Bill C-2 (Historical)

COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act

An Act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19

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

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

I cannot start my speech today without giving some recognition. On this side of the House, we have talked about a plan forward out of this pandemic. We have talked about ending the mandates, so I cannot start today without recognizing my hometown, which I am so proud of: Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Calgary City Council, led by Dan McLean, today announced an end to the mask mandate on March 1 in alignment with the Province of Alberta, so I thank Dan McLean. Dan, of course, is the councillor for Ward 13. It is a ward in my riding, and I am so very pleased and proud of him and city council today for taking that brave action toward advancing Canadians and ending this mandate. I thank them so very much.

As the shadow minister for employment, future workforce development, disability and inclusion, a key portfolio in ESDC, and along with the incredible critic for seniors in my party, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, I feel completely obliged and compelled to speak about the matter before us today, Bill C-12, and the reason we are having this debate.

When I heard about Bill C-12, it seemed to me that the situation was familiar and I gave it a bit of thought. When the pandemic hit, the government issued a series of benefits: the CERB and the CRB. Lo and behold, unfortunately when the GIS payments were issued there was a necessity to claw them back. This was a result of the government's lack of competency with the administration and overpayment of the CRB and the CERB, by giving funds to those who were not entitled to them. This is no small matter. It affects 90,000 low-income seniors across the country who are struggling to put food on the table and to heat their homes. They certainly do not need this problem at this time.

I understand that the government has allocated a large sum of funds to this: around $700 million. Yesterday in the House, it actually released the date on which these low-income seniors could start to see these funds. It is April 19. The Liberals were not willing to release that information to me at committee, so I am glad they have finally come forward with it in the House, and have announced a date when seniors can expect to see these funds. They would not give me a date when I pressed them at committee.

As I reflected upon this situation, it occurred to me that this was not the first time we had seen this. In fact, oops, they did it again. Where has this happened before? Where have we seen this lack of administration and competency before? I am going to go all the way back to the beginning of the pandemic and Bill C-2, where we as an opposition tried very hard to work with the government to get Canadians the benefits they deserved.

Our current interim Leader of the Opposition was involved in those negotiations, as was the member for Carleton, who was acting in the capacity of shadow minister for finance at the time. He had the good measure to recognize the lack of oversight that was occurring with the government asking for unlimited spending. I am very fortunate that he saw that and pointed it out.

What happened after that was that we had to come back to the House and amend Bill C-2 as a result of the government's incompetence and mismanagement again. We saw that the Canada emergency wage subsidy came too late. The Canada emergency commercial rent assistance did not work, because it required the approval of landlords as well as a 70% revenue reduction. As well, not a single business received funds from the government's large employer emergency financing facility. We saw it there with Bill C-2.

We saw it again in May of 2020, when the CBC reported that Canadians who did not qualify for CERB were getting it anyway and could face consequences, such as the ones we saw with the GIS, which thank goodness are finally being addressed today.

However, it does not end there. We saw it again with maternity benefits, whereby Canadian women who were pregnant could not receive the CERB or the CRB, again as a result of government error and an oversight. We saw the errors of the government once again having a significant impact on Canadians who needed those benefits at that time.

I wish I could say it ends there, but it does not. In fact, it goes on to Bill C-24, where we had to come back and close loopholes that allowed international leisure and other non-essential travellers to claim the Canada recovery benefit, but that made individuals required to quarantine or self-isolate under the Quarantine Act during the two-week benefit period ineligible to submit a claim.

Do we see the trend here that I am referring to? It is the incompetency of the government again and again. Here we are again with Bill C-12, referring to the errors of the government that deeply impacted Canadians. I wish I could say it ends there. It does not.

In November, 2021, we found out that organized crime knowingly and actively exploited federal pandemic benefits. Where did these funds potentially go? I will tell you. They went to illegal firearms. Check the borders, boys. They also went to human trafficking and prostitution. Once again, the errors and mismanagement of the government caused problems for the House. They caused delays to those who needed benefits, resulting in new legislation. The House had to consider taking the time of everyone here, taking us away from other important issues and away from work for our constituents, to come back here and fix the government's errors once again.

I know members know what I am going to say. It does not end there. Now, we are finding out that there are problems with the auditing. Even though the government was aware in June, 2020, and by July 2020, it recognized $442 million in double payments, we will not see this auditing be completely done and rectified until 2023. That is three years after the Liberals first recognized that this problem existed.

Again and again, we are seeing the government's incompetence have a significant effect on the lives on Canadians and on everyone who works in the House and wants to focus on other legislation. Unfortunately, we are called back again and again to fix the errors of the government.

It does not end there. Just five days ago, we found out that the federal government sent nearly $12 million in Canada emergency response benefit payments to people with foreign addresses in the first seven months of the pandemic. It is overwhelming the number of—

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

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am trying not to lose my train of thought.

I was saying that, in 2020, a similar bill, Bill C-2, an act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19, also sought to urgently pass economic measures. We were being asked to take urgent action because the House had been prorogued, not just for a day or two, but for five weeks. We therefore found ourselves in a situation where the House had to rush to support businesses and workers. In that case, we did not have enough time because we had wasted time on ethics issues.

Now, in November 2021, we have before us a similar bill with the same number, Bill C-2. Once again, we are being asked to urgently pass measures. This time, it is because the Liberals called an election rather than allowing us to continue our work in the House, even though there was nothing preventing us from doing so since the opposition parties were co-operating appropriately on the issues being examined. The Liberals decided to call an election anyway, which I think was useless and irresponsible.

We also had to wait two months before the House resumed sitting. In fact—

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking the constituents of Thérèse‑De Blainville for placing their trust in me again in the last election. I also want to thank my team, the wonder team, and my volunteers for their tremendous support during this campaign. As I say to my constituents of Thérèse‑De Blainville, I am always on the go and proud to be a strong voice for them here in Ottawa.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑2 before us. Since the beginning of the pandemic and during the last Parliament, as the critic for employment, labour and skills development and inclusion of persons with disabilities, I have stood many times on issues that directly affect businesses, shops, overcoming this crisis, but also workers and their employment situation.

The government is telling us that Bill C‑2 is essential. I agree. It is also urgent. When it comes to the urgency of the matter I feel like I have seen this film before. We are told about the urgency, but we are not upstream of the questions being asked because it is past the eleventh hour. We are behind. The situation has become urgent because the measures in place came to an end. We are being asked to hurry up and adopt new measures to ensure that there is no interruption. I feel like I already saw this scenario play out because in September 2020, Bill C‑2, An Act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID‑19, proposed three new economic benefits in addition—

Employment Insurance Act

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, workers across Quebec and Canada are waiting with bated breath to see whether the House will pass Bill C-24, which is currently before us.

These people are holding their breath because they are desperate to know whether they will receive EI benefits. The number of weeks of benefits they were entitled to have run out, and phones are ringing everywhere as people try to find out what tomorrow holds.

Bill C-24 answers that question by extending the EI regular benefit period to 50 weeks. The bill will also fix something that we, the Bloc Québécois, have been calling on the government to fix since December by creating an exemption so that people will no longer be able to claim the $1,000 Canada recovery sickness benefit when they return from a non-essential trip. That is the essence of the bill.

Once again, we think it is regrettable how often since the beginning of the crisis we have had to rush back to the House to ram through bills that make all the difference for workers who are waiting with bated breath.

Some members may recall that I spoke in this chamber on September 26, 2020, when the House resumed after prorogation. For weeks, we had been urgently calling on the government to pass Bill C-2, the purpose of which was to make the EI program more flexible and implement the three new benefits we are all familiar with, namely, the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

Back in September, I began my speech with these remarks:

Sometimes the saying “better late than never” applies, but not here since it is too late for the bill before us. In fact, the three economic support benefits in this bill, which affect thousands of workers and were announced by the government on August 20, are still not in place, while the CERB ended yesterday.

That is the situation we find ourselves in and it is utterly deplorable. I am outraged.

Bill C-24 changes absolutely nothing. We have time; we would have had time to reflect on and think about the best measures to put in place for EI, this enormous program, so that workers, people who are ill and people on maternity leave will not be left wondering what will happen to them from one day to the next. We are simply putting off the problem every month through these temporary measures, when we should be introducing the permanent, structuring and useful measures that reflect the true reality of work for the people concerned.

I am outraged. My colleagues know me and may be sick of listening to me, but I am not done. Since my work in the House began, I have probably uttered the term “employment insurance” 200 times. I was thinking that perhaps I should start saying “unemployment insurance” and maybe that term would resonate with people.

I often say that we must be open, as legislators, to settling once and for all the issue of permanently increasing sickness leave benefits to 50 weeks.

I have been calling for this from day one for a reason. I strongly believed that the government would rise to the occasion during this crisis for which our EI program is inadequate. It could have taken the opportunity to change EI instead of viewing it as a threat and taking a piecemeal approach. The government had that mandate.

The pandemic is a convenient excuse for everything, and we are told that the crisis needs to be managed. That is what we are told when we point out that there needs to be a significant increase in the old age security pension. There has never been a measure brought in to permanently and predictably increase the pension. Temporary measures are brought in instead. The same goes for the Canada health transfers.

This same government had a mandate in 2015 to review the EI program. It has received countless reports and solutions for making the program suit the reality of the workforce and to address the fact that many people are ineligible.

This is unacceptable for a so-called social program designed to protect workers. The government had that mandate.

The minister found the mandate a bit too late, after the throne speech. The government claims to be working on it, but we know that the bill before us is another temporary measure that will expire on September 25, 2021, if I am not mistaken. It is March now, so there are six months left.

What is the government's plan beyond September 25, 2021? Has the government calculated that the job market will have recovered and that the existing EI system will be adequate?

The answer to that question should be “no”, because the system is inadequate. The system is based on the number of hours worked, which clearly needs to be changed.

I gave the House some examples on Monday. With the system that is now in place, women who hold what are increasingly non-standard, part-time jobs are finding it difficult to qualify for EI. Women take maternity or parental leave, using up their weeks of benefits, after which they cannot qualify for EI. If they lose their jobs, they are refused regular benefits. This flaw must be addressed.

Seasonal workers suffer a loss of revenue between periods of employment and end up without EI because of the gaps during which they were not working. This is also something we have to put an end to. No worker should have to go through that.

For them and for sick, suffering or injured workers for whom 15 weeks are not enough, temporary measures are insufficient. There needs to be a real system that will guarantee them 50 weeks of EI benefits.

That is the mission of the Bloc Québécois, a mission that outlines a vision, is promising and takes the reality of the people we represent into account.

In Quebec and Canada, workers are the lifeblood of our job market. We see how essential all of these people are in the health care, social services and other sectors. They are essential because they contribute to our economic strength, our social strength and the strength of our labour market. There has to be a balance, and we need permanent changes. I cannot emphasize that enough.

We will vote in favour of Bill C-24 because, as I said on Monday, we have no choice. Is there any other choice?

If we do not vote in favour of this bill, workers will find themselves without any income tomorrow morning. What is more, many people have reached out to us via telephone, press release and other methods to tell us just how necessary these measures still are.

That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-24. It is not because we like the way the government is forcing us into this. On the contrary, I think that the government could and should do things differently. It has everything it needs to present a much more permanent and strategic vision in the future. I am calling on the government and urging it to do just that, when it has the opportunity to do so in the very near future in the next budget.

My Bloc Québécois colleague's bill, Bill C-265, could really make a difference by increasing EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. That was yet another opportunity for the government to take action because it was an election issue last time around. There were plenty of commitments, promises and mandate letters, but nothing was done because the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and action had to be taken. The thing is, taking action during a pandemic does not mean doing the same thing forever after. It means thinking about what the future should look like and coming up with much more strategic measures. That is what people expect.

That is why I am working so hard and with such determination to make sure nobody else falls through the cracks. I also want to make sure that, in the course of our very important legislative work, we are never again called upon to rapidly approve a government bill to meet needs and achieve goals. We condemn that approach.

Even so, we support the bill because we would never abandon thousands of workers whose EI benefits will come to an end tomorrow morning and who will be left without an income to make it through this crisis.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents. We are here today to discuss Bill C-24. Because of the government's failure to manage the House of Commons effectively, we are seeing its has created a crisis through its mismanagement. Once again we are up against a hard deadline, with benefits expiring for Canadians, and the government not managing the House calendar or its legislation so we can consider this fully. The bill before us today would expand the spending of the government by $12.1 billion. Because of how this is going to go, with members debating it for about six hours, that is about $2 billion an hour for every hour we will be able to discuss and review it here.

As has been said, this would fix a problem that is a result of the government's first attempt to provide benefits to Canadians, Bill C-2, which was rushed through the House at that time to meet a deadline the government knew about, but failed to plan for or to present legislation in a timely fashion to the House to address. That because the Prime Minister prorogued the House, shut everything down, eliminated all of the legislation that was on the Order Paper because of the WE Charity scandal. Things were getting a little too hot on that at the time, and it was time to shut down the investigations into the Prime Minister and his involvement in the WE Charity scandal, so he prorogued Parliament, which created this rush to get legislation before an October deadline when the CERB would end.

The bill was rushed through and Liberals did not realize that they had provided in that legislation a $1,000 bonus to people who had gone on leisure vacations outside of the country. People could apply and get $1,000 for the time they were at home during their 14-day quarantine after international travel. The bill passed, as has been said, because we needed to get the benefits to Canadians whose CERB was expiring, but there were no committee studies or debate in the House because of the government's mismanagement of this file. It saw a deadline, it did not care, and it rushed and made mistakes. That is indicative of the government's approach.

We are seeing it again today not only in this debate, but also in another important debate. I would argue that one of the most important debates the the House will have in this Parliament is on Bill C-7 and the Senate amendments to it. That debate is being cut short because of the government's failure to plan or provide legislation and opportunities for parliamentarians to intervene on behalf of their constituents. We have a situation where, later this day, debate will be shut down on Bill C-7 and the Senate amendments, which call for the expansion of medical aid in dying to include people who only have mental illness or disabling conditions and who will now have access to medical aid in dying, something that has not been studied by this Parliament or in committee.

Because of the government's mismanagement and failure to respond in a timely fashion to court decisions and legislative deadlines, we now have a situation where yet another bill, in addition to this one, is jammed up against a deadline. The Liberals are forcing parliamentarians to address complex issues, in this case, life and death issues, with almost no time in the House because of their failures and mismanagement. People in my riding are very concerned about this. They are concerned about the government's inability to manage the House and debate on legislation in a way that addresses their concerns.

