Bill C-24 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (additional regular benefits), the Canada Recovery Benefits Act (restriction on eligibility) and another Act in response to COVID-19

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act in order, temporarily, to increase the maximum number of weeks for which regular benefits may be paid under Part I of that Act and facilitate access to benefits for self-employed persons under Part VII.‍1 of that Act.
It also amends the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to
(a) add a condition to provide that a person is eligible for benefits only if they were not, at any time during a benefit period, required to quarantine or isolate themselves under any order made under the Quarantine Act as a result of entering into Canada or
(i) if they were required to do so, the only reason for their having been outside Canada was to receive a necessary medical treatment or to accompany someone who was required to receive a necessary medical treatment, or
(ii) if, as a result of entering into Canada, they were required to isolate themselves under such an order at any time during the benefit period, they are a person to whom the requirement to quarantine themselves under the order would not have applied had they not been required to isolate themselves; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Health to assist the Minister of Employment and Social Development in verifying whether a person meets the eligibility condition referred to in paragraph 3(1)‍(m), 10(1)‍(i) or 17(1)‍(i) of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act and to disclose personal information obtained under the Quarantine Act to the Minister of Employment and Social Development for that purpose.
And finally, it amends the Customs Act to authorize the disclosure of information for the purpose of administering or enforcing the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.

Employment Insurance Act

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. She always has something useful to say when it comes to EI.

Today is International Women's Day. As my colleague is aware, women are overrepresented when we look at poverty indicators, especially in terms of wages and minimum wage jobs in Quebec and Canada.

What measures could be put in place to help achieve the equality that everyone dreams of and is talking about today?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The problem is that we spotlight these injustices and inequalities on March 8 and then forget about them the very next day. There are ways to fix these problems. One way is a federal pay equity law, which Canada still does not have.

I have a recommendation for the government as it prepares to introduce its next budget: carry out a rigorous gender-based analysis—

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

Order. The hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 has two main parts. The first extends the employment insurance benefit period to 50 weeks. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville explained that well.

The second makes tourists who travel south or anywhere around the world ineligible for the $1,000 benefit for people who have to quarantine. I would like to focus on this second part and confirm for anyone still wondering that we will support Bill C-24.

The word that comes to mind in a conversation about denying tourists and vacationers the $1,000 they might otherwise have collected is “finally”. We finally have a bill that puts an end to that ridiculous situation. If we look back at what happened, everything started last September with the unanimous passage of Bill C-4, which gave people with COVID-19 or in mandatory isolation $500 per week for two weeks, for a total of $1,000, to make up for lost income. Those people were doing what was best for society by self-isolating so as not to put public health at risk.

Bill C-4 came into force on October 2, and the problems started after that. If we look at what happened next, we got nothing but equivocation from this government, which has been flying on autopilot since the beginning of this pandemic. Actually, it is not even flying on autopilot, because that would require having a system in place. This government has been flying blind from the start, and I do not know how it can tell where it is going. We are waving flags to warn the government about the challenges ahead. However, this government is neither active nor proactive, but passive.

In a serious crisis like this, we need leadership and a government that is firing on all cylinders. In the past, great crises have produced great leaders. For example, the Great Depression gave us John Maynard Keynes, one of the greatest economists in history, who completely changed our way of viewing life in society.

In a crisis like this, the government should have been vigilant. In other words, when this legislation came into force, the government should have monitored what was happening with the $1,000 benefit to see whether it was being used properly and ensure that there were no issues. That is what governing is all about. The government should have been monitoring its actions and their consequences, but it did not.

Émile de Girardin said that governing means looking ahead. Unfortunately, this government is flying blind, as I was saying. Unfortunately, it is woefully lacking in foresight. If it had been vigilant, it could have protected the economy better. If it had been vigilant, it could have protected public health better. If it had been vigilant, it could have saved more jobs. If it had been vigilant, it could have saved more lives. That is what we must not forget about this government's unfortunate perpetual inertia.

I am not saying that as a member of an opposition party that thinks it can do better. Unfortunately, I am only noting that what seemed like a good idea at first later proved to be a very bad idea. With the emergence of variants like the U.K. variant, the government should have closed the borders promptly. Instead, the government waited and gave sanctimonious lectures, asking people to stay home and not travel anywhere.

The government told people that it would be best if they did not go abroad, but, if they did, it would give them $1,000 so they could spend two weeks at home when they got back. There was a contradiction in this message. The government should have been vigilant, noticed the contradiction and fixed it. Instead, journalists pointed it out on December 31. Journalists were the ones to point out that there was a problem.

