Bill C-30 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures by
(a) providing relieving measures in connection with COVID-19 in respect of the use by an employee of an employer-provided automobile for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years;
(b) limiting the benefit of the employee stock option deduction for employees of certain employers;
(c) providing an adjustment for payments or repayments of government assistance in determining capital cost allowance for certain zero-emission vehicles;
(d) expanding the scope of the foreign affiliate dumping rules to further their objectives;
(e) providing change in use rules for multi-unit residential properties;
(f) establishing rules for advanced life deferred annuities;
(g) providing for an option to deduct repaid emergency benefit amounts in the year of benefit receipt and clarifying the tax treatment of non-resident beneficiaries;
(h) removing the time limitation for a registered disability savings plan to remain registered after the cessation of a beneficiary’s eligibility for the disability tax credit and modifying grant and bond repayment obligations;
(i) increasing the basic personal amount for certain taxpayers;
(j) providing a temporary special reading of certain rules relating to the child care expense deduction and the disability supports deduction for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years;
(k) providing flow-through share issuers with temporary additional time to incur eligible expenses to be renounced to investors under their flow-through share agreements;
(l) applying the short taxation year rule to the accelerated investment incentive for resource expenditures;
(m) introducing the Canada Recovery Hiring Program refundable tax credit to support the post-pandemic recovery;
(n) amending the employee life and health trust rules to allow for the conversion of health and welfare trusts to employee life and health trusts;
(o) expanding access to the Canada Workers Benefit by revising the applicable eligibility thresholds for the 2021 and subsequent taxation years;
(p) amending the income tax measures providing support for Canadian journalism;
(q) clarifying the definition of shared-custody parent for the purposes of the Canada Child Benefit;
(r) revising the eligibility criteria, as well as the level of subsidization, under the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS), extending the CEWS and the CERS until September 25, 2021, providing authority to enable the extension of these subsidies until November 30, 2021, and ensuring that the level of CEWS benefits for furloughed employees continues to align with the benefits provided through the Employment Insurance Act until August 28, 2021;
(s) preventing the use by mutual fund trusts of a method of allocating capital gains or income to their redeeming unitholders where the use of that method inappropriately defers tax or converts ordinary income into capital gains;
(t) extending the income tax deferral available for certain patronage dividends paid in shares by an agricultural cooperative corporation to payments made before 2026;
(u) limiting transfers of pensionable service into individual pension plans;
(v) establishing rules for variable payment life annuities;
(w) preventing listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code from qualifying as registered charities and providing for the suspension or revocation of a charity’s registration where it makes false statements for the purpose of maintaining registration;
(x) ensuring the appropriate interaction of transfer pricing rules and other rules in the Income Tax Act;
(y) preventing non-resident taxpayers from avoiding Canadian dividend withholding tax on compensation payments made under cross-border securities lending arrangements with respect to Canadian shares;
(z) allowing for the electronic delivery of requirements for information to banks and credit unions;
(aa) improving existing rules meant to prevent taxpayers from using derivative transactions to convert ordinary income into capital gains;
(bb) extending to a wider array of eligible automotive equipment and vehicles the 100% capital cost allowance write-off for business investments in certain zero-emission vehicles;
(cc) ensuring that the accelerated investment incentive for depreciable property applies properly in particular circumstances; and
(dd) providing rules for contributions to a specified multi-employer plan for older members.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the Income Tax Regulations and the Canada Disability Savings Regulations.
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) temporarily relieving supplies of certain face masks and face shields from the GST/HST;
(b) ensuring that non-resident vendors supplying digital products or services (including traditional services) to consumers in Canada be required to register for the GST/HST and to collect and remit the tax on their taxable supplies to consumers in Canada;
(c) requiring distribution platform operators and non-resident vendors to register under the normal GST/HST rules and to collect and remit the GST/HST in respect of certain supplies of goods shipped from a fulfillment warehouse or another place in Canada;
(d) applying the GST/HST on all supplies of short-term accommodation in Canada facilitated through a digital platform;
(e) expanding the eligibility for the GST rebate for new housing;
(f) expanding the definition of freight transportation service for the purposes of the GST/HST;
(g) extending the application of the drop-shipment rules for the purposes of the GST/HST;
(h) treating virtual currency as a financial instrument for the purposes of the GST/HST; and
(i) clarifying the GST/HST holding corporation rules and expanding those rules to holding partnerships and trusts.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures by increasing excise duty rates on tobacco products by $4.‍00 per carton of 200 cigarettes along with corresponding increases to the excise duty rates on other tobacco products.
Part 4 enacts an Act and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify the steps that an assessor must follow when they review a determination of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with respect to the payment of compensation to certain persons;
(b) clarify that the determination of whether or not persons are entitled to compensation is to be made in accordance with the regulations;
(c) prevent a person from taking certain actions in relation to certain agreements between the person and a federal member institution by reason only of a monetary default by that institution in the performance of obligations under those agreements if the default occurs in the period between the making of an order directing the conversion of that institution’s shares or liabilities and the occurrence of the conversion;
(d) require certain federal member institutions to ensure that certain provisions of that Act — or provisions that have substantially the same effect as those provisions — apply to certain eligible financial contracts, including those contracts that are subject to the laws of a foreign state;
(e) exempt eligible financial contracts between a federal member institution and certain entities, including Her Majesty in right of Canada, from a provision of that Act that prevents certain actions from being taken in relation to those contracts; and
(f) extend periods applicable to certain restructuring transactions for financial institutions.
It also amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to
(a) specify the steps that an assessor must follow when they review a determination of the Bank of Canada with respect to the payment of compensation to certain persons or entities; and
(b) clarify that systems or arrangements for the exchange of payment messages for the purpose of clearing or settlement of payment obligations may be overseen by the Bank of Canada as clearing and settlement systems.
Finally, it amends not-in-force provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, enacted by the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, so that, under certain circumstances, an error or omission that results in a failure to meet a requirement of the schedule to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act will not prevent a deposit from being considered a separate deposit.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Bank of Canada Act to authorize the Bank of Canada to publish certain information about unclaimed amounts.