People have written to me about it, and there is one organization in particular from my riding that I want to highlight. The Chilliwack Society for Community Living signed an important letter from the Vulnerable Persons Standard, calling on members of Parliament to do better. It says, “Bill C-7 sets apart people with disabilities and disabling conditions as the only Canadians to be offered assistance in dying when they are not actually nearing death.... Bill C-7 is dangerous and discriminatory.... Canadians with disabilities are hearing MPs and Senators arguing that lives just like theirs featuring disabilities just like theirs are not livable. This is harmful and hurtful and stigmatizing.”

It goes on to say:

Take your time, start over, and get this right. As you do so, be careful to heed the advice of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: "Listen closely to the most directly affected. Their antenna is highly attuned to ableism. When they see it, you should pause and reflect before proceeding."

Bill C-7 is not the answer.

This is another example, as is Bill C-24, of a government failing to take the time to allow Parliament to deliberate to get something right. If we had had the time to deliberate on Bill C-2, if the government had not shut down Parliament and rushed that up against the CERB deadline, I am sure that someone along the way, either in debate or as a witness at committee, would have identified this failure to focus the benefits where they were meant to be focused: on people who had to take sick leave because of COVID-19, not on those who needed to take a vacation. Had we had proper debate, that failure would have been identified.

Here again today, with just six hours of debate, it has to be rushed. After two hours, we are accused of being obstructionist and failing to do our job on behalf of Canadians. Only a Liberal government would think the solution to the problems it created by rushing a bill through Parliament previously could be solved by rushing another bill through Parliament again. That is the failure of the government.

What are we doing here? There is $12.1 billion to extend benefits to Canadians, which we have supported. All along we have supported the benefits going to Canadians who, through no fault of their own, have found their workplaces closed and their opportunities eliminated and have been forced into restrictive lockdowns. When governments force people out of their jobs and bring in conditions that restrict them from going to work, they have an obligation to provide them with an alternate income, but this cannot go on forever.

Here we are, and we are again extending it. The Conservatives support extending benefits to the people who need them, but what we also need is a plan to get past this, a plan to address the lockdowns, a plan to show Canadians there is hope for the future. That is why we have been calling on the Prime Minister to present that plan to Canadians. We have introduced a petition. The member for Calgary Nose Hill has called on the Prime Minister to use the tools we have gathered in the last year to help us get past this. We are calling on the Prime Minister to immediately present a clear plan to get Canadians safely out of lockdown. We are calling for it to include data-driven goals, a plan of action, and a timeline to achieve those goals and ensure the plan is articulated to Canadians so that they can have hope about when life and business will return to normal.

We know there have been some problems with vaccine procurement and rollout. We know there have been issues with conflicting advice being given to Canadians during this pandemic. Today we are a year into it; we have commemorated the lives that have been lost, but we also need to think about the lives that are being severely and permanently impacted right now. Some people are experiencing extreme mental health concerns. Others are not getting the health screening they need for cancer and heart disease. Other people are unable to join with others to worship freely, as is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We need to plan forward so that we are not coming up against deadlines again and again, as the government has, to extend these benefits over and over again. We will be there when Canadians need us, but we also need to start talking about a plan and the way forward to ensure that these are not permanent benefits. The next benefit is to help our economy grow and help people get past these restrictions safely while listening to public health advice. We need a plan from the government, and we have not received it. All we have seen from the government is incompetence, mismanagement of the House, and mistakes being made time and time again. We need to do better.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Workers

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak on behalf of the people of Chilliwack—Hope and on behalf of Canadians. We are here today debating a motion put forward by the Conservative party. We are talking about things that we would like to see included in the next federal budget.

Of course, it has been over two years since the government has deigned to present its financial plan through a budget to Canadians. It is the longest time in Canadian history that we have gone between the presentation of budgets in the House, and that is quite shocking. Yes, we are in a pandemic, but this is a country that has gone through two world wars. We have managed to have budgets presented in the House where the government laid out its plans, priorities and the fiscal situation in the country. We now have a situation where we are over two years, the longest time in Canadian history, where no budget has been presented.

I would submit to the House, and we heard today from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, that it is because the Liberal party holds this place in contempt. The way that it has operated over the last year has shown that it does not view what we do here as important, that it views the work of Parliament as a nuisance and that, when we are debating and trying to improve government legislation, we are filibustering, we are standing in the way and not doing what Canadians want us to do. If we look at the record of the government, from day one of this pandemic, it has treated this place with contempt.

The first bill the Liberals brought forward to deal with a crisis like we had not seen in generations gave Bill Morneau and the Liberal Party power over spending, taxing and all the rest of it. They wanted to strip Parliament of its power for 21 months. That was the initial foray of the government in this pandemic, to strip away the rights of members of Parliament to hold the government to account and to improve legislation that our constituents needed to see pass, but the Liberals knew best. They have known best this entire time. Any time we have raised any concerns, we have been condemned as standing in the way, because they view Parliament as a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister's Office.

We heard this from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader when he accused the Conservative Party of filibustering a bill. The bill was introduced yesterday at about 3:15 p.m., debated for about three hours and that was enough time. That is too much time for the Liberal government to have scrutiny placed on its legislation. We are clearly not in it for Canadians, if we are not passing that bill. Why did that bill have to come forward? Because the government messed up the bill that created a loophole that allowed travellers who went to Hawaii to come back and collect $1,000 from the government because they had to quarantine.

I got so excited at the beginning, Madam Speaker, I forgot to say I will be splitting my time with the member for Oshawa, and I know he has some excellent things that he too would like to say.

The Liberals brought in Bill C-2 late in September, after they had shut down the House. Members will recall that they shut down Parliament rather than face an ethics and finance committee review of their WE charity scandal. We have learned quite a few things about WE charity as a result of the studies that have happened at committee. The Liberals tried to shut that down. They truly did filibuster that. When they could not shut it down, they padlocked Parliament. They shut this place down for weeks and weeks on end as the deadline came for the Canada emergency response benefit. When that deadline started to come in October, they deigned to bring back the House. Then the Liberals said that we needed to pass Bill C-2 immediately or else we would be putting Canadians out on the street. As we have done throughout this pandemic, the Conservatives have worked to get benefits to Canadians. We have expressed our concerns, and we got the benefits to Canadians.

We pointed out the problem with returning travellers getting $1,000 from the government because they had to quarantine at home, and now we have Bill C-24, which seeks to address that. Another deadline approaches, March 28. and the government did not bring in the bill at the start of this session. It waited a month or so. Then after it brought it in, it told us, after three hours of debate, that if we did not pass it, we were the ones who were holding up relief for Canadians. What a joke. That is how the Liberal government is treating this Parliament. It has done it throughout.

The government should have learned its lesson. Every time it introduced legislation, it treated Parliament as if it was something that should receive the back of its hand, a nuisance that was not worthy of a response and was not worthy of sitting with its full powers. We can obviously do it in a hybrid format, but the powers were stripped away for months. I talked about that first bill that took away the rights of Parliament to scrutinize budgets.

We also had the original wage subsidy, which was only a 10% subsidy, not the 75% subsidy on which we had insisted. The government finally relented and provided it.

We talked about promoting the wage subsidy over the CERB, but the government took so long to get it right that it was less advantageous for employees to stay with their company right at the start of the pandemic, which was a huge mistake.

The original rent assistance program, which called upon a landlord to make the application directly for someone renting from them, was very poorly designed and had hardly any uptake, but the government did not care. It had not consulted with the other parties. It knew best.

That is what has happened here throughout. We just heard it again from the member for Surrey—Newton. People who raise concerns about their specific sectors should just be grateful for what they are getting, because the government knows what they need. If they are calling for more support, it must mean they do not understand the brilliance of the government. This is not as it should be.

We heard about the original CEBA accounts. That is mentioned in our motion. Those that had personal accounts with a bank, not a business account, were ineligible. A number of small businesses, farmers, etc. were not able to access those guaranteed loans.

Startups were not able to access the government programs because they could not show a loss of revenue. People who had just started, pouring their lifesavings into their work, were told, sorry, the government was not here for them.

All of these problems were identified, but the government did not listen because it knew best. It is time that it starts to put Parliament back to work, that it starts to take into account that there are 338 of us here who are all working for our constituents who have been devastated by this pandemic. We all have good ideas. We all represent people who are suffering, who want this to be over as soon as possible and who want the government, and expect the government, to be there for them when they need them.

We were elected to hold the government to account. When there have been good measures, we have supported them. However, we cannot just simply rush everything through. We cannot say that the new posture is that a bill is tabled and on the same day it is expected to be passed at all stages, no witnesses, no committee study, no one who will be directly impacted being consulted.

That is a folly of the government, and it is time that we start to put Parliament back at the centre of government in the country. We need to stop treating this institution with contempt. That starts, quite frankly, at the top. Press conferences have replaced Parliament for the Prime Minister since day one.

It is time that Parliament took the central role and that we all take back the roles that we have been given to hold the government to account, to scrutinize legislation, to propose solutions that will help our constituents. We are not a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister's Office. We are not an afterthought. This is an essential service and we should start to treat it like that. We should not be an afterthought for the Liberal government.

There is a number of things we have identified in our motion that call for sector specific changes. If the government had listened from the start, programs would have been better, more Canadians would have been better served. It is time for the government to start treating Parliament with the respect it deserves.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

My apologies, Mr. Burns, but I think I misspoke.

We don't have much time.

My question was meant to find out whether, according to you, the foreign money coming in will have an impact in Canada. I am talking about American or French bettors, among others, who would be placing bets in Quebec or in Canada if Bill C-218 was passed.

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

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Support for Health Care Workers

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I rise today and am jubilant, actually, because I heard my colleague opposite, the member for Carleton, possibly do a full one-eighty on something that I have seen him stand in the House to advocate against.

I recognize that the member's message today was about jobs. However, the premise was focused on the opioid epidemic and this is something that I care deeply about. I also recognize that the previous government, the government in which he served as minister, staunchly opposed any evidence-based measures to support those suffering from opioid addictions.

I have a quote here. It is, “Should Bill C-2 become law, it will be extremely difficult to open a supervised injection site anywhere in Canada”. This was a bill that the member supported and defended. It was the Respect for Communities Act in 2015. An adviser to the previous Harper government, Benjamin Perrin, had a full about-face on this issue just recently, when he began advocating for safe injection sites across the country and a more compassionate way to deal with the opioid epidemic.

My question, while not specifically about jobs, is this. Has the member had a one-eighty, and does he now support safe injection sites in Canada and a more compassionate way of dealing with opioid addiction as a disease and not a crime?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into the debate on the throne speech and to express some very serious concerns I have with it.

The throne speech, at least in English, was nearly 7,000 words, with many catchphrases and talking points but very little substance.

I would like to address two themes. The first is why the government felt that it was even necessary to have a throne speech. Second, I would like to point out some specific challenges I have with the throne speech itself.

Regarding the prorogation of Parliament, I find it incredibly disturbing that the government felt it should shut down Parliament, and not just with the prorogation. The last eight months were bad enough, but in the middle of several concurrent investigations into the Prime Minister's conduct, Parliament was shut down. It shut down committees, members of Parliament and Canadians, truly. There is one place in the country that allows all the voices of Canadians to be heard, and that is within the hallowed walls of this chamber. The Prime Minister, in an extraordinary abuse of executive authority, used a legitimate parliamentary mechanism to shut down investigations into his own conduct, and that is shameful.

Unfortunately, but not surprising, after several months of denial and flip-flopping, when the government finally figured out, I think on March 13, that the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic was actually serious and it changed course and we saw the first bill for some emergency relief measures brought forward, even though members of my party had brought up concerns about why there were no increased measures at airports or other actions being taken to ensure Canada would be better prepared to deal with the threat of this global pandemic. However, instead of it being simply about emergency relief, it was about an incredible abuse of executive power. We saw an attempted power grab, unlike anything I have seen in the country's history. The government wanted unlimited spending authority for more than a year and a half. In what democracy would that ever be deemed acceptable to even propose let alone justify it in the midst of a global pandemic? When Canadians deserved and needed help, the government looked out for nothing other than its own power. It is unbelievable.

For members opposite who are curious about some of the aspects of parliamentary procedure and who say we need this to be a legislative reset, I asked a question of one of the members from the Liberal Party here just a few minutes ago. He somehow suggested that the six weeks was necessary to ensure the Liberals could consult with Canadians on the throne speech. It is interesting that he mentioned a few examples about how he did town halls and whatnot. He also suggested other members were not talking to their constituents, which is insulting. I was asked to respond, but since I did not have a chance during the questions and comments I will respond now.

It is unbelievable and speaks to the Liberal elitist mentality to suggest that somehow their prorogation allowed them to have an inside track on influencing the future of the country in a minority Parliament. They should well know that it is this place that allows all voices to be heard, not simply Liberal Party voices. The Conservatives received more votes in the last election than the Liberals. The Liberals had a significantly reduced mandate after the last election, yet it seems they have refused to accept the will of the Canadian people when it comes to their place in Parliament and the fact that Parliament is truly an essential service.

My last point on the concerns around why we have a throne speech today is that the government seems to play quick and fast with all aspects of how it does business, such as manufacturing urgency with the passing of Bill C-2.

We could have been debating this for weeks. It could have been passed weeks ahead of the deadline, yet the government waited until the eleventh hour and showed up at a press conference. Then the Liberal House leader tweeted out that this was a confidence motion, that it must be passed or we could go to an election and Canadians would suffer as a result. It was circumstances manufactured by the government. That is typical Liberal elitism.

I digress in that regard and will move on to some of the serious concerns I have with the throne speech. I summed it up simply to my constituents when they asked me to describe in a sentence or two my feelings on it. I said that it was vague, expensive and Ottawa knows best.

On the vague aspect of it, there were few concrete measures. The Liberals talked about their four pillars of a recovery. They have a lot of catchphrases and slogans. If there was an award for catchphrases and slogans, the government would get it. It seems to be copying from various campaigns, even other election campaigns from other democracies around the world. It throws in these catchphrases and hopes that people will somehow believe they will get the job done. On this side of the House, we know that is not the case.

It is unfortunate that most of the aspects of the throne speech are simply recycled Liberal promises. I point to one example, which is its promise to plant two billion trees. It promised this in the last election, yet in the year that has passed, it has planted zero trees. However, we have an oil sands company that has planted millions. This speaks to the bigger context of the throne speech. Many promises were recycled. The Liberals seem to think that making these grand promises and having no plan for delivery somehow serves the best interests of Canadians, and that is simply not the case.

That is one of many examples. What could have been an opportunity to see many specific concrete paths forward for our country, we saw very few. This is unfortunate. It was a huge missed opportunity.

Further, it seemed to be a vanity project for the Prime Minister. He prorogued Parliament for six weeks and had the Governor General read a throne speech, a significant aspect of our parliamentary tradition that takes the focus off the politics of the country and allows our head of state to outline an agenda. However, that was not good enough for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had to have his face on television to continue his sorry trend of cottage chronicles, to have a televised address that simply repeated things.