We then saw the leader of the government claim that the Liberals had just realized there was a problem and that they had decided to end it as of January 3.

The Bloc Québécois immediately gave its unconditional support to the government. Actually, there was one condition. We promised the Liberals that if they wanted to move forward, we would do so quickly. Our only condition was that the measure was to be retroactive to October 2. As for the rest, we agreed with them, because we felt that it was important and that we needed to act quickly.

We did not get anything resembling a bill until January 20, when the government deked à la Mario Lemieux and almost, but not really, gave us something. Once we were able to get a look at the bill, we immediately noticed that it was not retroactive to January 3. We asked to rework the bill and make it retroactive to October 2.

The government panicked and immediately pulled back. For nearly two months, the opposition parties called on the government to bring its bill back. I know; I was there. I am my party's House leader, and I could see that the other parties wanted to help the government. I rose today and said that we supported the bill. It did not take long.

I told the government that we would go along with it if the bill were made retroactive to October 2, if it were done right. It took nearly two months for the bill to make a reappearance.

This bill fixes a mistake that was made. The government has often said that all of the parties were in agreement. Indeed, the parties have agreed on the principle of the bill from the beginning, but we do not manage the public service. If the Liberals do not want to govern, they should step aside.

The Bloc Québécois wants the government to be able to move forward, but carefully. In times of crisis, it is important to remain vigilant. Unfortunately, the government did not do that.

If we are in favour of this bill, it is because it should have been passed days ago, if not sooner. However, this will do. It is fine. We agree.

I would like to stress one thing. We have moved motions about this before, and my esteemed colleague spoke about them earlier. It is extremely inhumane to grant 15 weeks of EI benefits to someone who is fighting for their life, when people in other circumstances are given 50 weeks. It is unconscionable that this is accepted and tolerated when it means that, rather than focusing exclusively on healing and recovery, people who have been struck down with a serious illness that prevents them from working also have to worry about making ends meet. That does not make any sense.

Those who are listening to me speak know that I am right. If I were to speak one-on-one to my colleagues in the House about this, I cannot imagine that any of them would say that 15 weeks of EI benefits are enough for someone who is suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment. That does not make any sense at all.

All that is needed to remedy the situation is to amend this bill. That would remedy the situation until September 25, 2021. Then, if we wanted to make the change permanent, the solution would be to vote in favour of Bill C-265, which was introduced by the valiant Bloc Québécois member for Salaberry—Suroît.

We need to change history. We need to show some humanity. We need to be good.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. There is a reason he was nominated as one of the best orators in the House. We just saw another excellent example of that.

Today was a dark day in Parliament. I consider it a black day. In fact, it was black and white. We voted to increase old age security. I believe that seniors have been affected the most by this crisis. They are the ones who have suffered the most deaths and have been the most affected by the pandemic. The cost of groceries has increased, and this has affected seniors especially. We voted today on a Bloc motion to increase old age security by $110 a month. It was passed by the House, but the government voted against it. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

What does he think of the Liberal government voting against increasing OAS for the most vulnerable people in this crisis?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague.

He is absolutely right. I cannot explain something I do not understand. The Conservatives, the NDP and the Green Party voted for the motion. It is incomprehensible that the government and members of the Liberal Party did not automatically vote to increase benefits for the people most affected by the pandemic. Once the pandemic is over, when Liberal members are out for a walk and cross paths with seniors, I dare them to look those seniors in the eye and tell them that, as Liberals, they voted against something that would have helped them. We will see how they feel.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Prairie for his speech.

He spoke about the government's procrastination. I think he gave a good summary of the facts. This bill was hastily drafted in January but it did not completely remedy the problem. As the great René Lévesque would say, two wrongs do not make a right.

My colleague gave us an account of what happened because history tends to repeat itself. Bill C-4 was also hastily passed because the government had prorogued Parliament. With Bill C-4, $17 billion would be spent by December 31, 2020.

Can our colleague tell us whether he thinks the government's approach is providing certainty and what he thinks of its style of governance?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we look at what the government is doing. Newsflash: the Bloc Québécois will never govern except in a sovereign Quebec. Maybe we will still be in politics and maybe we will govern. We shall see. However, we will never govern here. That is why we are trying to be and are, in my opinion, a constructive opposition.

It gives me no pleasure to talk about what I am seeing across the way. I am not happy to say that. I would have liked to say the opposite. I would have liked to say, “Congratulations, the government acted intelligently.”