It also amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 with respect to the transfer of pension plan assets relating to the pension benefit credit of any person who cannot be located to, among other things,
(a) limit the circumstances in which such assets may be transferred and specify conditions for the transfer; and
(b) specify the effects of a transfer on any claims that may be made in respect of those assets.
Finally, it amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Bank Act to
(a) include amounts that are not in Canadian currency in the unclaimed amounts regime; and
(b) impose additional requirements on financial institutions in connection with their transfers of unclaimed amounts to the Bank of Canada and communications with the owners of those amounts.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2 to exclude certain businesses from the application of a provision of the Bank Act that it enacts, which allows certain agreements that have been entered into with banks to be cancelled.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business to June 30, 2025.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to
(a) provide that the entities referred to in that Act are no longer required to disclose to the principal agency or body that supervises or regulates them the fact that they do not have in their possession or control any property of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation made under that Act; and
(b) change the frequency with which those entities are required to disclose to the principal agency or body that supervises or regulates them the fact that they have such property in their possession or control from once a month to once every three months.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to
(a) extend the application of Part 1 of that Act to include persons and entities engaged in the business of transporting currency or certain other financial instruments;
(b) provide that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre make assessments to be paid by persons or entities to which Part 1 applies, based on the amount of certain expenses incurred by the Centre, and to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting those assessments;
(c) amend the definitions of designated information to include certain information associated with virtual currency transactions and widely held or publicly traded trusts that the Centre can disclose to law enforcement or other governmental bodies;
(d) change the maximum penalties for summary conviction offences;
(e) expand the list of persons or entities that are not eligible for registration with the Centre; and
(f) make other technical amendments.
Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the Retail Payment Activities Act, which establishes an oversight framework for retail payment activities. Among other things, that Act requires certain payment service providers to identify and mitigate operational risks, safeguard end-user funds and register with the Bank of Canada. That Act also provides the Minister of Finance with powers to address risks related to national security that could be posed by payment service providers. This Division also makes related amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Payment Card Networks Act.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to establish new requirements and grant new regulation-making powers to the Governor in Council with respect to negotiated contribution plans.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to allow First Nations that are borrowing members of the First Nations Finance Authority to assign their rights to certain revenues payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, for the purpose of securing financing for that Authority’s borrowing members.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount of a fiscal stabilization payment that may be made to a province and to make technical changes to the calculation of fiscal stabilization payments.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 12 of Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to Canada’s COVID-19 immunization plan.
Division 13 of Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to infrastructure and amends the heading of Part 9 of the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 authorizes amounts to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to a maximum total amount of $3,056,491,000, for annual payments to Newfoundland and Labrador in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Hibernia Dividend Backed Annuity Agreement.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make an additional fiscal equalization offset payment to Nova Scotia for the 2020–2021 fiscal year and to extend that Minister’s authority to make additional fiscal equalization offset payments to Nova Scotia until March 31, 2023.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to provide that decisions made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on whether or not to allocate funding to expand access to telecommunications services in underserved areas are not subject to review under section 12 or 62 of that Act but are subject to review by the Commission on its own initiative. It also amends that Act to provide for the exchange of information within the federal government and with provincial governments for the purpose of coordinating financial support for access to telecommunications services in underserved areas.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that lines of credit are loans;
(b) set a limit on the liability of the Minister of Small Business and Tourism in respect of each lender for lines of credit;
(c) remove the restriction excluding not-for-profit businesses, charitable businesses and businesses having as their principal object the furtherance of a religious purpose as eligible borrowers;
(d) increase the maximum amount of all loans that may be made in relation to a borrower under that Act; and
(e) provide that lesser maximum loan amounts may be prescribed by regulation for loans other than lines of credit, lines of credit and prescribed classes of loans.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to change certain rules respecting the correction of declarations made under section 32.‍2 of that Act, the payment of interest due to Her Majesty and securities required under that Act, and to define the expression “sold for export to Canada” for the purposes of Part III of that Act.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act to require the concurrence of the Minister of Finance when the Minister designated for the purposes of section 16 of that Act appoints panellists and committee members and proposes the names of individuals for rosters under Chapter 10 of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends Part 5 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to make certain reforms to the Social Security Tribunal, including
(a) changing the criteria for granting leave to appeal and introducing a de novo model for appeals of decisions of the Income Security Section at the Appeal Division;
(b) giving the Governor in Council the authority to prescribe the circumstances in which hearings may be held in private; and
(c) giving the Chairperson of the Social Security Tribunal the authority to make rules of procedure governing appeals.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the definition of “previous contractor” in Part I of the Canada Labour Code in order to extend equal remuneration protection to employees who are covered by a collective agreement and who work for an employer that
(a) provides services at an airport to another employer in the air transportation industry; or