I have much more to say, some of which I have addressed in other speeches, like the unity crisis. The fact is that we are six months into a fiscal year. I know many people who work in the Jim Flaherty building down the street, named after the former Conservative finance minister. There are incredibly intelligent and capable finance people in the department, yet the Minister of Finance said yesterday that it would not be prudent to estimate what the deficit would be. I know many of the people in the Finance Department have a good idea. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Liberals are scared of what Canadians will think when they find out the cost and lack of accounting associated with their spending. At a time when all Canadians know we need to support those who need it, doing so without a plan is very unfortunate.

My last point is this. The Ottawa knows best mentality is best represented on page 18 of the throne speech. In talking about a national pharmacare strategy, the Liberals use a word when they talk about working with provinces to develop a pharmacare plan, of which there is no detail. They say that they will only work with “willing” provinces and territories.

When it comes to the government, it is clear that it is only willing to work with those who are willing to fall in line with its narrow ideology and perspective on what the future of our country should look like. That is driving in wedges across our country that are harming the capacity and capability of Canadians—

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving the Business Credit Availability Program;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 Response Measures Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Repentigny.

I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak on behalf of my constituents in Manicouagan. I wanted to say that because, as we all know, every time I speak in the House, I do the same thing: I think of the people of the North Shore, for they are my motivation, the reason for all my speeches in the House as the member for Manicouagan.

We should always bear in mind the fact that we are in this place to represent tens of thousands of people. In a sens, it is as though they speak through us, and so I speak on behalf of my people in this place in the hopes of securing our well-being. At the risk of sometimes seeming naive, I believe we can accomplish this by striving to live up to an ideal that I think is expected of us. I try to live up to that. What I do as an MP, I do on behalf of my constituents. I act on behalf of my people and what I do, I do for them, the Quebeckers, the people of the North Shore, the Innu and the Naskapi.

My plan is to address two aspects of Bill C-2: the underlying principle, or what it intends; and our responsibility as elected representatives. Social justice, the redistribution of wealth and de jure and de facto equality are all principles the Bloc Québécois holds especially dear. We want some degree of security for all of our people—children, workers and seniors—during these tough and uncertain times.

The duty to care for oneself and others was and seems to be the underlying principle of the Canada recovery sickness benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery benefit, which picks up where the Canada emergency response benefit left off with a more flexible employment insurance regime.

The Bloc Québécois is an opposition party that makes proposals, and back in April, we were already calling for an enhanced CERB that would meet people's needs and include an incentive to work designed to support our economy. We had to strike a balance between the needs of workers and those of employers. We needed to take into account the present and the future.

Although the Bloc Québécois would have like to have seen this change to the measure five months ago, we are satisfied that now, as we enter the second wave, the government heard and understood our proposal to help workers, who can now earn more, and business owners, who can now get the human resources they need. This just goes to show that the opposition is essential, as is the necessary democratic dialectic.

This brings me to the second topic I wanted to discuss, which is the responsibility of elected officials. I believe that it was unacceptable for the government to prorogue Parliament, because a crisis is inherently urgent. At a time when there were dire needs, when the public was asked to pitch in, to make sacrifices, to set an example and to demonstrate a sense of duty, the government shut down Parliament and disappeared. Why? Why were they hiding? What were they concealing? Why did they vanish? Did they just want people to forget?

Shutting down Parliament is not pitching in. It is not making sacrifices. It is not stepping up and demonstrating a sense of duty. It is not self-sacrifice. On the contrary, it came across as an act partly—if not fully—driven by selfishness, by blind partisanship, in an attempt to make people forget what certainly appears to be nepotism.

Shutting down Parliament for several weeks in the midst of a pandemic, in the middle of an emergency, as we were coming up with ideas, is not what the public could and should have expected from its elected officials, especially when prorogation need not have lasted more than a few hours.

Just as it did with the emergency wage subsidy, the government served itself instead of serving others. Now, when we have so little time and people are still coming up with ideas, proroguing and imposing gag orders is not what people can and should expect of us. That is the sign of an arrogant and complacent government that is trying to give the impression that Canadians are its primary concern, when in reality its main concern is its own interest and getting people to forget about the WE scandal, which is still ongoing.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the measures set out in this bill that will support our own, the people of Manicouagan. However, we must consider not only the substance of the bill, or its meaning, but also its form. When that form involves a gag order, that has meaning as well.

The government failed in its duty by depriving elected representatives, voters, the people of Quebec, of democracy, all for what I wish were good reasons. If I were a Liberal MP, which, with all due respect, seems like science-fiction or even personal dystopia, and I had to go through the exercise that I spoke about at the beginning of my speech, namely thinking about what motivates me and the reason behind all of my speeches, I would do my job based on that motivation, which for me is the people of the North Shore. If I were a Liberal MP, I would realize how problematic my inconsistency was.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-2, an act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19.

For more than six months, we have been living through the worst health and economic crisis of our lives, the worst in the history of Canada and the world, in fact. The pandemic has affected every aspect of Canadians' lives, from their health, jobs and family life to how they can see their friends and family members. Businesses have had to close, supply chains have been disrupted, and children have had to stop going to school. Many individuals and families have experienced a drop in income. The past few months have been difficult for many people and businesses.

Fortunately, from day one, our government took extraordinary measures to protect Canadians and our economy. Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan is one of the most comprehensive in the world. It represents 15.8% of our gross domestic product. Our plan has helped Canadians, and it continues to help Canadians. It has protected millions of Canadian jobs, supported families and kept businesses afloat across the country.

Things are starting to look up. The Canadian economy has recovered almost two-thirds of the jobs lost in March and April. More Canadians are working and schools have reopened, but there is still a lot of work ahead of us. Although two-thirds of jobs have been recouped, that means that one-third have not. Unfortunately, many Canadians, including many women, self-employed workers and workers in the gig economy, have not been able to go back to work.

COVID-19 is still here. We are in the middle of the second wave. We have not yet overcome the pandemic. It is still a threat to the health of Canadians and to our country's economy. That is why everyone must remain vigilant and listen to public health experts.

That is also why the government must continue to support Canadians and businesses. To help create more than one million jobs and return to pre-pandemic levels, we need to make investments. We need to help workers learn new skills, and we need to create hiring incentives for employers. That is what we are going to do.

We are seeing a gradual reopening of the economy, but a full recovery will take time. Now is not the time for austerity. I repeat: Now is not the time for austerity. We need flexible programs, programs that will help Canadians get back to work and that will also allow us to adapt to new waves of the pandemic.

This bill therefore proposes to create new programs, such as the Canada recovery benefit, which will replace the Canada emergency response benefit, the CERB. Self-employed workers and those who do not qualify for EI, and who are not working or have lost 50% or more of their income due to the pandemic, will be able to receive $500 per week for up to 26 weeks.

A similar program, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, will be available to individuals who cannot work because they have to take care of a family member or because their child's school is closed due to the pandemic. These individuals would receive the same amount, namely $500 per week for up to 26 weeks.

Finally, the Canada recovery sickness benefit will provide $500 per week for up to two weeks to workers who are unable to work at least 50% of the time they would normally have worked in a given week because they are sick or self-isolating due to COVID-19.

These programs will be available for one year, because we know it will take a while for the economy to fully recover. The bill lays the foundation for what lies ahead, but we also need to ensure that the transition happens seamlessly.

Let us take a look back. In March, Parliament passed the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act. It is an important part of Canada's response to COVID-19, authorizing the government to make payments to Canadians and Canadian businesses affected by the pandemic.

Take the CERB, for instance. Millions of Canadians received this taxable $2,000 benefit every four weeks. This act also enabled us to implement the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program for small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy and the lifeblood of Canadian communities. It is largely thanks to the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act that we are able to assist those who need it, help businesses and support our economy.

As I said earlier, the act was passed in March, at the beginning of the pandemic, and it included a provision stating that the act would remain in effect until the end of September. Six months later, we know more about the virus and its impact on our economy and our everyday lives. The bill proposes extending the application of the act until the end of the year, which is important. This would ensure that there is no interruption to the final payments under existing programs, such as the CERB, and enable us to begin transitioning to the new programs. It would also enable us to continue helping Canadians who need income support.

This may be the worst health and economic crisis of our generation, but it will not last forever. One day it will end. In the meantime, we will support Canadians for as long as the crisis lasts. We will get through these difficult times, and we will do it together. We will build a stronger, more resilient country, a country that works for everyone. That is why I am calling on all MPs in the House to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to speak in the House for the first time since March, however disappointed I am with the circumstance, namely that the debate is on Motion No. 1, which has been accurately characterized as a “guillotine” motion. The motion would provide a mere four and a half hours of debate in respect of a comprehensive, complex piece of legislation, one that not only has many moving parts, but that also comes with a very large price tag. When one looks at the three new temporary COVID benefits, the cost is somewhere in the range of $40 billion. In addition to that, there is myriad additional spending amounting to approximately $17 billion. What we have is four and a half hours of debate in respect of legislation that has a price tag of nearly $60 billion. Let me repeat that: $60 billion.

To put that in some context, one needs only to go back five years, to 2015. In 2015, total federal spending amounted to approximately $250 billion. Now, within the span of four and a half hours, the government seeks to ram through a piece of legislation that equals approximately a quarter of the total federal government spending a mere five years ago. One would think that, in the face of such a consequential piece of legislation, the government would welcome input and provide an opportunity for vigorous and thorough debate in this place.

In order to carry on today, I should note that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

One would think that would have been the case. Instead, what we have is a motion that shuts down debate, shuts down scrutiny, shuts down the ability of all members of Parliament collectively to do our jobs and turns Parliament into nothing more than a rubber stamp.

Members of the government opposite have said they had no choice. Their hands were tied behind their backs and they were governing, as the Prime Minister so famously said, “from the heart outwards.” They were governing with the best of intentions, and they had to do this $60 billion of spending in four and a half hours because they had to get the money out the door into the pockets of Canadians.

In response to that, I say how cynical and disingenuous it is on the part of those Liberals. It need not have been so. The Prime Minister knew full well the CERB and other benefits would expire, as they did two days ago. Indeed, he set the expiration date. He knew there was a need to fill the void arising from the expiration of CERB and other programs, and he knew that would have to be legislated upon.

What did the Prime Minister do in the face of that? Did the Prime Minister consult the opposition parties? No. Did the Prime Minister engage with parliamentarians? No. Instead, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament. Why in the world would the Prime Minister shut down Parliament when all of these substantive matters needed to be addressed that had a profound impact on the livelihoods of millions of Canadians?

The answer to that is very simple and deeply troubling. The Prime Minister was caught in a summer of scandal involving hundreds of millions of dollars that went out the door to the Prime Minister's friends in the WE organization. It was an organization that had personally enriched his family, that had let the former finance minister and his family travel around the world and that had financially benefited the former finance minister.

The government was rocked by hearings in which it became increasingly clear that the Prime Minister had acted corruptly. Just by coincidence, on the eve of 5,000 pages of documents being disclosed in relation to WE, the Prime Minister saw fit to shut Parliament down. This shut down three committees, including the committee I sat on, the finance committee, which was undertaking extensive hearings and had a lot of questions arising from the 5,000 pages of documents and testimony that it had heard, but obviously the Prime Minister wanted to change the channel.

Here we are. He shut down Parliament to cover up his own corruption, rushed legislation immediately after the Speech from the Throne and now says it is a fait accompli. If Canadians are going to get the benefits they need in this time of unprecedented crisis, we are going to have to ram it through in four and a half hours.

We on this side of the House have made every effort to try to work with the government. Even despite the Prime Minister's attempts to shut us down, we tried, when Bill C-2 was introduced, to work over the weekend, but the government rejected our efforts. The government rejected all efforts to provide an opportunity to call witnesses, to ask questions of ministers, to go through a clause-by-clause process. All of that is gone.

I have to say it would be troubling if it was just this one instance, but what we have seen is a troubling pattern on the part of the Prime Minister in terms of shutting down opportunities for accountability and oversight. This is a Prime Minister who brought forward time allocations 63 times in the last Parliament, despite saying in 2015 that his government would never, ever think to bring forward time allocation. This is a Prime Minister who shut down the justice committee that I served on in the last Parliament when it was getting to the bottom of the government's corruption with SNC Lavalin.

This is a Prime Minister who, at a time when the government has been spending hundreds of billions of dollars, has seen fit to shut down Parliament through most of the spring and summer. If ever there was a need for Parliament to sit, it surely would be at the time of this current health and economic crisis.

I have to say it is ironic that, as the government continues to pour out hundreds of billions of dollars with very little oversight and very little accountability, it has seen fit to stop the Auditor General from following the money and has refused to provide the Auditor General with $11 million. There are hundreds of billions of dollars going out the door, but not $11 million—

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard time and again in the House that no Canadian will be left behind. That sounds great, but how is it that we have the arrogance to think that our bureaucracy trickles down enough support to the average Canadian in ways that make this statement true, that somehow these words make everything okay, that an overused phrase can add money to the debit card of a stressed out individual whose card is declined at the grocery checkout? How can we have the hubris to believe that by creating a website we can stop someone from taking their life when depression refuses to loosen its grip, or the audacity to believe that words can find an appropriate, safe, affordable child care spot so mom can go back to work?

I sit here and listen to the same speeches being delivered by different members of the Liberal Party, who proudly repeat the details of a new suite of programs, a new headache for public servants and the CRA, a new batch of confusion for our constituents who will be calling us to clarify and to answer questions, including how they will pay their rent or Internet costs during the waiting period for these new benefits to come into effect.

As a member of Parliament, I have the honour of helping people navigate various government programs. Unfortunately, I am not always able to answer the many questions I get asked.

One of the questions I get asked the most is when the disability payment will be released. I voted to support Bill C-2 to ensure immediate relief for persons with disabilities through a one-time payment, although inadequate, because they had been waiting long enough and needed it so urgently. That was in July.

Not only do we expect persons with disabilities to live far below the poverty line, with much less than we have deemed livable according to the CERB, but we also expect them to keep waiting. All we have been told is to expect it in the fall. Well, it is fall, so I look to the government to finally deliver. Only then could I be happier with what is on the table now.

Having said that, I will be supporting this bill, as we do not have much of a choice since previous relief efforts have ended and Parliament was prorogued in the middle of a pandemic, as the second wave is hitting and as we send our children to school. I listened to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader address this issue. He suggested that proroguing Parliament was no big deal, that it was only five weeks and that after sitting three short times in the summer, we should be happy with the level of engagement offered to us as opposition members.