If there was a party that collaborated in the beginning, it was the Bloc Québécois, as the Leader of the Government in the House can confirm. It felt like the government was saying that we were on a plane in flight that it was in the middle of building and it was asking us for help. It was something like that, even though it may not have described it that way. That is when we pooled our ideas. We had discussions and determined that we needed to protect our people. It was important. We needed to be good. We had no choice but to be good. We had to try to anticipate, be vigilant and proactive.

All I can say is that I am saddened by what I am seeing. I would have liked to praise the government's response to such a crucial, important and difficult situation, but it unfortunately does not deserve my compliments.

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

Madam Speaker, here we again find ourselves debating some of the financial measures necessary to help Canadians cope with what has inarguably been one of the most difficult public health and economic challenges of our time.

Even though there is nothing objectionable about the measures proposed in the bill, I think it is missing a really important and significant opportunity to make some much-needed headway on issues that Canadians are facing that are part and parcel of the employment insurance system, for which there is well-established general support in the House of Commons.

I am going to speak to that very shortly, but I also want to recognize that when we talk about the pandemic and its effects, we all know, as has been said many times today on International Women's Day, that it has had a disproportionately negative effect on women across the country for all sorts of reasons, including because they do a disproportionate amount of the caregiving work in families. We have seen women step back from the workforce and gone above and beyond the simple amount that might have resulted from the job losses in the economy. This is because they are shouldering the brunt of a lot of the care work that has been required, particularly when schools are closed and access to child care has been difficult. That has had a disproportionate impact on the ability of women to participate in the workforce. These are things that we need to be mindful of not only as we move toward a recovery, but also as we discuss the measures in this bill and the measures that are not in the bill and ought to have been included.

In this bill we see an extension of the EI regular benefits to 50 weeks, which makes sense. We know that the economic consequences of the pandemic are far from over and that people who required exceptional financial support are in many cases going to continue to require that kind of extended support.

It is curious to note that the 50 weeks of EI was not matched in the government's announcement for extensions of the Canada recovery benefit and other like benefits up to the 50-week mark. That raises some questions about how long the government is anticipating these economic circumstances to last. At some point, it would be nice to hear why the government did not see fit to extend the Canada recovery benefit up to 50 weeks starting now, because that failure leaves Canadians who are dependent on that benefit to wonder whether or not that help will be there for them when the next round of extensions runs out.

The other thing this bill does is to end Canadians' ability to use the Canada recovery sickness benefit, or what could have been known as the “sick day” program, to self-isolate upon their return from non-essential travel. That was not really foreseen when this benefit was established. It is something that would not have happened had the government gone ahead with what the New Democrats believe is really the right way to do this, which is to legislate 10 paid sick days for workers across the country. The federal government is not able to do that for over 80% of workers in the workforce. As I am sure all members know, most workers fall under provincial jurisdiction, but the government could have shown leadership by doing that within the federal sphere. It could have made headway by sitting down with provincial premiers and pushing very hard on this matter as an appropriate way to make sure that Canadians have the resources they need to be able to stay home and protect their co-workers and communities from COVID-19. It is regrettable that we have not seen that degree of leadership. It would have been better, and much harder to abuse the way the Canada recovery sickness benefit was abused in allowing people to stay home after non-essential travel.

I think it is important to beseech any Canadians who may be listening to follow those travel advisories and to stay home if they do not have an essential reason for travel. I say this particularly in light of the fact that it seems, as we have known for some time, that the government has taken a while getting around to it despite the widespread support within Parliament to change this program and prevent Canadians from using it in that way. If Canadians are going to embark on any ill-advised travel, they really should do their homework, understand that the rules can change very quickly and build that as best they can into their travel plans, and if they feel there is any important uncertainty in their plans they cannot resolve, they should make the choice to stay home.

I want to talk a bit now about what is missing from this package of reforms, because there are some things that are. I have to say, and I am going to be honest, that I was a little frustrated and, in fact, outraged by some comments by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and her parliamentary secretary, who said the idea of this bill was just to deal with some urgent matters.

I put it to them that they should talk to Canadians who are suffering from cancer and are at the end of their 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits. They should go ahead and talk to people who have had COVID and it is not leaving them. Maybe these people are not in hospital or in intensive care, but they have recurring symptoms, a condition that is coming to be known as long COVID. They are not able to look for work because they go through periodic episodes of chronic fatigue and other symptoms, such as trouble breathing. It is occurring often enough that they know they are not going to be able to hold down a job, but their EI sickness benefits are done and there is no other program. Not all private insurers recognize long COVID because it is a relatively new condition and these people do not have the resources they need to be able to look after their families and themselves and maintain their financial wherewithal while dealing with a serious sickness. The answer for those people, as it was for 15 weeks, would be an extended EI sickness benefit.