(b) provides services to another employer in another industry and at other locations that may be prescribed by regulation.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends Part III of the Canada Labour Code to establish a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour and to provide that if the minimum wage of a province or territory is higher than the federal minimum wage, the employer is to pay a minimum wage that is not less than that higher minimum wage. It also provides that, except in certain circumstances, the federal minimum wage per hour is to be adjusted upwards annually on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for Canada.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the provisions of the Canada Labour Code respecting leave related to the death or disappearance of a child in cases in which it is probable that the child died or disappeared as a result of a crime, in order to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum length of leave for a parent of a child who has disappeared from 52 weeks to 104 weeks;
(b) extend eligibility to parents of children who are 18 years of age or older but under 25 years of age; and
(c) limit the exception that applies in the case of a parent of a child who has died as a result of a crime if it is probable that the child was a party to the crime so that the exception applies only with respect to a child who is 14 years of age or older.
Division 24 of Part 4 authorizes the Minister of Employment and Social Development to make a one-time payment to Quebec for the purpose of offsetting some of the costs of aligning the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan with temporary measures set out in Part VIII.‍5 of the Employment Insurance Act.
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to provide that, if the Canadian Judicial Council recommends that a judge be removed from judicial office, the time counted towards the judge’s pension entitlements will be frozen and their pension contributions will be suspended, as of the day on which the recommendation is made. If the recommendation is rejected, the judge’s pension contributions will resume, the time counted towards their pension entitlement will include the suspension period and the judge will be required to make all the contributions that would have been required had the contributions never been suspended.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act to increase the number of judges for the Federal Court of Appeal by one and the number of judges for the Tax Court of Canada by two. It also amends the Judges Act to authorize the salary for the new Associate Chief Justice for the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and the salaries for the following new judges: five judges for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, two judges for the Supreme Court of British Columbia and two judges for the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to provide the National Research Council of Canada with the authority to engage in the production of “drugs” or “devices”, as those terms are defined in the Food and Drugs Act, for the purpose of protecting or improving public health. It also amends that Act to provide authority for the incorporation of corporations and the acquisition of shares in corporations.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act in relation to the collection and use of Social Insurance Numbers by the Minister of Labour.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on a guaranteed student loan.
It also amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on a student loan.
Finally, it amends the Apprentice Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on an apprentice loan.
Division 30 of Part 4 confirms the validity of certain regulations in relation to the cancellation or postponement of certain First Nations elections.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the Old Age Security pension payable to individuals aged 75 and over by 10%. It also provides that any amount payable in relation to a program to provide a one-time payment of $500 to pensioners who are 75 years of age or older may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Public Service Employment Act to, among other things,
(a) require that the establishment and review of qualification standards and the use of assessment methods in respect of appointments include an evaluation of whether there are biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group;
(b) provide that audits and investigations may include the determination of whether there are biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group; and
(c) give permanent residents the same preference as Canadian citizens in external advertised appointment processes.
Division 33 of Part 4 authorizes the making of payments to the provinces for early learning and child care for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2021.
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the maximum number of two-week periods in respect of which a Canada recovery benefit is payable is 25;
(b) reduce the amount of a Canada recovery benefit for a week to $300 in certain circumstances;
(c) provide that certain persons who were paid benefits under the Employment Insurance Act are eligible to be paid a Canada recovery benefit in certain circumstances;
(d) provide that the maximum number of weeks in respect of which a Canada recovery caregiving benefit is payable is 42; and
(e) provide that the Governor in Council may, by regulation, on the recommendation of the Minister of Employment and Social Development and the Minister of Finance, amend certain provisions of that Act to replace the date of September 25, 2021 by a date not later than November 20, 2021.
It also amends the Canada Labour Code to provide that the maximum number of weeks of leave for COVID-19 related caregiving responsibilities is 42.
Finally, it repeals provisions of the Canada Recovery Benefits Regulations and the Canada Labour Standards Regulations.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) facilitate access to unemployment benefits for a period of one year by
(i) reducing the number of hours of insurable employment required to qualify for unemployment benefits to a national threshold of 420 hours,
(ii) reducing the amount of earnings from self-employment that a self-employed person is required to have to be eligible to access special unemployment benefits,
(iii) providing that only a claimant’s most recent separation from employment will be considered in determining whether they qualify for unemployment benefits,
(iv) ensuring that earnings paid to a person because of the complete severance of their relationship with their former employer do not extend the person’s benefit period, and
(v) providing for an increase in the maximum number of weeks for which regular unemployment benefits may be paid to a seasonal worker if certain conditions are met; and
(b) extend the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine from 15 to 26.
It also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, extend to 27 the maximum number of weeks to which an employee is entitled for a medical leave of absence from employment.
It also amends the Employment Insurance Regulations to, among other things, ensure that, for a period of one year, earnings paid to a person because of the complete severance of their relationship with their former employer do not extend the person’s benefit period or delay payment of benefits to the person.
Finally, it amends the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations to, among other things, reduce, for a period of one year, the amount of earnings that a fisher is required to have to qualify for unemployment benefits.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide that the offences related to the prohibition on making or publishing certain false statements with the intention of affecting the results of an election require that the person or the entity making or publishing the statement knows that the statement in question is false.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑32, on the 2022 fall economic statement. Unfortunately, this bill seems more impressive in form than in substance. Bill C‑32 contains maybe 25 various tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. It may seem like a lot at first glance, but these are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are just minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis, while others were already announced in the spring budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June, Bill C‑19. In cooking we call that leftovers.

Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, Bill C‑32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. This is a completely missed opportunity for the federal government. This bill will not exactly go down in history and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise either.

However, it does not contain anything “harmful” enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The government often tends to bury harmful measures in its omnibus budget implementation bills, hoping they will go unnoticed, but that is not the case here. The bill contains no surprises, either good or bad.

As my colleagues can see, I am trying very hard to show some good faith. Bill C‑32 contains some worthwhile measures, but they were already announced in the last budget. I will go over them briefly.

An anti-flipping tax has been implemented to limit real estate speculation. That is a good thing. A multi-generational home renovation tax credit has also been created for those who are renovating their home to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015, as have many seniors' groups that have contacted me many times about this issue. I commend the government for introducing it.

There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. It is hard to be against apple pie. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive an unconditional transfer equivalent to the amount Quebeckers would have received had they participated in the federal program.

In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. It is just one drop in the bucket of subsidies, but it is a start. A tax measure is being implemented to promote mining development in the area of the critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. In addition, assistance can be provided to a particular government. That is interesting. A total of $7 billion to $14 billion will be available for all foreign countries, when previously, it was $2.5 billion to $5 billion. While we are still far from the United Nations goal of 0.07% of gross GDP, the government is enhancing Canada's international aid, something the Bloc has been calling for for some time. As the status of women critic, I am regularly reminded that Canada can and must do more and better to safeguard the health of women and girls internationally.

Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It puts forward a few measures and does some legislative housekeeping that was necessary under the circumstances.

As such, I will reiterate, half-heartedly, what other Bloc members have said: We will vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though the economic statement was disappointing. We take issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 115 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people and no new solutions despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. The government seems to think everything will work out with an “abracadabra” and a wave of its magic wand.

Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget, even though the Bloc Québécois did ask the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people.

For the rest of my speech, I will therefore focus on the lack of increased health transfers, the lack of adequate support for people aged 65 and over, and the lack of much-needed genuine reform to EI, which, I should note, is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. Sadly, the government dismissed our three requests, even though they made perfect sense. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.

First, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached breaking point, but the federal government is not acting. It clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front in order to convince them to water down their funding demand. It is the old tactic of divide and conquer.

I want to remind my colleagues that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, during our study on the mental health of women and girls, the ministers of Women and Gender Equality and of Mental Health acknowledged that the national action plan concept, which seeks to impose national standards, was slowing down the process. Meanwhile, the women and girls who are suffering are being held hostage. The government's feminist posturing must end.

Second, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, yet the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age.

Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. We cannot say that the government is treating seniors with dignity.

There is also the increase to old age security, which should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.

Not a day goes by that I do not receive a message from citizens about this. This morning, I again received comments from important seniors' groups such as AQDR and FADOQ, and they can be summarized in one word: disappointment. I do not even want to talk about the brilliant decision-makers who want to delay the pension process for 10% of seniors.

Third, let us remind the government that employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. While more and more analysts fear the possibility of a recession in 2023, the Canadian government seems to be backtracking on the comprehensive employment insurance reform that they promised last summer.

Essentially, the system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. That is significant, it is a majority, it is 60%. Seven years after the government promised reform, time is running out. We must avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits.