If members recall, I had been supportive of efforts of the government to involve us, until this move to shut us out. I reject the premise that this is not a serious issue, because we were needed here in Parliament. We would not have allowed benefits to lapse, preventing us from being backed into a corner and rushing through this legislation.

As for the priorities of the bill, I am pleased to see changes to the EI criteria to allow Canadians to apply for benefits where they would not have previously been eligible. The 120-hour base is a welcome sight for the countless moms and pregnant women across this country who feared they would not meet maternity benefit eligibility. However, once again this comes far too late, after hearing their calls for help these past seven months. This would also help those in the gig economy, artists, musicians and so many others, those who we have also left hanging by a thread as we negotiate this bill.

My Green Party colleagues and my NDP colleagues have been pushing for a guaranteed livable income to help these same people. A GLI would eliminate the hoops and the burden of extra administration, as well as the associated costs. The most vulnerable, the perpetually left behind, would be financially okay. However, here we are, with a revamped EI program instead.

At least it provides answers to some questions in these uncertain times. I sincerely hope that we will continue to have discussions aimed at ending poverty in this country once and for all.

I am also concerned about the threshold included in the caretaker benefit and for paid sick leave. This has been promoted to Canadians as though they will receive 10 extra sick days to use as they wish. Well, this is not the case. For partners trying to share the caregiver burden, we are removing options from them by insisting that only one of them takes enough days off to qualify for the benefit. I can already predict the calls my office will receive from parents in crisis, with a sick child at home and an ultimatum from an employer. Students are also entirely left out of these new benefits.

My Conservative colleagues were bringing forward the idea that our children will have to bear the brunt of our national debt and our relief spending. Considering these children will first need to survive and live long enough for that to happen, it is clear to me that we must support survival above all else in these times. We need kids to have a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, clothes on their backs, appropriate health services, a safe and healthy environment, and hope for the future.

I want all Canadians to have everything they need to survive and thrive.

A consistent piece missing in this puzzle is targeted efforts for mental health supports, and I must sound like a broken record at this point.

Canadians need tools to get through this next stage and what is likely to be a difficult winter.

We need increased funding for provinces to tackle this head-on, with counselling services, individual training and skill building to help others in our communities and to help ourselves. Money is not everything. Today, we need money in the hands of Canadians, especially the most vulnerable, but we also need compassion and an honest commitment to truly not leave anyone behind.

I think about the thousands of Canadians who are still separated from their loved ones: their lifelong committed partners, their new loves in a foreign land, their adult children. They need us to listen to them and to act. It is time to reunite. These Canadians have been left behind, and I fear for their mental health as their hearts break with each passing day and the silence from government leaves them more and more hopeless.

While we discuss proposed changes to the Labour Code and the veterans benefits code, we cannot forget the human side of relief efforts. We support those who have the luxury of work and the luxury of a roof over their head, but this still leaves people out.

This bill does not solve all the problems that all Canadians are facing.

It is a start, but I look forward to a bill that addresses the toll being taken on the resiliency and well-being of Canadians since the beginning of this pandemic, one that addresses the deep divisions in our country, the social inequalities, the rampant poverty, the racism. We can make the changes we need in Canada, during COVID and beyond, but we must do it together. No more games, no more platitudes: We need transparency and we need collaboration. We need our government to demonstrate that through its leadership, and I am waiting for that day.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and dear colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I want to start by wishing you well, Madam Speaker, as you return to the Bar of the House for a second parliamentary session that I hope will be filled with less uncertainty than the last one.

This Parliament will no doubt mark a special time in Quebec and Canada's shared history. In the coming months, you, Madam Speaker, will moderate debates that will guide us as legislators and citizens, if the government and the NDP will actually allow us to debate. I will come back to that a little later.

The choices we make here in the House about this pandemic, or rather, how to get through this pandemic, will shape our future, for better or for worse. My greatest wish, at the end of the day, is to serve my constituents and represent their aspirations to the best of my abilities with the sincere belief that there is no gain too small for Quebec.

Bill C-2 sets out some of these gains. That is why I was happy to see that the bill contains something that my party and my constituents have been calling for since the CERB was implemented, and that is employment incentives. It is also clear to me that the fact that the government is finally making changes to employment insurance is a good thing. Those are the two main points that I want to talk about today and obviously, as usual, I will not hold back in expressing my views.

At the height of the pandemic, parliamentarians approved a benefit that would help Quebeckers and Canadians get through the difficult but necessary lockdown. The Canada emergency response benefit was last-minute and imperfect, much like those who designed it.

Since we expected the economy to re-open in the short term, on the advice of business owners who help sustain the communities that elected us, the Bloc Québécois quickly called on the government to apply a similar, just as imperfect logic to the CERB as it does to employment insurance. More specifically, we asked the Liberals to introduce a concept that makes a good deal of sense, that of 50¢ per dollar earned rather than the $1,000 maximum.

The government's answer was quite surprising. We made that request in April and we were told that it was impossible. The former finance minister, who is no longer in the House, told us that it was impossible. All of my Bloc Québécois colleagues were told the same thing.

Make no mistake, I am glad it is in Bill C-2. I now know that no one will lose money going back to work, as a matter of principle, and that no one will refuse to work full time just because people can count. However, we have to acknowledge that the government is responsible for putting people in a tough spot and businesses in a precarious situation.

Will the Liberals take responsibility for that? I would tend to doubt it, now that they are implicitly admitting that our request was legitimate. I hope so, but beyond the Liberal's responsibility for the inefficient use of public funds—that is pretty well their trademark—I feel it is very important that we reassure Quebeckers and Canadians that the benefits are being properly administered. Many are wondering why that would work this time if it did not work in the past. That is important. We cannot fail under any circumstances. I am not going to predict failure. I think it will work well.

The government of the day and its Prime Minister were quick to declare that public servants are incapable of administering government programs. The WE Charity affair may have been forgotten because Parliament was shut down for six weeks, but that is in essence what the Prime Minister said about public servants. However, we do have a competent public service.

As we have seen throughout the crisis, every member of this illustrious House has been supported by public servants despite programs that are hard to explain and often hard to implement. I, for one, trust public servants. If any of them are listening to us now, I want them to know we will be here to support them in the months to come.

I think it will work well, but only if the government listens to opposition members, primarily Bloc Québécois members, and trusts them.

Ever since the beginning of this Parliament, we have never stopped suggesting legitimate changes to Canadian laws. We have never stopped advocating for common sense in Canadian politics. We have never stopped speaking up for Quebec, and the provinces too, as well as for the division of powers as set out in our precious Canadian Constitution.

When 32 separatists try to improve federal government programs, it is obviously not because they are trying to steal jobs from people across the aisle. It is because we want what is best for our people. Whenever the Liberals listen to the Bloc Québécois, things work. I have said this before in the House, and I will say it a third time with utter sincerity. Yes, we want a country for Quebeckers. We want the country of Quebec. However, in the meantime, we also want what is best for people who have lost their jobs. If there is one group of people the feds should listen to, it is the people we work for.

For decades, workers have been telling us that the EI system is no longer functional. In 1996, the Liberal government made so many cuts to the program that most workers who lose their jobs no longer have access to it. The proof is that an entire multi-billion dollar program had to be hastily created in two weeks because EI could not deliver. Worse yet, the Liberals, who pride themselves on being champions for the rights of youth and women, let the program create unacceptable disparities, which overwhelmingly affected youth and women. Leading statisticians have even calculated that two-thirds of women and youth under 30 who have lost their jobs are no longer eligible.

In addition, just for good measure, the Liberals and the Conservatives have dipped into the EI fund to balance the budget. Experts have even estimated that $59 billion has been taken from the EI fund. Some Canadians will say that $59 billion is not enough to cover the deficit accumulated by the Liberals, and they are right.

It is sad to put it like this, but Canada's tax policy is fundamentally based on oil and gas, cutting transfers to the provinces, and limiting eligibility for assistance programs. It is as simple as that. One of my fondest wishes for this bill is that it does not repeat past mistakes. It is imperative that the government reassure parliamentarians and workers that EI will be protected from political games. I would love to hear a minister confirm that the government will not do as it has in the past, that it will leave financial control in the hands of EI officials and ensure stable funding. Would anyone on the other side of the House have the guts to say that?

By hitting the reset button on democracy, the Liberal government evaded a multitude of scandals while waiting for the second wave to hit, and unfortunately, it is almost here. I will therefore keep co-operating to ensure that the response is appropriate and the focus is on this issue.

Now more than ever, opposition members come to Parliament knowing how important the federal government's response will be in the lives of those who are counting on their elected representatives to get us out of this. I would like to remind everyone that counting on their elected representative is not an absolute. In this chamber, we have been given a seat that comes with certain clear, limited powers. All members are intelligent people capable of forming their own opinion of how this crisis is being managed, but it is not up to us to supplant our provincial and municipal counterparts. Humility is very important to me, and it is a quality often lacking on the other side of the House. We need to have the humility to look after our own affairs and do it well. That is the only thing we were elected to do.

Yes, there needs to be generous, appropriate programs, but not if that means interfering in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Millions of people expect us to do our utmost for them. They want us to do our job better than ever, and they do not expect us to give lessons to anyone. Doing our job means reforming EI to fix the flaws we have been criticizing for so long. Doing our job means encouraging people to go back to work while reassuring them about their financial future, giving seniors what they need to make ends meet, providing the promised aid to farmers, and giving Quebec and the provinces the health care money that is rightfully theirs. Doing our job means respecting the democracy that has brought us here and providing enough time to do our work.

There is no denying that the Bloc Québécois is against these types of procedures designed to circumvent democratic principles and limit the rights and privileges of parliamentarians. The government is using this bill to make itself look good to the public while putting the opposition parties under the gun. The Bloc Québécois has always been accommodating because the government's proposed measures provided help to Quebeckers and Canadians. Why does the government believe this motion is necessary? Because it is in a rush, since time is running out on the CERB and the pandemic is getting worse. There is no other reason.

Nevertheless, I want to thank them. I hope that the coming weeks will rekindle the spirit of co-operation that emerged at the start of the crisis, when partisanship and political manoeuvring were set aside.

Peschisolido Report

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much. I'm going to start with some simple things.

Specifically for Mr. Alghabra and Mr. Gerretsen, when you talk about Conservatives only wanting to talk about WE, prior to the prorogation I was the chair of status of women, where we worked our butts off to do an excellent study. We talked about violence against women. We talked about shelters. We talked about the she-conomy. We talked about all of these different things.

One day before that letter was finalized, prorogation took place, so to all of those members who came here and worked really hard so that we could be the voices of women across Canada, do not think this is about WE, because I—and don't question my integrity—will always fight for Canadians.

You may think that this is all about WE, but I'm going to remind you that on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food they were talking about support for poultry and egg farmers. That's not WE.

On Canada-China relations, well, we know we have a problem there, and I know an emergency debate was asked for, because there are groups that are studying the genocide that is occurring in China.

We talked about the Canadian trading relations. That was one of the studies that was going on.

On the HUMA committee, which I sat on, off and on—and I know why—we were working very hard on the things we were studying there. We talked about housing. We talked about poverty. We talked about food banks. We talked about all of this great work. That all came to an end when prorogation occurred.

The study on systematic racism in policing in Canada was started at the public safety committee, but unfortunately what happened was that the prorogation took all of these studies and just quashed them, so all the work, all of the work that was done in committees.... You can talk about WE and say that's all we talk about, but I challenge you, because I can tell you, at the end of the day, do I care about WE? No, but do I care about an ethical government that I can sit there and be supportive of on great legislation and support if you bring it forward? Absolutely.

To go on to the fairness, if Mark ever wants to go there, I introduced Bill C-4 to you this morning and Bill C-2. We'll be voting on that at 3 a.m. on Wednesday morning, two legislative pieces as we're coming back to the House of Commons. We're talking 48 hours and you're concerned about getting a piece of paper on that. Sorry, that one won't go there.

I think we have to understand that prorogation stopped all the incredible work that was being done. There was a lot of non-partisan work being done so that Canadians could put food on their tables, so that poultry farmers could make sure they're getting their money after these NAFTA negotiations and CETA, and all of those great things, but you guys can turn a blind eye and not look at the big picture and then say that Conservatives are only focused on WE.

While Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc and Liberals were all sitting on these committees doing good work, the leadership at the PMO decided to close down Parliament. We are asking for documents to support why the prorogation occurred, and I don't think that is uncalled for, especially when we know that the standing order has that there.

I'm going to finish off with a simple quote, and I'm sure we all know who said this because you all are standing behind him when you're supporting the Liberal government:

Mr. Speaker, I hope that future prime ministers will answer questions from all members, not just from party leaders. I hope that future prime ministers will not make excessive use of omnibus bills and will not resort to prorogation to avoid problematic situations.

As Todd talked about and as everybody has said—and I think Rachel talked about this—we came back to a throne speech that we thought was going to knock us on our butts, because we thought the government was actually going to do something.

All you did was close the door and reopen it. Nothing has changed in six weeks. All of these programs that you're talking about are current on my householder that I produced four weeks ago. It is four weeks old, so don't say to me that we're coming to something new. All of these programs are old. The shelter stuff is stuff that we were talking about. There is not anything new.

Prorogation happened and we want to know why. Canadians have the right to know why. For me, I don't care about WE. What I care about is that there are beds and shelters and all of those things for our good Canadians, but as a government and as the House of Commons, we can do it all. We can pass Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 in the next 48 hours. We can have somebody studying agriculture. We can have somebody studying what is happening over in China. We can do it because there are 338 members of Parliament who are here to do our jobs.

I really hope that as we are going forward you will just step back and ask why prorogation happened, and if it wasn't for WE, prove us wrong. It's simple.

Thank you.

Government Business No. 1

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I appreciate in the House is that there are well-defined procedures. This is the period for questions and comments. This period contains the word “question”. Normally, when someone asks a specific question, they get a specific answer. Unfortunately, when the government is asked a question that is too difficult, it simply deflects and refuses to answer.

Therefore, I am going to try to ask my colleague across the way the question I asked his hon. colleague earlier.

When we proposed changes to the CERB in April, we were told none could be made. Today, we see that Bill C-2 is an exact copy of what we asked for in April.

Why was it impossible in April but possible in September?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

No. It kind of cuts both ways. However, I think the key element here, Mark, that you may not be grasping or admitting is that both committees and the House can work at the same time independently.

Your argument is that why in the world would the Conservatives spring this on us when we're discussing things like Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 and getting aid to Canadians, which, quite frankly, I support. Even though we believe the government is going to have to account for its spending measures, I don't think anyone is denying the fact that millions of Canadians need support financially right now.

The House is dealing with that right now. We're having a vote in about half an hour on those two motions right now. The House can do its work. We're not circumventing any of the work of the House and parliamentarians. All we're doing is saying that now that committees have been restruck, let's start meeting to discuss things like prorogation and some of the other elements of other committees that had met.