I put it to members that the urgency is absolutely there. The Liberals said simple and urgent reforms. There is nothing simpler than changing the number of benefit weeks in the Employment Insurance Act. There is nothing simpler than that. All that has to be done is change “15” to “50” and it is done. One could not ask for simpler legislative reform if one tried. The idea that this is not simple is false. The idea that it is not urgent is false. The idea that it is not related to the pandemic is false. There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever to have omitted this.

The politics of the situation do not stand in the way either. Twice this very House of Commons during this Parliament called on the government to extend the EI sickness benefit from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, once by majority vote on a motion and the second time by unanimous consent, which is to say that nobody out of the 338 members elected to this House objected. If they had, that motion would not have passed. It was done twice. Once by majority and once by unanimous consent, the House called on the government to extend the EI sickness benefit to 50 weeks. Is this something the government has a principled objection to? Apparently not, because the government itself committed to extending the EI sickness benefit in its last campaign.

It did not go far enough. It did not commit to 50 weeks, but to 26 weeks. It has had ample occasions to make good on that election commitment in the context of the House of Commons' wanting it go even further than its own election commitment. The Liberals are the laggards when it comes to extending the EI sickness benefit. They are the ones who want the smallest extension, and yet they will not even extend the benefits to the amount they themselves promised, despite Canada and Canadians going through an enormously difficult time at a time when the EI sickness benefit could be an important tool to help keep sick Canadians going financially for a little longer.

We are seeing an acknowledgement of those difficult circumstances with an extension of up to 50 weeks of the regular benefit. That is the right thing to do, but it is also the right thing to do when it comes to the EI sickness benefit, and we have not had anything approaching an adequate explanation as to why the government is so dead set opposed to getting this done.

I do not know if the Liberals just want to campaign on it again: “It worked well the first time, so let's keep it around for another election commitment”. I do not know if it is in keeping with another theme I have discerned in my time negotiating with the Liberal government across the table during the pandemic, which is that the Liberals are very reticent to do anything that would be of benefit beyond the pandemic.

There are some problems with the sick-day benefit, which I will talk about shortly, and all of these stem from the fact that the government is resisting making sick days permanent. It wants a benefit that will die with the pandemic rather than have something that will go on past it as a permanent and positive change for Canadian workers. We are seeing the same thing here with the EI sick benefit, which really ought to be extended permanently. This is not my opinion but the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons, so let us not say this is somehow just a partisan issue or something like that.

Unfortunately, there are not a lot of charitable explanations that could draw. Maybe the Liberals want to keep it for an election commitment. Maybe they just do not want any good, permanent changes emerging from the pandemic. I suspect we will never get a Liberal to admit that on the record, but, fine, let them put a good reason on the record, because the research on the EI sick benefit is in, the politics are favourable to getting it done, and the circumstances make it as urgent as any of the reforms in the bill before us, and yet it continues not to be done. It is incredibly frustrating to see the government pass up yet another opportunity to make this simple and urgent change to the employment insurance regime.

Another thing that really ought to be in here as we approach the end of the tax year is a low-income CERB repayment amnesty. We know that right now the government is asking a lot of people to pay back their CERB payments who do not have the money, because they were living in poverty before the pandemic. They were told in good faith, sometimes by representatives of the federal government itself, including some members in the chamber, and sometimes by administrators at the provincial level that they should be applying for CERB. We know that happened in Manitoba in some cases with kids graduating out of care. These are people who were told by people in various positions of authority that they ought to go ahead and apply for CERB, and they did. They were supported for a time, and that money is spent. It did not get shunted off into a tax haven. It was not spent on international shares in some kind of multinational company. It was spent here in the local economy supporting people who live on the margins and face some of the most economically difficult challenges as anyone in the country does, and they do not have the money to pay it back.

Let us not kid ourselves that somehow there is a big wad of cash out there, and all the government has to do is to demand it from the poor and it is going to help the bottom line. The fact of the matter is that the money is not there, and the only thing the government is going to accomplish by insisting on getting that money back is to make it even harder for folks who are already struggling with poverty to get back on their feet. I do not see what the benefit is. I do not think there is any justice in that, and I do not think there is any financial or economic benefit to Canadians from that, frankly, and certainly not in the short term and, I would argue, not in the long term either. We are making it more difficult for people to get back on their feet and to contribute in whatever way they can to the economy, which does not benefit us and ends up costing us more in the long run. However, we do not see any mention of that here. It is a real disappointment and, again, it fails to seize upon an urgent issue as we near the end of the tax year and the deadline that so many have been told they have to meet to make those repayments they quite clearly cannot afford to make.