During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost a lot more and are much less effective. Above all, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims. In fact, the government is forecasting a surplus of $25 billion in the employment insurance fund by 2028, money that will go to the consolidated fund rather than improve the system's coverage. As for the 26 weeks of sick leave, the measure was in Bill C‑30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago, even before the last elections. All that is missing is the government decree to implement it, but those who are sick are still waiting.

One last important thing: Last weekend, I attended the Musicophonie benefit concert for a foundation in our area, the Fondation Louis-Philippe Janvier, which helps young adults suffering from cancer. I was told that the organization does indeed have to make up for the government's lack of financial support. That adds to the unimaginable stress on those who are sick, who should instead be focusing on healing with dignity. Even 26 weeks is inhumane. A person cannot recover properly in that time frame.

In closing, the government is acknowledging the rising cost of living without doing anything about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves.

As a final point, I want to talk about supply chains. We learned how fragile they are during the pandemic. Last spring's budget document mentioned the problem 71 times. The budget update mentioned it another 45 times. Neither one includes any measures to tackle the problem, leaving business owners in limbo. The new Liberal-Conservative finance minister missed the opportunity to send a clear message of leadership and instead raised fears about potential austerity. The government is rehashing past measures, implementing what it already announced in the April budget, but there is no indication that it has a clear sense of direction, leaving the people who really need it out in the cold.

For those who lose their jobs, we need EI reform. For those who are sick, we need to increase health transfers. For our seniors, we need to give them more money so they can age with dignity.

Employment Insurance Act

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his bill seeking to make changes to EI.

I am really happy to be speaking to this bill today, and I have enjoyed the debate because my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît, Windsor West and Elgin—Middlesex—London have brought forward a lot of really good points. I think that speaks to the bill, that we have a lot of people speaking about the need for employment insurance reform and that members are bringing forward various examples.

What I would like to speak to, though, is what we have been doing in employment insurance reform and then speak to what I have heard today in debate.

On June 29, 2021, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, contained the provisions to amend the EI sickness benefit to bring it from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. It received royal assent back in June of last year and will go into effect this summer, when we will move from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We did this because we recognized that the need for increased weeks of employment insurance is sometimes necessary for those who are sick.

Last summer, the minister joined the commissioners of the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission to launch the first phase of a two-year consultation on the future of the EI program. To reach as many Canadians as possible, the minister asked her department to launch a consultation portal, which included an online survey, where all interested Canadians could share their views. The survey was open from August 6 to November 19 last year and drew more than 1,900 responses. Approximately 60 written submissions came from a cross-section of labour, employer and other groups. The minister personally attended many of the 10 national and 11 regional round tables to hear feedback on how the EI program can better serve Canadians. Input was received from over 200 stakeholders across the country, including employer and employee organizations, unions, academics, self-employed worker and gig worker associations, parents and family associations and health organizations, to name a few.

The overarching goal is to bring forward a vision for a new and modern El system that is simpler and more responsive to the needs of workers and employers. The first round of the consultations focused on key priorities related to improving access to El, including how to address the temporary emergency measures that will expire this fall. We are also examining whether El meets the evolving and diverse needs of Canadian families. As we have heard today in some of the debate, it seems there are some areas that we still need to look at.

For example, how do we make maternity and parental benefits more flexible and more inclusive for adoptive parents? There are differing views, obviously, and I know that the minister has found unanimous commitment on the part of both employer and employee representatives to develop a modern El program that is resilient, accessible, adequate and financially sustainable. The government is planning a second phase of round table consultations by summer.

Aside from the information, advice and recommendations from the round tables and online consultation, there are several other reviews, evaluations and reports available. In particular, I want to highlight the excellent work done in 2021 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which included 20 recommendations on modernizing the El program.

As we have heard, the El program has been a crucial part of Canada's social safety net since 1940. As we also heard today, we obviously need to get this right. My colleagues talked a little about severe illnesses, for instance, the case of cancer. We never want someone to feel like they have to go back to work if they are ill.

When someone has cancer, we want them to focus on fighting the disease and getting better. We do not want them worrying about paying their rent or buying groceries, or what they are going to do if they do not have insurance.

I was told about some such cases in my riding, and that included friends of mine. I have a friend who is in the restaurant business and he had prostate cancer when he was 40 years old.

He did not have private insurance. He came to speak to us and was very frank. Instead of focusing on his treatments, he worried about losing his home and not being able to take care of his children. He spoke about what he called the business of cancer, something we never really think about. We think about the person receiving treatment, about them winning the fight against cancer, but we do not think about the human side and the financial aspects of this fight, or of its impact on the family.

Today, I listened to my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît, Windsor West and Elgin—Middlesex—London, who talked about similar cases. Some people need more than 15 weeks, others more than 26 weeks. That is why we held consultations.