How about the China-Canada special committee? That was struck down. Do you not believe that's an important committee? I certainly do. I would like to see that back up and running, and I think most Canadians would as well.

That's my only point, Mark. You keep saying that it's offensive because we've sprung this on you without notice. Well, perhaps it was without notice, but it certainly wasn't unwarranted. There is plenty of history and precedence about studies about prorogation. Governments in the past have prorogued on many occasions, and committees have studied the reasons for that. That's all that Karen's motion is speaking to. Let's call witnesses and produce documents to ask the government the very simple question: Why? Why did you prorogue? What did you believe were the underlying and motivating factors to prorogue, which shut down Parliament for five weeks? That's as simple as it gets.

You may want to study the wording of Karen's motion, but that in essence is what it's saying. Give us the ability to call witnesses and produce documents and let's study it. That's it. In a nutshell, that's it.

I don't know how much time you actually need. For example, I know we're probably going to be voting for an hour. This is online voting, and the last couple of nights when we've had practice sessions it has usually taken about an hour to run through the roll. You'll have ample opportunity to go over the motion—line by line and clause by clause—that Karen brought forward, so I don't think there is really any excuse to say that we need to delay. I believe that probably by the time we get back after the 6:30 vote has concluded you will have had, I would hope, the opportunity to read through the motion and perhaps speak to whether or not you want to vote on the motion at that time.

That's all I have to say, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this House on C-2. I also want to begin by letting the Speaker know I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

As the parliamentary secretary just mentioned, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament for six weeks. He did so because pressure was starting to mount from the WE scandal. Every day new details started to emerge on the Prime Minister's intimate involvement with that $900-million scandal. Canadians, no matter where they are, want to know more details about that scandal. We say that because the Prime Minister has already been found guilty in accepting a paid vacation to a luxury island. He was also found guilty in his involvement of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Now, as the parliamentary secretary said a few moments ago, it was the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament. He just did not shut down debate in this chamber, which was limited to begin with, he shut down the important work of several committees, including our ability to study the COVID-19 recovery.

Just a few weeks ago, the new leader of the official opposition raised that need to quickly restart the committees. That was done on a call to the Prime Minister, but unfortunately, those calls for the committees to be reinstated were rejected. The Standing Committee on Health could be studying the Liberals' ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its members should be talking about the need for more rapid testing and why other countries, including many of our G7 partners, have rapid testing available to their constituents.

The Standing Committee on Finance could be preparing a report on the COVID-19 recovery. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities could be looking at legislation that transitions Canadians from the CERB to the new employment insurance programs.

We all know a fully functioning Parliament is necessary for Canadian democracy, especially during a crisis like the pandemic, and the Conservative Party of Canada was the only party in this House consistently calling for the full recall of Parliament during that pandemic.

We heard in the parliamentary secretary's remarks that Liberals claim to have the backs of Canadians. Conservatives are the ones consistently calling for Liberals to improve their slew of programs. It was us, as the official opposition, who consistently called for the recall of the House of Commons, not the fake Parliament the Liberals agreed to, which gave opposition members very little time to critique the programs that were being laid out. We all know there was a whole slew of problems with some of those programs, including with the wage subsidy, which started at 10% while countries like Germany were upwards of 70%. It was calls by the opposition that helped move the government to where it was able to better help those small businesses needing help because they were told to shut down and people all across this country were told to stay home.

We have a lot of serious work to do, and I will quickly touch on child care because it falls under my portfolio as the critic. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development just last week talked about the Liberals' desire to create accessible and inclusive child care spaces right across this country. For anyone in this House, or anyone watching on CPAC or any program, I do not think too many Canadians would put the two together, that the government is very accessible or flexible, for that matter. We all know a large number of Canadians who do not have access to these child care spaces, and in my community there is a waiting list, but there are a lot of people who do not want access and want flexibility in the programs.

This is where the Conservatives' plan comes in. We are talking about giving Canadians more money in their pockets to help lower the cost of those child care spaces or, if a family so chooses, they could then move their child to maybe a parent or grandparent. Maybe someone has set up a small business in their neighbourhood, following all provincial rules and guidelines to make it a safe space for those children to go. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about flexibility.

The government rarely has flexibility in anything it offers. We also know child care is in provincial jurisdiction and we want the provinces, if they so choose to move in that direction, to include flexibility in their programs.

We want to ensure competition within the provinces so that if one province is doing something extremely well, another province that is having trouble could probably take best practices from those jurisdictions and implement them within their own system, which I think allows better quality of care all around, rather than the federal government implementing its own system or imposing rules and regulations on the provinces and territories in exchange for those tax dollars to come back, which takes time too. Coming to these agreements with the provinces takes time. There are people who need the flexibility now to help them. We talked about shift workers. A lot of shift workers are excluded from government child care because the flexibility is not there. However, if they had more money in their pockets and were able to make choices in their lives with a wide variety of options, they might be able to help their case and get back into the workforce quicker.

It seems when we talk about economic recovery, no matter how many restrictions the government imposes on an industry, the solution is always another government program. Let us take the oil and gas industry as an example. It has been unfairly punished by the government, with rules and regulations one after another. One piece of legislation, Bill C-69, the tanker ban bill, comes to mind. Then, in order to make up for its careless decisions, it decided to purchase a pipeline to ensure that project was completed, and a number of other pipelines were scrapped because of the Liberal decisions, including northern gateway, energy east and many others.

We could talk about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport in downtown Toronto, where an expansion of runway would allow business people the ability to get to their destination a lot quicker, rather than going from downtown to Mississauga, the neighbouring community, to access a plane for a short trip. When the Liberals decided to scrap that plan, Billy Bishop airport was not able to expand. Therefore, Porter Airlines was not able to buy a number of C Series jets, which then caused Bombardier to come into financial hardship. What did the government do? It brought in another government program and decided to bail out Bombardier, yet the dollars that were available for this expansion and the decision to buy these planes came from private dollars. Therefore, we have more government intervention in the marketplace.

We will go back to child care here for a quick second. Spaces are needed now and we talk about what the government had in 1993. It talked about the Red Book and that it was going to come up with a national day care program. That took well over a decade to negotiate. The deal was signed in 2005-06, so people who had a child nearing 1993 had already passed the care age needed. In many cases, depending on where the child was born, he or she might be finished high school. Therefore, the parents who need help immediately have to wait until the government figures out its plan. That is one thing it always asks for, more time and more money. Whether it works or not, whether it wants it or not, it does not really matter, it just needs more time and money. When those plans fail, it comes up with another plan.

When we talk about Parliament being shut down over the pandemic, despite calls from the Conservative Party to reinstate Parliament, we are here dealing with Bill C-2, an act we all know needed to be dealt with immediately. Parliament did not need to be prorogued. We all know why that happened. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it was because the WE documents were coming out. The Prime Minister was going to be implicated in this scandal worth $900 million.

Let us go on to what Bill C-2 is talking about. I know I am running out of time.

Let us talk about a person from my riding, Katherine. She previously ran a home day care as a small business owner. A year ago her family decided to start planning for one more child, and she signed up—

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

Among the things we're looking at is that one of the Standing Orders that were changed, of course, back in the 42nd Parliament, was the fact of prorogation. I think, like many Canadians, that when this government prorogued Parliament, just last month, as everybody was coming into the fold of everything that was happening with the scandal, we recognized that the government kind of just stopped on a certain date. We also know that there are certain documents that were going to be sent in and that were expected one day after, including some of the people who were supposed to be coming to either the ethics committee or to the finance committee.

We recognize that, through this prorogation and what ended up happening by worrying more about the skin in the game of the Prime Minister, we forgot about Canadians and forgot about the fact that there are so many things going on, like the fact that we're trying to pull through legislation on Bill C-2 and Bill C-4. We want to look at this to see why there was prorogation at a time when it was so imperative to make sure that we're actually helping Canadians during this pandemic. That is one of the things I'm looking at. At the procedure and House affairs committee, our job is to make sure that all things are kept accountable, putting this all on the floor, as the grandfather of the committees for the House of Commons. That is why I think it is our duty to make sure that...what this prorogation did and the impact on all of the committee work that was done.

Thank you.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour for me to stand here in this venerable House on behalf of my constituents, the residents of Davenport, to speak on behalf of this very important bill, an act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19.

This key piece of legislation is vital to the government's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic and will help ensure that Canadians continue to have the supports that they need to weather the COVID-19 storm.

Since the start of the pandemic, our government has quickly responded to the challenges posed by COVID-19 to Canadians and the Canadian businesses they rely on. The current rise in the number of COVID-19 cases and the start of the second wave shows that we are still grappling with the pandemic.

It is clear that we must not let our guard down when Canadians need us the most. By supporting Canadians who cannot work due to COVID-19, we are making it possible for our country to continue to practise physical distancing and to do the right thing to protect Canadians' health and safety. That is why we are asking all members of Parliament to also do the right thing and pass the bill before us so that the government can continue to finance emergency measures to support Canadians and businesses. As well, in passing the bill, we would ensure that three key measures are introduced that will help many Canadians who are still having a hard time finding a job and making ends meet, who are taking care of loved ones who are affected by COVID or who might potentially be sick and need some coverage in that area.

We can all agree that this pandemic is the most serious public health crisis Canada has ever faced. The job losses are perhaps the most obvious consequence of the global economic disruption that has affected Canadians and people around the world.

Given the job losses among Canadians, it quickly became evident that many workers would need support until they could once again find work. However, existing income support programs were not designed to deal with such an unprecedented situation.

That is why the government quickly created the Canada emergency response benefit, a temporary program to help millions of Canadians get through a very difficult period. Since the CERB was implemented at the start of the pandemic, when we asked Canadians to stay home, almost nine million Canadians have received this benefit, which helps them pay their bills and support their families.

With the economic recovery now well under way, CERB recipients will move over to the EI system. For those who do not qualify for EI in normal times, the government, through this bill, will temporarily create the Canada recovery benefit.

The bill would also create two new recovery benefits to help Canadians who are unable to work because of COVID-19. The government is proposing the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, which both aim to support Canadians as we work towards building a stronger and more resilient economy.

The bill would introduce three key measures that I think will be very helpful. I know many residents in my riding of Davenport will find them very helpful. We will be introducing the Canada recovery benefit of up to $500 per week for up to 26 weeks to workers who are self-employed, who are not typically eligible for EI and still require income support. This benefit will support Canadians who have not returned to work due to COVID-19 or whose income has dropped by at least 50%. We are also introducing the Canada recovery sickness benefit of $500 per week for up to two weeks for workers who are sick or must self-isolate for reasons related to COVID-19. We are also introducing the Canada recovery caregiving benefit of $500 per week for up to 26 weeks for households of eligible Canadians unable to work because they have to care for someone who is suffering from COVID-19.

I am proud of the immediate and impactful measures that the government has implemented to date. Passing the bill would enable our government to continue this important work. With the bill, our government is also seeking to extend the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act, set to expire on September 30, until the end of the year. This act was instrumental at the beginning of the pandemic in allowing the government to quickly put in place and finance many of the emergency measures through Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan that have supported Canadians and businesses through these difficult times. Failing to extend this act could cause a disruption to these critical payments. This includes measures to support Canadian employers, big and small, which are the backbone of our economy and have helped us weather the storm.

Programs like the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program have provided more than $1.6 billion to help over 121,000 small businesses, which employ more than 1.1 million employees, pay their rent. By extending the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act through the end of the year, we will ensure that everyone eligible for this assistance will be able to access it.

This is just one example of the many emergency measures that will enable the government to protect the health and safety of Canadians, particularly those who are most vulnerable, and enable the support that Canadian businesses rely on.

There is funding for important measures in our fight against COVID-19, including the purchase of personal protective equipment to help keep our essential workers safe and safely restart our economy, and the funding of medical research, to increase our knowledge of the virus and inform our response and the future purchase of vaccines and other treatments.

Now is not the time for austerity. Now is not the time for us not to be doing everything we can to support Canadians and workers, to support our small, medium and large businesses as we continue to grapple with the impacts of this pandemic.

Our government is determined to do what it takes to protect Canadians and businesses from the economic impact of COVID-19.

As a first step, we must ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to ensure that there is no delay in delivering the benefits to Canadians through existing programs and that Canadians receive the assistance and support they need when they need it most.

By supporting this bill, all parties can make sure that happens as we work together to build a stronger, more resilient Canada for the health and safety of Canadians, for their income security and livelihoods, and for families and businesses that continue to need support through this difficult and unprecedented time.

I urge all members of Parliament to join me in supporting passage of this bill.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a film technician in another life. I worked on film sets, including everything from big American blockbusters to small Quebec television shows. I was often unemployed between contracts.

When the CERB was announced back in April, I knew right away it would be problematic because there was no incentive to work. The Bloc Québécois proposed a very simple measure, specifically, to use the same mechanism for the CERB that is used for EI. Now this has been included in Bill C-2. The then finance minister told us that it would be impossible to implement, that it was too complicated. He told us that back in April.

My question for the member is very simple.

Why did we have to waste so much time and hurt so many businesses by failing to include incentives to work in the CERB?

Can the government explain why implementing them was impossible back in April but possible now, in September?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am talking about Bill C-2, but this gives me the opportunity to answer my colleague.

We did our job so well and asked so many great questions that they locked us out of Parliament. If we had not asked the right questions, the Prime Minister would have carried on as usual. However, my colleagues were so effective in committee and the WE Charity scandal was so public that we were able once again to show Canadians just how shady the Liberals can be. We were so good, the Prime Minister had to shut everything down.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abbotsford.

I am here today to speak to Bill C-2.

Since this morning, we have heard a lot of talk about the part of the bill that concerns the changes to the CERB, now known as the Canada recovery benefit, which provides assistance for self-employed workers and for those who are not eligible for employment insurance and, importantly, who cannot go back to work. There is also the Canada recovery sickness benefit for workers who are sick or who have to self-isolate as a result of COVID-19. Finally, there is the Canada recovery caregiving benefit for people who have to stay at home to take care of children or a sick person because of COVID-19.

Everyone agrees that someone who gets COVID-19 needs help. We do not need to hear the Liberals' fake crying to understand that. Some of my family and friends needed the CERB because they were no longer working. That is okay. It helped them to get by.

However, we would need more time to talk about other aspects of Bill C-2, aspects and details that we never seem to hear about. The bill introduces financial measures worth up to $17 billion out of a total of $50 billion or $60 billion.

