has stayed strong through this crisis. Measures like this one have been crucial to preventing worse outcomes. Without this support, millions might have lost their jobs and businesses would have lost workers. The important connection between an employer and employee would have been severed, leaving our businesses in a worse-off position and slow to recover, and leaving Canadians with uncertainty about whether, as things improve, they would have jobs to go back to.

Throughout this crisis, our government has actively monitored the situation and remained ready to adjust programs to meet the evolving needs of this unprecedented crisis. That has included input from all 338 members of Parliament in the House.

In support of this objective, yesterday the House voted in favour of Bill C-20, which would see a redesign of the Canada emergency wage subsidy. The redesign takes into account the valuable perspective gained through our government's recent consultations with business leaders and labour representatives on how this program can best serve the needs of employers and employees as the economy restarts. Bill C-20 would extend the program beyond our originally announced extension of August 29, extending it to November 21, 2020, with the intent of providing further support into December.

The bill would also make the wage subsidy more accessible by making the base subsidy available to all eligible employers that are experiencing a decline in revenues, no matter how much. As I heard from a number of businesses in my riding, we had to make things more flexible, especially as they are beginning to open up and some are starting to make revenue again. By removing the 30% revenue decline threshold, we will also be able to support businesses that have been receiving the subsidy as they are returning to growth.

Our government recognizes that this virus is still with us and that economic recovery will be a gradual process. We want to make sure that no employer feels the need to choose between getting the support that they need and returning to growth.

With the bill, we are also proposing to introduce a top-up subsidy for the most adversely affected employers. This would help make the Canada emergency wage subsidy more responsive, with those who have had the largest decline getting more support and those who are recovering having gradual decreases as business picks up.

By reducing disincentives to create jobs and increasing revenues over the summer and into the fall, the redesign of the Canada emergency wage subsidy will support a strong restart for Canadians and employers.

I would now like to speak about other measures that we have put in place to provide support to Canadians during this unprecedented pandemic.

The Canada emergency response benefit has been a crucial lifeline for millions of Canadian families. More than eight million Canadians have applied for this support. It has made sure that in the face of a historic emergency, Canadians have had the money for essentials. In my constituency, some Canadians were not able to buy healthy, nutritious food for their children because they had lost all sources of income. The fact that we were able to make this more flexible as we went along, so that people making less than $1,000 who could not make ends meet were able to get the benefit, is a testament to the hard work of the members of the House.

We have also put in place a number of other measures to help families during this challenging time. Families received a special Canada child benefit top-up payment of $300 per child in May. I want to take a moment to remind families that beginning July 20, which is this week, we are increasing the CCB once again, as we do every year. We have also supported 12 million low- and modest-income families with a special payment through the goods and services tax credit. The average additional benefit was close to $400 for single individuals and close to $600 for couples, which helped a number of families in the initial stages to deal with the extra costs they had because of this pandemic.

The COVID-19 crisis has left many homeowners in Canada without a job or with reduced hours wondering how they are going to pay their mortgage. Homeowners facing financial stress have been eligible for a mortgage payment deferral of up to six months to relieve their financial burden. In addition, with the bill, we are proposing to support an estimated 1.7 million Canadians with disabilities, through a one-time, tax-free payment of $600 to assist with the additional expenses that they are facing in this pandemic. I want to thank all members for working so hard to make sure this will happen.

The government continues to assess the impact of COVID-19. As we have said since the start of this crisis, we stand ready to take additional actions if necessary.

This week, this House has taken measures to ensure that Canadians receive timely help, thereby ensuring that our economy opens up again in a safe and effective manner.

Together we will get through this. Together, by working with provinces, municipalities and across all parties, we will be able to help Canadians get through the crisis. As the crisis eventually and gradually dissipates, we will be in a better position to rebound and build a stronger country.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this take-note debate, because there is so much of which to take note.

First, it was satisfying to see the members of the House, proven by our attendance here under almost normal procedures and practices, on Monday and Tuesday for debate and passage of Bill C-20 and to correct and improve emergency funding for the wage subsidy program and one-time payments for persons with disabilities, who were, like seniors and students, somewhat of an afterthought for the government in its COVID emergency funding programs.

The Monday and Tuesday sittings, unlike this now outdated hybrid talking shop, has proved that we can endure a prolonged arrhythmia that has been imposed on the beating heart of our Canadian democracy by the Liberal government, which finds transparency and accountability inconvenient.

As many, if not most, communities in Canada, certainly in the national capital region, return slowly, with precautions, to normalcy, surely this place should do the same. I hope we will have more members physically present for more days at a time and more committees meeting regularly in place with appropriate safety measures.

I would also like to take note of the exemplary service of my Hill and Thornhill constituency office staff during the lockdown, Michael, Judith, Braydon, Beverley and Perri-Anne, working largely from home to serve the range of extraordinary requests for assistance, assisting folks stranded abroad, employees and employers trying to navigate the ever-changing range of emergency funding programs, visa and passport issues, families divided by non-essential travel restrictions, the interruptions of wedding plans, funerals and university studies, the distribution of personal protective equipment and support for food banks.

The lockdown caught us in the midst of relocating our constituency office from Clark and Yonge in Thornhill to Centre Street just west of New Westminster, but we completed the move, finally, in June and are up and running, although not yet accepting visitors inside the office. The major limitation of normal services now involves passport renewal and visa support, awaiting the reopening of Service Canada and other agency offices.

Absolute normalcy, whether in our ridings or on the Hill, is still some time off. However, as we encourage, as parliamentarians, employers to reopen and resuscitate dormant sectors of Canada's economy, so too do we in the official opposition encourage the Liberal government to revive, as I have said, this place, the beating heart of our Canadian democracy. The Liberals prefer government by news conference and sermons from the PM's cottage stoop, but it is time to get back to parliamentary basics, which brings me to another matter of which I want to take note.

For decades, in power and out, the Liberals have advocated—

COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Matters

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Independent, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Chair, there is nothing more essential than good governance, especially in a crisis. Canadians want parliamentarians to work together in the spirit of non-partisanship in order to support the government, and the House to do what is needed to address the social and economic crisis caused by COVID-19. Yesterday, Bill C-20 was an example of that.

That said, given recent controversies, and in light of the PROC committee report released yesterday and all of the other issues facing Canadians, will the government commit to reassess, in terms of transparency, accountability and good governance, and commit to bring full Parliament back in the fall?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Darryl would say that you don't need a calculator but a degree in quantum computing to understand what is inside Bill C-20 and how it changes the CEWS program.

I want to know something for his specific situation, which is in example 22 on the website. Perhaps there have been temporary lay-offs or furloughed employees, or there are employees on shifts. If they do not work for two weeks, their entire wage for the 30-day reporting period is not eligible if a business brings them back, which is a real pain for businesses that are trying to keep their operations going.

Again, to the finance minister, do the changes in Bill C-20 address this particular business issue?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the dean of our caucus, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I have a question from Darryl in my riding, who runs a small business. When he looked at the CEWS program, he noticed that the information provided on the website would make it more difficult and more complex for him to hire more people. Let me explain. The program requires a company to have reporting periods. If he hires a person on the 15th day, he does not get any money from the 1st to the 14th days. That is usually not a problem, as we do not pay a business when it is not hiring people, but it means that if he hires someone after the middle of the reporting period, he misses out on two weeks to support those wages.

My question is for the finance minister. Will the changes in Bill C-20 address this issue?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend to use the Time Limits and Other Periods Act provisions in Bill C-20 to kick the Huawei decision down the road for another six months?