When we debate private members' bills, I always listen to the various positions and points being raised. We had a really good debate this morning, and I want to again commend my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his Bill C‑215.

I think, when we are debating legislation, what is really important is to listen to all of our colleagues across the way. This was a really good debate where examples clearly demonstrated that 26 weeks may not be enough and we might need more.

I know that a previous piece of legislation, very similar to this one, did require royal recommendation. I believe, in this case, it will require that as well. I believe this piece of legislation has the support of the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc at the moment. I do not know who on my side is supporting it because it is a private member's bill. I think members brought forward very interesting arguments as to why we need to take a look at this and see if 26 weeks is sufficient.

I have not made up my mind, and I am sure there are people behind me or in the lobby who are saying that I am at it again, but I have not made up my mind on whether I will support this bill at second reading to go to committee. I think some interesting arguments have definitely been presented today.

The bill will likely need to address specific cases, such as cancer or severe illness, that require more weeks of benefits for those who need them. I know that not all Canadians have access to private or employer-provided insurance.

I think that is something that must—

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

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my speeches by saying that I am pleased to participate in the debate on a bill.

However, today, I have to say that I am really disappointed to be here once again debating a bill that, as we know, affects sick workers who need more than 15 weeks of special employment insurance sickness benefits.

During the previous Parliament, I had the privilege of introducing a bill that is similar to that of my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. We are both concerned about people who worked and contributed their whole life and who did not choose to get sick, to get cancer, for example. They deserve more than 15 weeks of support.

It has been very well documented that, today, workers often need more than 15 weeks to recover. They need to fight the illness, receive treatment, heal and regain their strength before they can return to work. No one chooses to be sick.

As I was saying, I am always happy to debate, but I am incredibly disappointed today. I would even say that I am angry, because we are wasting time. As far back as at least 2011, all parties, including the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Liberal Party when it was in opposition, agreed that it was time to amend the Employment Insurance Act and that these changes were needed to support workers through an illness.

I am disappointed because, as members know, I introduced Bill C‑265 in the previous Parliament, and this bill was passed at second reading. We worked on it in committee, which was an amazing experience for me. It was the first time that I had the opportunity to debate with parliamentarians from all parties and to hear witnesses speak to Bill C‑265. Today we are debating Bill C‑215, which is practically the same bill. I am sharing this story with my colleagues because committee stage is the right place and the most appropriate place to have in-depth debate and improve the bill.

We can all agree that Bill C‑215 is not a big bill. It seeks to amend just one section of the Employment Insurance Act. We are asking that benefits be extended from 15 weeks to 52 weeks. During the last Parliament, when we debated in committee, we heard from all sorts of witnesses. Quite honestly, I would say that we did not see any significant resistance to extending benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

What really caught my attention was the study from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. According to that study, we collectively have the means to provide the most vulnerable workers the support they need to return to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated and documented the fact that a small increase in contributions, which does not amount to much in the lives of every employer, would financially help thousands of sick workers.

We all know someone in our lives who has gone through the process of recovering or fighting cancer. We know that some cancers can be healed in 15 weeks. However, we also know that if a person has the misfortune of being diagnosed with certain other cancers like colon cancer or rectal cancer, they will need 30 to 37 weeks of financial support to get through it. That is scientifically documented. Advanced technology and science are making it possible for more and more people with cancer to recover, but they still need to take the time to go through the treatment.

When it comes to honest workers who are among the most vulnerable, those who do not have group insurance or the necessary support from their employer, it is rather disgraceful that a rich country like ours is abandoning them.

I often joke that with a quick stroke of the pen, the government could decide, by ministerial order, to extend benefits from 15 weeks to 50 or 52.

It would be humane and compassionate of the government to say, after listening to the witnesses and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that since bills have been introduced year after year for 10 years, enough is enough. It should quickly pass Bill C-215 or give it a royal recommendation in order to reassure the sick workers who are watching the debate today and who do not understand what is happening.

Personally, I wonder why the government is not taking action on this file. Members will recall that, last year, we passed Bill C-30, which contained a provision that would extend benefits from 15 weeks to 26 in 2022. Why wait so long? What is the justification?

Bill C‑30 received royal assent on June 29, 2021, which was almost a year ago, but I am still trying to convince my colleagues that this failure to move forward makes no sense. Mainly, I am trying to convince my colleagues across the way, because they are the ones who are not on board. I know the Liberal benches over there are full of compassionate MPs who care about sick people, so why on earth is cabinet so dead set against it?

I have my theories, but I wonder which lobby group has been quietly telling cabinet to put it off for as long as possible. Maybe insurance companies, maybe employers? I have no idea, but I do want to point out that employers said they were not opposed to extending the special EI benefit period.

That leaves me wondering who is behind this, because I just cannot understand why I am still here on June 13 giving a speech about a bill to protect and support our most vulnerable workers.