In the time I have left, I will talk about two more issues.

One issue is the Canada recovery sickness benefit, or the 10 sick days. I spoke a little about this and I think I made it clear that we are of the view that 10 sick days should be legislated and made a right for every Canadian worker, regardless of whether they have a collective agreement or not, regardless of whether they have a generous employer or not, regardless of whether they work in a federally or provincially regulated workplace.

Canada should be able to get to the point where every worker is entitled to 10 paid sick days, whatever the reason, whether it is COVID-19 or something else. In this time, it is imperative that people be able to call in sick to work. That is why we pushed so hard to try to get 10 sick days.

We have this program, and it has seen less uptake than was projected. Partly that is because people cannot take their sick days one day at a time. As people wake up with some symptoms and do not want to go into work for fear of infecting their colleagues, they decide that maybe they are going to take a day off work. However, not only can they not take it a day at a time: They have to miss at least two and a half days, or 50% of their normal work time in a week, in order to take the benefit. If they take that day and their test comes back rather quickly, they could be back at work before they qualify for the sick time, in which case we have not helped them at all to take time off work to protect the health of their colleagues and their community.

That means people may well make the choice. They cannot afford to have a test result come back the next day, because then they would have to go back to work and would have had a day that they did not get paid for. If they are only getting by as it is, they cannot afford to do that too many times before they find themselves in financial difficulties, so it is important that people be able to take it one day at a time.

We know that some people are making more than $100 a day, but they still need all of what they make in order to meet their bills at the end of the month. That is true even for people who are not living extravagantly. This is not a program that offers full wage replacement in the way that employers who are required by law to give sick days to their employees are expected to provide full wage replacement.

We continue to have these deficiencies in the program. We are missing an opportunity to try to address those deficiencies. We are only addressing the one, which was that it was left wide open for non-essential travellers to claim it. It is good to be fixing one problem, but it is really missing an opportunity to get to the real meat of the issue that is preventing this program from being the success we need it to be in order to protect public health and in order for it to be a proper stepping stone to those 10 days of paid sick leave that New Democrats believe every worker should be entitled to, pandemic or not.

The other thing is harder to address in legislation, but I think this is the moment to ask. If there are any legislative barriers or issues that are leading to this problem, they lie in the fact that there are many Canadians who have exhausted all of their EI regular benefits. We have been hearing about them. I have written the government about this issue, and it has come up in question period. Those are the benefits that we are extending up to 50 weeks now.

These people still have open claims that would allow them to claim, for instance, a sickness benefit or another kind of EI special benefit. They have open claims, and people cannot close those claims without losing those potential benefit weeks. They are being told by the CRA that they cannot get the Canada recovery benefit and that they should go talk to Service Canada. They go to talk to Service Canada, which says their regular benefits are exhausted, so that should allow them to be able to apply for the benefit with the CRA. These people go back to the CRA, which says their claim is still open, so they have to talk to Service Canada. Finally, people just get fed up of being bounced around and call their MP.

This is not the way to be helping people in an emergency. They need access to these benefits, and it is up to the government to sort it out. If there is a problem with the fact that the CRA does not understand that people can have exhausted their regular benefits and do not want to close a claim in case they get sick and need to access the sickness benefit, or in case they want to use other kinds of EI special benefits, this is something that government should be able to figure out on its own. It should not be up to individual Canadians who are facing a financial crisis to spend days, weeks or months running around, chasing different people and departments, getting their MP involved, trying to figure out how they can get access to what is supposed to be an emergency benefit in difficult times. Give me a break.

What we need is some political leadership, for sure. If there is some kind of legislative change that needs to be made in order to end this infuriating problem that Canadians are facing, now is the time to do it. Let us get it done. The need is urgent. Let us make it simple.

I look forward to questions and comments.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a very comprehensive overview of some of the real opportunities and challenges within the current employment insurance system and, of course, the emergency benefits with the CERB that were put in place to address some of those things.

What the member did not touch on in terms of reform of the employment insurance program is contract workers. We saw that there were mechanisms for CERB, but the EI program does not really address contract workers and people who are precariously employed, yet we have certainly found that they are in need of that kind of insurance backstop during the pandemic.