There will be no debate, even though we suggested meeting this past weekend. Last week, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent proposed that we meet on Sunday in committee of the whole to have a debate, put questions to the ministers and look closely at this bill. We know we need to act quickly, and we could have met over the weekend. People often say that this is like being in wartime. In wartime, the work goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without stopping. This is urgent, but not urgent enough to work on a Sunday. It was even more urgent this morning, and the government decided to limit the debate.

When I walk around Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Quebec, or elsewhere in Canada, people ask me if the government is going to control its spending.

This is not about helping Canadians who are in need because of COVID-19. It is about having controls in place, ways of making sure that the money is not being handed out willy-nilly on things that should have been examined more closely.

The Prime Minister shut down Parliament for six weeks. As everyone knows, he did this because he did not want any more talk about WE Charity. He locked the doors so that he would not have to hear about it. I have to say that he seems to have succeeded, since it is no longer getting covered in the media. The problem is still there, but that is a matter for another debate.

The members are back now, and the House of Commons is back to normal. We can now ask questions, and committees will resume soon. We need answers, because the money that the government is spending belongs to Canadian taxpayers.

The important thing is to keep things in perspective. Indeed, it is important to know the difference between what is given out to help with COVID-19 and money that is shamelessly sent out left and right to make friends happy.

I would like to talk about what happened last week. At the last second, the government shut down the vaccine committee. Some of the people who were on the committee have ties with private companies. Once again, we saw cronyism in action for financial gain. The most important thing now is to defeat COVID-19 and come out of it at the lowest possible cost.

It is the opposition members' job to ask questions, but we are being muzzled.

We do not want a repeat of what happened with the Canada emergency student benefits. The Prime Minister said that we needed to help young people. Most young people received more money staying at home doing nothing or playing on their Xbox than working at Tim Hortons, at a restaurant or at a local business and yet there is a severe labour shortage. The number of complaints I received about that this summer is crazy. People asked me what was up with this awful CESB. Instead of helping in the time of COVID-19, the government hurt economic development. That was the exact opposite of what to do.

The Conservatives even said so this summer before the CESB came into effect. We said that it would cause problems. The government did not want to listen to us and said that we just wanted to prevent people from getting money. That is not our style. That was their narrative, their bleeding hearts. We want to help, we have compassion, but we know how to count. We want to provide measured help. That is the difference.

I remind members that there was a lot of fraud. This was mentioned by people who spoke before me. A lot of people are taking advantage of the system. We knew that this would happen, since the government did not create any safeguards.

I got a call from a police officer in Longueuil this summer. He could not give me his name, but he told me that there were 45 envelopes with CERB cheques addressed to residents of a building that is home to people on welfare who were technically not supposed to have applied. These people had not stopped working because of COVID-19 but they had still applied. The officer asked me what he should do with these envelopes. This is just an example, but there are plenty more if anyone wants them. Some screening measures were needed.

I would like to come back to the part of Bill C-2 that talks only about the different benefit programs, and not about any safeguards. I will highlight a few examples from the bill that raise some questions.

First, there is the issue of PPE procurement. There is some $2.7 billion allocated for PPE, but it is not clear who it is for or how it works. These are the kinds of questions people want answers to.

The bill also states that $116 million will be allocated to “Virtual Care and Mental Health Tools for Canadians”. What does that mean? Can someone tell us?

The bill also mentions “Personal Support Worker Training and Other Measures to Address Labour Shortages in Long-Term...Care”. Does that not fall under provincial jurisdiction? Is it not being taken care of by Quebec's CHSLDs and other facilities? We are talking about $13 million. What does that mean? Compared to $353 billion, $13 million does not seem like very much. I am trying to understand but millions add up to billions.

A total of $262 million is allocated to “Youth Employment and Skills Development Programs”. That is a quarter of a billion dollars. Where is that money going?

The bill also refers to “Additional Support for Canadians Experiencing Homelessness”. We certainly want to help the homeless, but can we know what that $237 million is for and where it is going?

Vancouverites are familiar with Granville Island. A total of $6 million is allocated to a “Granville Island Emergency Relief Fund”. What is happening on Granville Island that it needs $6 million under Bill C-2? We do not know.

As a final example, I will bring up “Support for The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited”. What does help with COVID-19 have to do with granting $1 million to the Federal Bridge Corporation?

I can provide many more examples like these. I have two full pages. There are $7 billion worth. Amounts are allocated, and we do not really know why. These are major budget items, but we are not allowed to talk about them. The Liberals are forcing us to talk only about benefits and about helping people. As I said earlier, we understand that. However, we are talking about billions of dollars for things that deserve an answer, and we will not get those answers because time is of the essence.

The reason time is of the essence is that Parliament was shut down for a month and a half because the Prime Minister would rather not hear about his problems. Now we have several billion dollars in spending before us. This is what Canadians are fed up with, not the government's COVID-19 assistance for Canadians in need or for entrepreneurs. They are fed up with us not really knowing where all this money is going.

When this is all over, when all is said and done and we have spent, say $500 billion or more, it will be hard to figure out how many hundreds of billions of dollars were spent willy-nilly in ways that could have been pared down or avoided because they had nothing to do with protecting people during the COVID-19 pandemic. That is the big question. We do not have an answer, and we will not be getting one anytime soon because everything is urgent and the government is being sloppy.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be back in the House.

There is something that has been bothering me. I was thinking about it yesterday when I left Lac-Saint-Jean. The government wants to pass Bill C-2 very quickly, but it shut down Parliament for over a month. The government told us that it was because a new throne speech was needed, but it could have prorogued Parliament for 24 hours.

Why does the government want to pass Bill C-2 so quickly when it could have just closed Parliament for 24 hours? Then we could have debated the bill properly.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

Canada is facing a critical moment in the continuing COVID crisis. Millions of Canadians are still in need of emergency funding of one sort or another. Although the early soaring numbers with tragic loss of life in seniors homes and beyond were brought down by the first lockdown with a range of precautions and restrictions, as imperfect as it might have been, we are concerned now about the sharp resurgence of infection in some urban areas and among certain groups whose compliance with the advice of public health officials and government at all levels relaxed far too soon.

The COVID crisis is not just a health crisis. COVID has taken a terrible toll on our Canadian economy, as it has on economies around the world. Canada today has the highest unemployment rate in the G7, despite having almost the highest spending in the G7. With the amendment to Bill C-2, now before us today, Canada's deficit and debt would soar to historic record new levels.

The government must recognize that a significant number of businesses and industries, despite COVID restrictions and precautions, have gradually been able to safely reactivate their workplaces to bring back workers safely and fire up their respective corners of the economy. Over the past month, I visited large industrial manufacturers and small businesses, and I have been impressed at how they are safely, defiantly, coping with the challenging new realities of their workplaces. However, I have also heard from a range of small, medium and large employers and members of chambers of commerce and boards of trade who say that government needs to balance essential emergency financial support with meaningful incentives to return to work where it is safe to do so.

When we first saw Bill C-2 last week, after six weeks of prorogation with the Liberals in hiding from scandalous revelations in committee, the estimated costs of the post-CERB expanded benefits were enormous: $37 billion in one year. The estimated costs are now in the mid-$40 billion range with another $17 billion in ongoing COVID program spending attached to this bill. We are debating almost $60 billion in new spending in two days. The deficit for 2021 is now certain to be well past $400 billion.

There is no question that the three principal elements of Bill C-2, the Canada recovery benefits act, would provide a lifeline to millions of workers and folks left out of earlier support. The government's decision to effectively embrace our Conservative back-to-work bonus proposed in June is an overdue step forward, a work incentive that would allow workers to earn beyond the benefit payments with a 50¢ on the dollar repayment of earnings if they exceed $38,000 in annual income. However, the original expectation of a minimum taxable payment of $400 a week expired when the Liberals caved in to NDP demands that $400 a week was not enough.

The Liberals caved in again on Friday when the NDP demanded more, a two-week paid sick leave demand, without any consideration by the House or Parliament of its possible negative impact on Canada's struggling economy. One must consider the continuing disincentives discouraging many healthy workers from safely returning to workplaces that can provide assurance of strict adherence to public health guidelines.

In my province of Ontario, under the new legislation an individual who works full time for just over three weeks will be able to access EI for six months at $500 a week. An Ontarian working full time at minimum wage, $14 an hour, receives $525 a week.

That said, the three pillars of the Canada recovery benefits act are needed: first, the CRB, the Canada recovery benefit for workers who are self-employed or not eligible for EI; second, the CRCB, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit for eligible Canadian households where a parent cannot work because they must care for children or a high-risk dependent; and third, the CRSB, the Canada recovery sickness benefit for workers who are sick or must self-isolate because of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, the time wasted in prorogation and the closure vote tomorrow, a most offensive application of the legislative guillotine, prevents the due diligence these benefits deserve.

The last-minute amendment to the sickness benefit that the Liberals caved into Friday, which provides for what the act calls a “leave of absence”, lacks answers to abundant questions on how it may be used or abused.

The amendment says that “every employee is entitled to and shall be granted the leave of absence” from work of “up to two weeks—or, if another number of weeks is fixed by regulation” if the employee is unable to work because, one, “they contracted or might have contracted COVID-19”; two, they have underlying conditions, are undergoing treatments or have contracted other sicknesses that, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, person in authority, government or public health authority would make them more susceptible to COVID-19; or three, “they have isolated themselves on the advice of their employer, a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, person in authority, government or public health authority for reasons related to COVID-19”.

There are huge legitimate, logical questions in these provisions. Pre-existing underlying conditions like asthma, diabetes, weakened immune systems, etc., don't go away in two weeks, and the provision for cabinet to extend coverage weeks is unlimited. There are some very big questions here.

As well, employment lawyers and experts have long raised red flags about this intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction, because most workers are governed provincially. One noted Ontario employment lawyer, Lior Samfiru, says that new incentives may be required to provinces and to employers in the form of tax cuts to get the buy-in in those jurisdictions. There have been, as well, fears expressed by economists and employers that 10 paid sick days could have a serious negative impact on productivity, that said with an eye to some public service unions' exploitation of already-contracted sick days. Then there is the unanswered question of monitoring and enforcement of a violation of the program criteria.

All of these issues should have and could have been explored during the six weeks of the WE scandal turtling by the Liberal government, rather than the clumsy presentation of Bill C-2, followed by the Liberals' second desperate concession to the NDP, and this debate and tomorrow's taking place in the shadow of the legislative guillotine of closure.

As I said at the top, millions of Canadians need emergency funding and many of them are caught now between the ending of CERB and when they will be able to access the new programs. They are caught in dire circumstances again because of the latest self-inflicted stumble by the Liberal government.

Conservatives believe extraordinary emergency funding has been needed and continues to be needed to support Canadian workers, employers and all those in need of support from the start of this COVID crisis, but we lament the lack of transparency and accountability of the Liberal government, the unacceptable neutering of Parliament, the time lost during the unnecessary prorogation for all-party consideration, debate and more reasonable outcomes, and the rush now to confect legislation on the run in the interest of self-serving partisan survival.

Even as we all struggle to do our part to deal with the resurgence of infection spread in certain areas, Conservatives lament the lack of a meaningful recovery plan with the investments, the tax cuts and regulatory improvements that will build competitiveness, incentivize workers and employers, and make Canada a better place to invest, to rebuild and to safely live.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, what an honour it has been to have the opportunity to represent the people of Elmwood—Transcona throughout the course of a very challenging time in our history.

I was elected not quite a year ago with the general mandate to defend the interests of working people here in Ottawa and to try to make Parliament work for people. That has been foremost in my mind and in the work of the NDP throughout the course of this pandemic, which could not have been foreseen at the time of the last election. Nevertheless it is our responsibility as public office holders to deal with it, in the best way we possibly can.

Many things have been called into question about the way we did things before the pandemic. There are many urgent questions about how we deal with the particularities of the pandemic and the challenges it presents.

We have heard a lot from other opposition parties today about the challenge to parliamentary process. Is that the main thing that the people we represent are concerned about? It is certainly something that is important. It matters how things work here. It matters that we are able to hold the government to account, but is it the main thing that ought to preoccupy us on a day when the income support program that has been sustaining Canadian households throughout this pandemic expired yesterday at midnight? I think not.

I think it is incumbent upon us to be a little flexible in our understanding of parliamentary process at this time. We can continue to talk about the role that the government played in creating this situation, where Parliament has not had more time. Nevertheless, we find ourselves here and have to respond to that situation. I hope Canadians will have been paying attention to the way that the government manufactured this sense of urgency and judge its members appropriately at election time.

We can talk about the economic crisis. It was severe. There is a lot that Parliament and the government need to do to avoid the economic threats that the pandemic presents. Of course, the CERB has been a very important part of heading off those threats to the economy. It has helped the economy continue as best it can in very difficult circumstances by ensuring that people have money to pay their landlords to stay housed, by ensuring that people have some money to put food on the table, and by ensuring that people have some money to spend in their local economy to help businesses that are struggling.

Those are all things that are very important, but first and foremost what we are called to respond to is the very real story of human tragedy that the pandemic has given rise to. We know that what people are struggling with, and what is top of mind for them, is a sense of fear because they have lost their jobs. In some cases people have gone back to work, which is great.

For other people, their entire industry has been called into question, with the future of their industry being on the ropes. Not only are they not back to work, but they are not sure if there will ever be work to go back to, in the industry that they worked in before, in the way that they knew it prior to the pandemic.

We know people have been overtaken with grief at the loss of loved ones, particularly in personal care homes. They were not able to go to visit someone at the height of the first wave. We are concerned as we enter into a second wave that families will find themselves in that position again, or that families will be limited to one visitor or none at all for a relative in a hospital. It may not be that someone is sick with COVID-19, but because they have another issue that has landed them in the hospital, concerned family members are challenged by not being able to see them.

We can think of people living in indigenous communities who have been abused for far too long. They worry about systemic problems that have led to overcrowded housing and a lack of clean drinking water, and what it will mean for their communities, families and loved ones if the virus enters their community. There have been travel bans put in place. It has made life hard for people.

These are the things that people are really worried about and they have been foremost in the minds of the NDP members and our work.

What can Parliament and government do to support Canadians as they deal with all of those consequences of the pandemic, on top of the challenges that they already had in their lives? As they try to manage that stress and they try to show compassion and care for the people around them, what can we do to ensure that we do not pile additional unneeded stress, particularly financial stress, on top of all those many concerns?

That is what the Canada emergency response benefit was meant to do. It was something that we had to fight for, initially. I remember sitting here, in this very place, prior to the initial lockdown, listening to the NDP leader question the Prime Minister about what they were going to do to support families as we headed toward lockdown. I remember, very distinctly, the Prime Minister talking about tinkering with the employment insurance system, a system that has long been broken and not serving Canadians well who have paid into that insurance program to support them when they are out of work. We knew that was not going to be enough. We knew that playing at the edges of that broken employment insurance system was not going to support Canadians through it.