I want to thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for not giving up and for reintroducing his bill, which will help put the spotlight on the government benches to make it clear to the Liberals that this is not a partisan issue. This bill is about humanity, compassion and understanding of the status of a worker who is seriously ill. Perhaps one day we will know who is preventing the government from moving forward more quickly.

It is supposed to come into force in the summer of 2022. According to my assistant, Charles, Quebec strawberries are in season, which means summer is here. If summer is here, why has the government not announced that it is giving royal recommendation to Bill C-215, so that we can give all our vulnerable and seriously ill workers all the support they need to fight their illness, recover and get back to work?

I appeal to the compassion and humanity of the Liberal members opposite.

Economic and Fiscal Update 2021

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

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, there was an election at the end of the summer.

There was certainly no need for that election.

We wondered why the election was called, what purpose it served, what were the priorities, what should be asked and what should be changed. Today, we are right back where we started: The Liberals have a minority government. Again, the people did not have enough confidence in the Liberals to give them a majority. In Quebec, we kept the same breakdown and the same number of seats for each party.

Instead of calling a pointless election, we could have carried on working and sitting. We could have followed through on support measures. We could have followed through on everything that was in the previous budget, the one tabled in April 2021. We could not do any of that because of the election. Then we were subjected to what I would call an insipid throne speech. What was the next logical step? What vision did the throne speech have to offer? In the wake of a so-called necessary election, there was nothing new under the sun.

Today we got the economic and fiscal update. We were expecting it because it was promised in the last budget. We were told there would be one in the fall. Quite frankly, the economic and fiscal update was a bit lightweight compared to what we are used to, both in the number of pages and the measures and vision within it. I suppose that was to be expected given the unnecessary election and the vacuous throne speech.

Two months after the election the Liberals called, the government has run out of steam. It is exhausted. It has no ideas, no new proposals. This is ridiculous, unprecedented and discouraging.

Five days ago, all the provinces got together for the Council of the Federation. United, they asked Ottawa to deal with the health care problem. They want a meeting. It is urgent; it is a priority. This is not a frivolous ask, anything but. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analyses remind us year after year, when it comes to spending and the budget, the problem is with the provinces. That is true. Why is it true? The reason is that Ottawa has not been paying its fair share for a long time. Ottawa is not spending enough money on health care.

The Conference Board of Canada, the Council of the Federation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and all the provinces are saying that, the way things are going, the provinces are heading towards a tax wall, while Ottawa's fiscal situation will be exceptional, despite the extraordinary expenses incurred during the pandemic. Health care spending is increasing, and Ottawa's transfers are not keeping pace.

The provinces repeated all of this five days ago. What was Ottawa's response? The government is basically telling them to take a hike. Why do I say that? It is because, based on the projected numbers and budgets, there is no increase relative to what is being requested. Until 2027, there is no increase. The government is on the warpath, and the provinces are being challenged. They need health care funding, but they will get nothing.

The document is about 50 pages long, not including the annexes. Two or three pages are devoted to the speech, and about two and a half pages are used to explain why the provinces will not get a penny more for health care. The Liberal logic is that extraordinary spending was needed during the pandemic, so they feel they have done enough. Since the provinces have benefited, they will not get a penny for health care until 2027. The government's logic is to say that it paid the wage subsidy and indirectly helped the provinces because the people who received the wage subsidy pay taxes to the province. I want to believe that this was necessary and important spending, but it does nothing to address the fundamental problem. The federal government needs to pay its fair share of health care spending. Nothing has been resolved, and war has been declared on the provinces. This is unacceptable and we strongly condemn it.

Furthermore, there are few measures in the update, although there are some that we applaud, in particular the measures for working seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

My colleague and I have been raising this issue since the summer. We wrote to our respective counterparts on the government side during and after the election and as recently as this week. The government said that it would solve the problem. We proposed solutions, such as including the CERB as employment income when calculating the GIS, or recalculating the amount for the current year for those who were not supposed to receive the CERB or who received too much money and now have to pay it back. To resolve this situation, Service Canada and the CRA really should sit down together and talk.

The government listened to our suggestions and responded that technical considerations ruled them out. In the economic update, the proposed solution is altogether different from what we suggested. We are disappointed because we had some good solutions. That said, we do not have the inside track, and since we do not have access to the inner workings of government, we may be unaware of certain considerations because we do not know what they are. For example, there may be some software that cannot process this information, even though it seems quite straightforward.

Throughout the pandemic, the government responded in the same way to all the measures we suggested. That said, the government is nonetheless proposing a solution, which is a payment to make up for the loss of income, as seniors will no longer receive the CERB after one year. It is a big, rather odd band-aid approach to solving the problem, but it might work. The stumbling block here is the time frame.

As my colleague from Shefford knows, seniors in these situations are facing serious challenges. We hear horror stories in our ridings. Some seniors are having to leave their homes, sell their furniture and move. They sometimes have to stop taking medications and go to the hospital, where their medications are covered. They cannot afford medication because of the drop in their income. These are actual, real-life situations.