I am wondering if the member could give us any thoughts on how or if that is an aspect that EI should be looking at addressing.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for raising this long-standing problem with the employment insurance system. We can debate the reasons and virtues of this, but more and more people in the Canadian workforce, and in the global workforce more generally, are not working the kind of nine-to-five jobs of the past, and we do not have an employment insurance system that recognizes that.

Earlier, a Conservative colleague of hers was quick to try to shoot down one of the big solutions that has been put on the table, based on some misleading claims about how a guaranteed annual income might be funded and how it might be rolled out. One of the ways that people are talking about addressing this issue is moving toward some kind of guaranteed annual income system.

This would do a lot for many marginalized people, including people living with disabilities and seniors who have inadequate pension income, but it would also do a lot for Canadians who are participating, whenever they can, in a workforce that does not provide a lot of steady employment in the way that we are used to thinking of it, which is a nine-to-five, 40-hour-a-week job. That would help them take more risks. We have heard from advocates of guaranteed annual income some of the benefits to entrepreneurialism that exist when people know that, within a certain limit, they can try and fail without losing their shirt.

That is one of the directions we need to be looking in quite seriously as we move into the future, to make sure that we have an income support program that can capture everyone, so we are not continually having the kinds of debates that we have been having throughout the pandemic. These are the debates about all the different people who are falling through the cracks and who really do need that assistance, and about how we would all be better off if they got that assistance because they are going to spend that money in the local economy. That is the direction we need to be looking.

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

Madam Speaker, I often listen to New Democratic members of Parliament provide comment on how government is just not doing enough and that we need to do more, it would seem, in every aspect of society.

I suspect that some of these so-called permanent changes the member is advocating for would have been that much more difficult to pass through the House of Commons today. I would at least speculate that is a possibility. Maybe the member could provide some comment in regard to that.

We have had NDP administration for the Province of Manitoba, as the member knows, for 15 or more years in the last 20 or so years. A lot of the changes that the member is advocating for need to be put in place provincially to cover a larger percentage of the workforce. Why have the provincial governments of the past 20 years in Manitoba let down our workers to the degree they have?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a good question. No government is perfect, of course. I have long maintained that the NDP governments in Manitoba, under Doer and then under Selinger, ought to have passed anti-scab legislation. It was a disappointment to me that they did not, and I look forward to a future NDP government in Manitoba doing that. This is just one example. Likewise, I would like to see us get paid sick days there.

However, I do think it is better when we can get there as a country. Let us not pretend that Canadian provinces do not compete for investment. It would be better if we were to do this all together.

There has been a moment in the pandemic where, with appropriate federal leadership, we could have tried to move to a position where provinces were all instituting 10 legislated sick days at a time. This would have prevented the kind of interprovincial competition that too often gets in the way of progress for workers in any one particular jurisdiction. Therefore, it was a real disappointment for me to see the federal government take a pass on that.

In respect to other measures that would have made it more difficult for this law to pass quickly, I disagree. In fact, a majority of the House of Commons, and then a unanimous House of Commons, called for a 50-week EI sickness benefit. Therefore, there is no reason at all to think that changing the number in the legislation, from 15 to 50, would have caused one iota of delay. It is a very simple change. It has been called for by the House unanimously, and I cannot fathom why it is not in here.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona outlined a lot of the important things we should have learned during the pandemic, that we should be looking ahead to the future, not just within the pandemic. He talked about the government not putting the 50-week period for EI sickness benefits in the legislation and bringing forward a paid sick leave benefit that was very difficult to use and not useful. When we are in a pandemic, we want people who are sick to stay home, not risk their lives and the lives of others.

Could the member expand on that? Does he have some idea on why the the government has gone against the will of the House of Commons, why it has gone against its own campaign promises and not brought in these measures?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to talk a bit about the folks I have heard from across the country who are experiencing long-term symptoms of COVID. This is not unique to Canada. It is happening all over the world. People who appear to have recovered from their COVID infection then get different kinds of recurring symptoms. They can be quite debilitating. They are not very predictable. They get in the way of people holding down a job.

In some other countries, they are starting to begin work by assembling professionals together in clinics to try to get a better handle on this condition and understand better how it works, but also to legitimize the condition so it can be recognized by insurance companies, for example, which have also been resisting recognition of this.

The EI sick benefit right now is the best way to accommodate these folks and ensure their new, novel and debilitating condition does not become the cause of their financial ruin. I am mystified as to why that is not in here, given the widespread political support that measure already enjoys in the House of Commons.