New Democrats pushed for a basic income for all Canadians during this time that would be taxed back from those who did not need it at the end of the fiscal year, as a way to get help out as quickly as possible to as many Canadians as possible. We negotiated with a government that was determined to have an exclusionary approach to income, to decide who was deserving and who was not deserving. That is how the CERB was born.

Then, in the subsequent months, we spent a lot of work championing the cause of many different groups of Canadians who were left out by that exclusionary approach. I am thinking especially of persons living with disabilities, because we did, through multiple rounds of negotiations, finally convince the government to make some income support available for persons living with disabilities. It was not the kind of support we wanted to see. It was to be a one-time payment. It is shameful that that money has not yet been delivered. It was meant to be an emergency support payment, and people living with disabilities in Canada are still waiting.

Seniors were left out. It could be that the income of some seniors who have the good fortune of having a defined benefit plan did not change, but their circumstances changed. The support networks that they knew, the friends and family who would come and help them to do laundry and get groceries, were now being asked not to go to their parents' place or their grandparents' place. That meant that in order for seniors to replace the work that was done in that support network, money was required for laundry services, for grocery delivery, for whatever it may be.

We fought hard to try to get support for seniors as well. That payment was made, but it was only a one-time payment. We know that this pandemic is going to last a long time. That is why we need better solutions that build towards a better Canada that supports its seniors and that supports its people living with disabilities.

We fought for students who were left completely out of the CERB, notwithstanding the fact that we all knew that their summer employment prospects were not going to be the same as they had been before and that finding a job that could support them in paying their tuition in the fall was going to be impossible. Also, not every student is a kid living in their parents' basement. That is the impression we got from the government, while negotiating for the student benefit. That is simply not true. A lot of students are supporting themselves and supporting families as they go to school. They have to pay rent and put food on the table, and they were not able to get employment.

The government finally, after New Democrats pushing for students to be on the CERB, set up an entirely separate benefit that paid less. One of the reasons the government said it was justified in paying students less and having a whole separate administration, bureaucracy and program for students was because they were going to have an excellent summer work program that was going to top up students' benefits. That came to be known as the WE Charity scandal. That money has not flowed to students in any way, shape or form. That employment was never created. In fact, we found out that that money really was a targeted benefit for certain wealthy and well-connected friends of the Liberal Party, including their own family members, to the great shame of the government.

Part of the reason why we are in the urgent scenario that we are in is because they did such a terrible job of that. It was so obscene that the Prime Minister felt he had to prorogue Parliament just to escape scrutiny from it. That meant that Parliament did not have the time it ought to have had, and could have had, if Parliament had not been prorogued.

The economic challenges of the pandemic are not going away. They are not going to go away until we get back to normal, and that is going to take a significant amount of time. As I said earlier, the CERB expired yesterday at midnight, so we now find ourselves in a position where a significant portion of the over four million people who were still on CERB now do not have anything in place. We heard some discussion of this earlier in the House, and I think everybody is quite right to feel a great sense of frustration at the government that it came to this point. The NDP had negotiated a series of summer sittings, once every two weeks, partly to check in and make sure that the government was not misappropriating funds or spending them on its friends in inappropriate ways. It is a good thing we had those summer sittings, because we learned a lot about what the government was doing behind closed doors.

However, we did not get to have the last one, during which we could have done one of two things.

First, we could have considered legislation for the government's new program. We know that they knew the details, because they announced all of the details of the program the day after the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. The idea that this was not ready to go or that we could not have had that discussion in August is simply false. We know they were ready to have that conversation, but they decided not to for reasons that had to do with their own political interests and nothing to do with the public interest. I submit that in that moment the government lost sight of the real stories of human tragedy that the pandemic has engendered and the importance of the role of government in supporting Canadians through this time. Had that been foremost in their minds, they would not have prorogued Parliament. They would have brought this legislation to us then.

Second, the NDP called for Parliament to resume earlier, for an earlier Speech from the Throne. Anybody familiar with Liberal election platforms for the last 30 years could have mocked up that Speech from the Throne on the back of a napkin in about half an hour. There was nothing special in that Speech from the Throne; there was nothing new. There was nothing even particularly eloquent about it. There was no good reason to wait on this important work for that Speech from the Throne, so we could have gotten that done. They could have done that a lot sooner. It was a canned speech as far as I am concerned. We could have been dealing with this and subjected it to more and appropriate scrutiny.

However, there is no doubt that there is an urgent need for this help, because we find ourselves where we find ourselves. We can play the blame game, but I think Canadians want us to move beyond that. Assigning political blame should not be a recipe for paralysis in a crisis.

We do need to move forward. We do need to have something to replace the CERB. Finally, after weeks of no communication, the Liberals got serious about talking to opposition parties, and we were able to push them to stop the cut that they announced in August to the CERB benefit, from $2,000 a month to $1,600 a month, and get them to maintain that benefit level for Canadians who needed it. That was a real, productive outcome of those negotiations, even if they happened late.

Likewise, we were able to secure improvements to the government's sick leave plan, a sick leave plan that, incidentally, the government was opposed to for a long time. The NDP had to make it a real priority in our negotiations with the government to get a commitment to paid sick days for Canadians in the context of the pandemic. Then it took months for the Liberals to announce a plan, and when they finally announced it, they prorogued Parliament. There has been delay after delay after delay, but I think we have shown that when the government is finally ready to work, we are there ready to get to work right away. We are ready to make improvements to these measures on behalf of Canadians.

I will say once again that when it comes to laying blame for the situation that we find ourselves in, although this is not a recipe for us to not ensure there is something in place for Canadians, in a democracy the ultimate mechanism for accountability is an election. Even though we are going to do our job and make sure there is a program for Canadians in their time of need, I do hope that Canadians remember at election time, whether it is in a month from now, a year from now or three years from now, that the Liberal government was prepared to play political games with their futures and, if nothing else, even if this legislation passes expeditiously, to rob them of the time to plan for what the replacement would look like.

We know in this minority Parliament that it takes negotiation among the parties to get something passed. Canadians know that. They are not fools. Notwithstanding whatever the government announced in August, Canadians did not know what they could rely on until this moment, until there had been negotiations, and they will not know until the legislation is passed. That makes it very hard for them to plan for their futures.

That has been a theme of the government: It has been ragging the puck and making it hard for Canadians to plan month to month. We saw it with a couple of eleventh-hour extensions of the CERB. The government wasted that time instead of using it to come up with something that could have either replaced the CERB or extended the CERB for a longer period. We saw month-to-month extensions and then an extension over the summer, but that time was not properly used to develop an alternative that Canadians could rely on.

Despite the fact that we are prepared to support these measures as a matter of urgency, the paid sick leave provisions are not what Canadians deserve. Canadians, like workers in many other jurisdictions internationally, should have the right to 10 paid sick days from their employer on a permanent basis, regardless of what the illness is. In the bill the Liberals presented before, Bill C-2, we saw a very restrictive approach to these sick days and know they are only temporary. When the new bill is tabled, I am hoping and expecting very much to see expanded eligibility that makes it easier for Canadians to avail themselves of this sick leave, which is not quite COVID-specific. I hope it is just a stepping stone to get to the point where Canadians have permanent sick leave.

It is also relevant to the pandemic. What we want to do is take as many barriers off the table for Canadians that would cause them to question whether they are eligible for this benefit or not, because we saw this in the story of CERB and the attestation, as well as with the concern over the fraud provisions in Bill C-17. Canadians are honest, by and large, and they are deeply concerned about applying for benefits that they are unsure they qualify for. What was really important when it came to sick leave was to ensure that Canadians had the maximum level of comfort to be able to avail themselves of those provisions. Let us remember why these sick days are such an important tool for the pandemic. It is so that when Canadians wake up and are feeling sick, whether they are sneezing, coughing, have a headache or feel sick to their stomach, they can make the call to not go into work to protect their colleagues and their communities from the spread of a virus that we know is spreading rapidly. This is what we are asking people to do to prevent the spread of the virus, and they need the tools to be able to do that. Paid sick leave is an important tool.

We have pushed to try to make this as easy to access as possible in the context of a government that does not want to see 10 permanent sick days allocated to Canadians as a matter of right. That is unfortunate, but it is a battle we will continue to fight, notwithstanding supporting this legislation today. What we are doing today is getting something in place that can serve Canadians now. It is not building back better. It is not what we would like to see when it comes to having immediate solutions that build toward a brighter future. It is a band-aid solution, but one that is badly needed in the circumstances.

I hope one day Canadians will have a government that is willing to respond to a crisis in a way that sets us up to have a better future beyond the crisis, rather than just limping through. That is something Canadians can count on the NDP to continue fighting for here in this chamber.

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

Madam Speaker, I will try not to do it again.

The Liberal government made headlines for mishandling the Canada student service grant program by asking WE Charity to manage it. The government did everything it could to keep this quiet, and it put protecting its image ahead of helping workers and managing the crisis.

Why did the government prorogue Parliament for five weeks when it could have taken action in July? We sat during the summer, and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities could easily have been called upon, because it was sitting to discuss these matters. The government could have prorogued Parliament for just 24 hours.

We believe that the prorogation of Parliament was just another Liberal tactic to draw a red herring across the trail. It is another example of the government's ineptitude. The Liberals were more concerned about protecting their image than giving priority to workers in need. What is more, this approach is a blatant example of this government's lack of respect for the work of Parliament.

We could have taken the time to study the bill properly and hear from witnesses in order to fix any problems, but now we are being forced to adopt it right away. That is unacceptable.

We are in favour of using a more flexible EI program to transition away from CERB. That is what we asked for. We are also happy with the three economic benefits in the bill we are debating even though we condemn the government's way of doing things.

However, we must remind the House and the government that this new flexibility and Bill C-2 are only the first step toward true employment insurance reform.

I would also like to point out that these new measures will be in effect for just one year. What happens 12 months from now? As we said, employment insurance needs real reform and has for quite some time. I think this is the time to decide what the future looks like.

A number of unions and groups advocating for the unemployed have already expressed their enthusiasm for the measures that are going to be adopted. However, all these groups have also insisted that the new measures lay the groundwork for a future overhaul. We stand with Quebec workers in calling for these changes.

I would also point out that the adjustments made and the measures introduced today do not solve all the problems with EI; far from it. Let me remind hon. members that I myself presented a motion to the House that was unanimously adopted, to increase the special EI sickness benefits from the current 15 weeks to 50 weeks. The situation is critical for these individuals, too. We do not have a minute to waste. Why did the government not use this as an opportunity to address the matter of sickness benefits and extend them immediately?

In closing, I would like to reiterate that we want this bill to pass. We owe it to Quebec's workers and to everyone whose CERB ended yesterday. We cannot leave anyone in the uncertainty and anguish they are feeling today.

Our hope today is that this government will finally decide to take a serious look at the EI reforms that are needed and not let any future scandals distract it from this crucial objective.

I ask today, is the government prepared to go ahead with a long-term reform of the EI system?

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

No problem, Madam Speaker. At worst, I will repeat myself.

Today, self-employed workers, workers in non-standard jobs and seasonal workers need help now more than ever before.

Leaving our constituents in this state of uncertainty is unacceptable, and we must do everything we can to prevent these workers from slipping into poverty.

We could have passed the new measures sooner, but the government decided to prorogue Parliament, thereby delaying passage of the necessary measures in Bill C-2. Once again, we condemn this government tactic.

Let's not forget that in June, the Trudeau government was making headlines with its inept mishandling—

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

Madam Speaker, naturally, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, an act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19.

Sometimes the saying “better late than never” applies, but not here since it is too late for the bill before us. In fact, the three economic support benefits in this bill, which affect thousands of workers and were announced by the government on August 20, are still not in place, while the CERB ended yesterday. Why is that?

The reason is that this government, which was involved in another major scandal, the WE Charity scandal, deliberately chose to prorogue the House for petty political considerations. If that is not partisanship, I do not know what is. It has left thousands of people in the lurch, in a state of distress and uncertainty. It is scandalous.

Long before now, long before the crisis started, we knew that the EI social safety net was torn and needed a complete overhaul so that it could fulfill its purpose. The eligibility criteria, coverage, duration, benefit amount and funding arrangements all needed to be reviewed.

Without going into details on the regular EI program, I want to remind all members that only about 40% of workers are currently covered. Among women, youth and seasonal workers, that figure is even lower. Self-employed, part-time and contract workers are not eligible at all. That is why action is needed, and we knew that long ago.

At the height of the crisis, nearly nine million workers became unemployed. It became glaringly obvious that our EI regime was unable to do what it was designed to do and insure and protect workers in the event of unemployment. That is why the government implemented the CERB.

On April 11, the current President of the Treasury Board said the government knew that the EI safety net had a few too many holes in it and did not provide sufficient coverage. However, the government did not move forward with its reform quickly enough, even though in 2016, during the previous Parliament, the Liberal government had promised to conduct a broad review of the EI system and modernize our income support system for unemployed workers, since this social safety net was failing too many of them.

It is even more troubling, and indeed downright outrageous, to see in the throne speech just how quick the Prime Minister was to interfere more and more in areas of provincial jurisdiction while being so agonizingly slow, so lax, in taking care of the federal government's own social programs for workers and seniors. We therefore join the consensus among politicians in Quebec and call on the federal government to mind its own business and look after its own affairs.

As we know, strong measures to help workers and support employment must be the cornerstones of the economic recovery. In fact, it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed that the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency student benefit include employment incentives. Our hope was that these benefits would support two objectives, namely to provide support while creating jobs. Despite the government's firm commitment to the House on April 29 to attain both objectives, nothing has been done.

Furthermore, the government knew that many workers who had lost their jobs because of the crisis would not qualify for EI when the CERB ended. For that reason, the government decided to relax the EI rules and make the program more accessible.

We welcome these adjustments. However, there is more work to be done, because even with less stringent rules, not all workers in need qualify. Today, more than 900,000 workers are wondering whether they will qualify for EI and, if not, whether they will be eligible for the measures we will be voting on.

Today, self-employed workers, workers in non-standard jobs and seasonal workers need help more than ever before.

This state of uncertainty—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would not say “arrogant” or “funny”, but I would try to find a word between the two, because what we are seeing now from the government is a total lack of responsibility. We also see the government's intention to kill the job we have to do here.

Why did I use the word “kill”? It is because that is exactly what the government did six weeks ago. It decided to kill parliamentary procedure by proroguing. Had it not done that, we could have worked hand in hand this summer to reach an agreement. We could have worked correctly as parliamentarians.

This was shown to us last week. The government decided to have a throne speech at the end of the month of September, which is its choice, even though it knew all this reassurance would be coming at the end of September. It calls the shots.

Seeing that, what did we do as parliamentarians? We acted responsibly. On Friday morning my colleagues and I tabled a motion offering the government the opportunity to go deep into Bill C-2. We called for a committee of the whole on Sunday for six full hours, with four senior cabinet ministers answering questions. That is what parliamentarians are all about. That is what we asked for, and the Liberals refused.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, all Canadians want Parliament to function properly. All Canadians care about what is going on with health care. All Canadians, particularly folks in Quebec and Ontario, are seeing an increase in COVID-19 cases. We need measured, worthwhile, relevant action, but we believe that must happen through healthy democratic debate. What we are seeing now is anything but.

The government is about to introduce legislation that will result in $57 billion in spending, and it is reducing the time parliamentarians have to speak on the bill to barely four and a half hours.

This is anything but parliamentary democracy. As elected officials, we have a duty to hold the government accountable. We were elected to ask the government what it is doing, how it is doing it and why. With four and a half hours of debate, we cannot hope to understand where the $57 billion is going. Unfortunately, that is what the government is forcing us to do, and we condemn it in the strongest terms.

Why are we here today? We are here because we are concerned about the health situation of Canadians. We are concerned about the survival of Canadian businesses. We are concerned about Canadian workers who are out of jobs because of the pandemic. We are concerned because the Liberal government tabled some ideas, proposals and policies that created a lack of manpower and businesses were forced to close.

In my riding, many restaurants and other businesses closed their doors because they needed workers but instead people preferred not to work and to use what we call in French the PCU.

The debate is serious, which is why we must take the necessary time to study the measures the government is proposing.

All of us on this side want to help Canadians. All of us on this side want to help the business community. All of us on this side are concerned about the health of Canadians and want to help everybody on that issue. All of us on this side want to work hand in hand with the provinces. On this side, we are not going to say what is good for the provinces but rather ask how we can help them. That is the Conservative view, not the Liberal one.

What we have today in front of us is a government that acted at the last minute. The government decided to have just four and a half hours of debate for $50 billion in taxpayers' money. This is unparliamentary, and we strongly disagree with the approach of the government.

We are here today because the government has acted in an unfortunate way in recent weeks. We should remember that when the pandemic broke out, we had urgent action to take. We worked with the government, but we also took the government to task on a number of occasions. I will come back to that later. We wanted to work together. That is why we agreed to have the hybrid Parliament and why we agreed to have committees. We were doing our job, which is really relevant.

Some senior members in our party, including the hon. member for Carleton, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, just to name a few, asked questions that were very relevant to the WE scandal, but awkward for the government. The government had decided to give $900 million to friends of the regime without a call for tenders. Once it started really feeling the heat, the Liberal government decided to kill parliamentary democracy by proroguing the session.

Let's keep in mind that, in 2015, these paragons of virtue said that they would never use prorogation and that they would never prevent parliamentarians from expressing themselves, but they did at the first opportunity.

We would not be where we are today had the government allowed parliamentarians to continue doing their job, yet that is exactly what the government is encouraging us to do. For six weeks, we were unable to do our job as parliamentarians, a necessary job.

The government recalled the House with a throne speech last week. The very next day, it introduced Bill C-2, which includes budgetary measures to help Canadians.

We understand that time is running out because of the sunset clauses on government measures. Because of these sunset clauses, the House has to vote on certain issues before October 1, but the government is the one in charge of the calendar. It is the government that decided to shut down committees and close Parliament six weeks ago. It is the government that decided to recall the House last week when it could have easily done so earlier. The government could have easily allowed Parliament to do its work in committee, but no.

These people who really enjoy controlling Parliament and the situation have made it so that we have just a few hours before the sunset clauses take effect. They bear all the responsibility for that.

It is very funny to hear the government House leader saying that Liberals want to walk together and work together and that there is no time for political games. This is exactly what they are doing. We are not working together. They want to work all by themselves. They say they do not want to play political games. That is exactly what they are doing right now. We have $50 billion in front of us that we have to debate and they are letting parliamentarians talk about it for only four and a half hours. This is a big joke. This is everything but parliamentary democracy. We need to work together, obviously, but we need the tools to do that and what the government is tabling today does everything but give parliamentarians the right tools to do the work.

Conservatives are here for Canadians. I can assure everyone that we will stand by our guns in this situation because we need to work correctly, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

Last week the government introduced Bill C-2. We saw millions of dollars' worth of spending on the horizon. After question period last Thursday, the government House leader told us that Monday and Tuesday, so today and tomorrow, would be dedicated to Bill C-2, which was fine.

Even then we realized that we might not have enough time to really get to the bottom of things. Acting in good faith and to avoid partisan games, we proposed something that we thought was entirely fair and appropriate and that, above all, would mean that we could get the work done. We proposed meeting on Sunday in committee of the whole for over six hours to allow four ministers to appear before us and answer questions from the opposition and the government, in order to get to the bottom of the matter in relation to Bill C-2. That is our job as parliamentarians.

That is the way Conservatives are working. We have to hold the government to account. We are here to ask questions and the ministers are here to answer questions.

Being in cabinet is a privilege. If the gods and my leader are willing, maybe one day I myself will be in cabinet. Who knows? At any rate, being a minister is certainly something.

The ministers we hoped would answer questions before this committee were serious ministers, senior ministers who are responsible for billions of dollars. We wanted to hear from the Minister of Finance. We wanted to hear from the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, as well as the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Labour. These four ministers played a central part in the discussions surrounding Bill C-2, which represents more than $50 billion in spending. They could have answered the committee's questions. However, our proposal was declined. We were fine with that, because it is part of the democratic process.

A few hours later, however, we found out that the government and the NDP had hammered out an agreement on Bill C-2. That agreement was negotiated in a proper democratic fashion. We are not going to raise a fuss over it.

We will see how the debates go. What points will people raise about the bill that is about to be introduced? What are members going to be able to say in a mere four and a half hours about $57 billion in proposed spending?

This is the key element of this debate today. The government is asking taxpayers to spend $57 billion and we, the representatives of Canadians, will only have four and a half hours of discussion and debate. That is absolutely not enough, and there is no partisanship in that. Those are the facts. Technically speaking, we need to go deeply into this bill. We need to know exactly what the intention of the government is. We have a job to do, but the government, which killed the parliamentary process this summer and dodged the responsibility it had to work with other parties, decided to kill our responsibility to go deeply into the bill.

When the Liberals are attacking us on that, they are not attacking us; they are attacking Canadians. Canadians deserve answers. Canadians have elected us to ask tough questions. I know them. I know they are ready to answer that. Let us do our jobs. The government is not doing that right now.

It might come as a surprise to some of us that the government would treat parliamentary procedure so grievously.

I have had the privilege of representing the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent for almost five years now. I cannot thank them enough for electing me twice. This is not the first time in the past five years that this government's approach to the rights, privileges and responsibilities of all parliamentarians, including those in opposition, has been a little too authoritarian.

Members will recall the infamous Motion No. 6 tabled in May 2016. It gave the government extraordinary powers to ram through bills that should have been given more serious attention.

Sadly, we all remember how that led to a deeply unfortunate and disgraceful incident: the Prime Minister left his seat, grabbed an opposition member—our party whip—by the arm and marched him across the chamber like a crook.

This was called “elbowgate”. The Prime Minister crossed the floor, grabbing a political adversary and using it just like that. That was everything but good. That was a shame. I have never seen an act so disgraceful, and it was coming from the top, the Prime Minister. Why? Because we were asking to have a friendly debate, and Motion No. 6 was anything but that. The Prime Minister was not happy with our position and he did something very wrong. Obviously, he excused himself the day after. He did what he had to do.

We were then able to proceed. However, the government's main intention with Motion No. 6 was to hinder the work of parliamentarians, especially opposition members.

A year later in May 2017, the government did exactly the same thing. It once again proposed measures aimed at limiting parliamentary work, especially that of the opposition and particularly in committee. Thanks to a vigilant opposition and our tireless work at committee trying to block this measure, the government realized that it made no sense.

A number of bills were introduced in May 2019. The government wanted them to pass after just minutes, never mind hours, of debate. It was unacceptable.

Hon. members will also recall that in the winter of 2019, when another Liberal scandal, the SNC-Lavalin one, had just erupted, the government decided to put an end to the parliamentary committee's work. That was also unacceptable.

This Liberal government's first Parliament ended with 63 time allocation motions. Yes, the current government imposed 63 gag orders. That was also unacceptable.

As I said earlier, during the campaign, the Liberals said that they would be very frank and very honest with all parliamentarians, that they would make Parliament work, that they would not prorogue the House. However, that is what they did. They also adopted 63 time allocation motions. This is anything but parliamentary freedom and this is everything but good parliamentary attitude.

We ended up with this new Parliament following the election. When the COVID-19 crisis began, all members from all parties worked in good faith for the good of Canadians. Obviously we had to give the government certain powers, as the situation was unforeseen. Nevertheless, the Liberals gave themselves powers that were excessive, to say the least.

Let's not forget that the first version of Bill C-13 would have allowed the government to take measures and write cheques at will until the end of 2021. They were very ambitious, not to mention greedy. That was not what needed to be done. Our vigilance, and that of the other parties, ensured that the government backed down.

That was a good indication that the government was very ambitious. When it came time to say that this was an extraordinary situation and that Parliament could not sit in its usual fashion, the government decided to give itself all sorts of powers until December 2021.

How could we accept the fact that the government was ready to have full power for more than a year and a half? That is not parliamentary democracy. Canada deserves better. We understand and recognize that we to address some situations if some emergency arises, but we shall respect the responsibility of parliamentarians. Again, this morning the government is so happy to shut down the parliamentary system and this is unacceptable to us.

We are very sad to see that the government wants to muzzle parliamentarians once again. The Conservatives are well aware that we need proper measures for Canadians and that these measures have to correspond to the needs of Canadian families, that we must take into account Canadian businesses that are facing tough challenges, that we must take into account Canadian workers who lost their jobs, and that we must take into account the men and women with children who are worried.

Indeed, we have measures to bring in. Indeed, we must work together. Indeed, we must put partisanship aside in order to act for the good of Canadians. However, we have a job to do, and when the government is getting ready to spend $57 billion, we think parliamentarians should do their job. Four and a half hours does not leave enough time for us to do our job properly.

Therefore, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (b), by replacing the words “not be deferred”, with the words “be deferred until the expiry of time provided for Oral Questions at the next sitting day which is not a Friday”; and

(b) by replacing paragraphs (c) to (e) with the following:

“(c) if the bill is adopted at second reading, it shall be referred to a committee of the whole and the House shall, when the orders of the day are next called after the bill has been read the second time, resolve itself into a committee of the whole on the said bill, provided that:

(i) the committee be subject to the provisions relating to virtual sittings of the House,

(ii) the Speaker may preside,

(iii) the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair,

(iv) the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, and the Minister of Labour be invited to appear,

(v) each minister shall be questioned for 95 minutes, provided that:

(A) the chair shall call members from all recognized parties and one member who does not belong to a recognized party in a fashion consistent with the proportions observed during Oral Questions, following the rotation used for question by the former Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic;

(B) no member shall be recognized for more than five minutes at a time which may be used for posing questions;

(C) members may be permitted to spilt their time with one or more members by so indicating to the chair, and

(D) questions shall be answered by the minister or another minister acting on her or his behalf,

(vi) notices of amendments to the bill to be considered in committee of the whole may be deposited with the Clerk of the House at any time following the adoption of this order until the conclusion of the second hour of debate in committee of the whole,

(vii) at the conclusion of time provided for questioning ministers, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the Chair shall put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the committee stage of the bill, including each amendment deposited with the Clerk of the House pursuant to subparagraph (vi);

(d) once the bill has been reported from the committee of the whole, the Speaker shall put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the report and third reading stages of the bill, provided that no recorded division shall be deferred; and

(e) the Standing Orders relating to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be suspended while the bill is being considered under the provisions of this order”.

Judges Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, during question period, we raised the possibility of working on the weekend. We therefore move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice of the House, (a) Bill C-2, an act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19, be deemed to have been read a second time on division and referred to a committee of the whole; (b) the House shall meet at noon on Sunday, September 27, 2020, for the sole purpose of resolving itself into a committee of the whole to consider the said bill for a period not exceeding six hours and 20 minutes provided that: (i) the committee be subject to the provisions relating to the virtual sittings of the House; (ii) the Speaker may preside; (iii) the Chair may preside from the Speaker's chair; (iv) the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Labour be invited to appear; (v) each minister be questioned for 95 minutes provided that: (a) the Chair shall call members from all recognized parties and one member who does not belong to a recognized party in a fashion consistent with the proportions observed during Oral Questions; (b) no member shall be recognized for more than five minutes at a time which may be used for posing questions; (c) members may be permitted to split their time with one or more members by so indicating to the Chair; (d) the rotation for questions be the rotation used by the former special committee on the COVID-19 pandemic; (e) the ministers answer the questions; (vi) at the expiry of the time provided to the committee of the whole, the committee shall rise, the bill shall be deemed reported back to the House without amendment and the House shall stand adjourned until the next sitting day; (c) the report stage of the said bill begins Monday, September 28, 2020, provided that: (i) the deadline for notices of motion at report stage be set at 9 p.m. on Sunday, September 27, 2020, and if necessary the Order Paper and Notice Paper be republished for the Monday, September 28, 2020, sitting; (ii) the said bill can be debated at third reading during the same sitting; (iii) no more than one sitting day shall be allotted for consideration at report stage and third reading stage of the bill at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on Monday, September 28, 2020, or until no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier; the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings and shall put forthwith and successively, without any further debate or amendment, all questions necessary to dispose of proceedings at the said stages of the bill provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred.

Intergovernmental Relations

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

A Liberal will always be a Liberal. Look who is talking, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government tabled a piece of legislation a few days ago: Bill C-2. Obviously, we want to work correctly on that. We made a proposition a few hours ago with all counterparts here to be sure to work correctly. We mean to have a sitting House here for committee of the whole this Sunday. Is the government ready to work on Sunday for the good and for the future of Canadians?

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my colleague on his appointment to this important position, which reflects both his leader's confidence in him and his fitness for this extremely important role.

I look forward to collaborating and working with him.

On that note, I also want to thank all the parties for their collaboration yesterday on adopting the motion that allows MPs from all regions across the country to participate in the debates. This is extremely important.

To answer my colleague and friend's question directly, I will say that tomorrow, Friday, will be the second day of debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

On Monday and Tuesday, we will begin debate on Bill C-2, an act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19, which was introduced this morning by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

Finally, the third and fourth days set aside in the House for debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne will be Wednesday and Thursday respectively.

COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, An Act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)