The government has proposed to solve the problem by sending them a payment, but not until next May. This situation has been going on since the summer, so that would mean that seniors will have been struggling with this issue for nearly a year. What will happen to them? We are very concerned about this. We will certainly do everything we can to get this payment out quicker, because there is a serious need. This wait is neither reasonable nor acceptable.

We also spoke out about the fact that the government created two classes of seniors, which is unacceptable. Seniors do not like it. We are calling on the government to fix this by increasing old age security by $110 a month for all seniors. It is a simple, concrete and effective measure that would support seniors whose income is not adjusted to inflation, which is currently hitting record highs.

There was not a single word about this, however. There are still two classes of seniors, and the government did not propose a single meaningful measure to combat inflation, aside from child care, which does not exactly make up for the increase in grocery bills. We are still very worried about seniors. We appreciate that a solution was proposed to the problem with the GIS and the CERB, but it comes too late and is flawed.

As I said, the budget was pretty slim. Our in camera meeting began at 11:45, and I would say we had covered pretty much everything by 1 p.m. Members of our party had to stay in camera until 4 p.m. Thank goodness people had some good jokes to tell to help pass the time.

It was our understanding that one element of this budget, as detailed in annex 3, would be in the notice of ways and means we would be voting on. During questions and answers in camera, we were told that the notice of ways and means contained nothing else. That is what I told reporters. By the time I returned to the House, the notice of ways and means had been tabled. It was 92 pages long and included the digital services taxation issue. I was surprised to see that, and I will get back to that in a minute.

That is a good thing, but the fact remains that annex 3 of the economic update includes a measure to tax residences, dwellings, condos and homes of foreign owners who do not occupy them. This is a token measure to slow housing inflation, curb speculation and make housing a little more affordable. The idea is to create an incentive so that non-residents and non-Canadians find it less appealing to buy housing in Canada that they do not intend to occupy and therefore contribute less to the economy.

We agree with that principle. Yes, we have to be careful, and, yes, all the housing units have to help people. The Bloc Québécois has major reservations, however, because this is a property tax. I am sure the federal government's reasons for collecting a property tax are noble, but the tax would supposedly be temporary. What has history taught us? Every time the federal government pokes its nose into a new tax field, no matter how small or temporary, there is no going back. The government has kept increasing this form of taxation every time.

Among the various forms of taxation that exist, such as consumption taxes, income tax, corporate taxes and many others, there was one tax field that was not yet occupied by the federal government, to my knowledge: property tax. This is essentially managed by municipalities, under provincial legislation. For instance, Quebec gives municipalities the power to levy property taxes.

Ottawa had been staying out of it, until now. However, according to annex 3 and the budget, Ottawa wants a cut. We have serious concerns, because this leviathan always tends to have an unquenchable thirst for tax dollars. We will certainly have to revisit this. I would remind the House that the principle is interesting, but seeing Ottawa interfere in this area of taxation is really worrisome for us in the Bloc Québécois.

During the election campaign, we kept hearing the same complaint from small and medium-sized businesses day after day. My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel could attest to that more than anyone here. I am talking about the labour shortage. We thought that with an economic and fiscal update in the last week before the break, the Liberals would take the bull by the horns and come up with some solutions.

During the election campaign, the Bloc was the political party that proposed the most solutions, in particular to address productivity, to make it easier for seniors to return to part-time work by putting fiscal measures in place, and to accelerate the whole immigration process, for both temporary and permanent workers.

I could go on like this, talking about innovation and increasing productivity, and so on.

Other than that one line that says that the government is investing in immigration to try to speed up the process, everything else in the document just says that the government will propose something in the coming year. However, today was not the time for the government to say that it would come up with something in the next year; it was the time for the government to say what action it would be taking. Our party has put forward a number of solutions, and the update was an opportunity for them to be put into practice. That did not happen and we are speaking out about it. We are very disappointed.

As I was saying, this feels like a government that is exhausted and out of breath, that no longer has any ideas and proposes nothing, barely two months after it was elected. That is worrisome.

Another thing that concerns us is the issue of inflation. The document contains private sector forecasts. For this year, they say they expect a rate of 7.6%, which is higher than what we are seeing now. Prices could continue to rise if these forecasts are accurate. Now, on the bright side, the rate will come back down as early as next year and the problem will resolve itself in subsequent years, which was our read on the problem.

We would have expected the government to be more focused on this issue. We need only consider low-income households or, as I was saying earlier, seniors whose income is not indexed to the cost of living.

In rereading my notes, I see that many small measures were announced, such as an increase in the tax credit for teachers and ECEs purchasing supplies for children, up from 15% to 25%. That is fine, but the government could have brought in better measures.

There is one thing I would like to address. In April, the budget that we had been waiting for for two years was finally tabled. That budget contained a lot of announcements about money and measures, and it was thick and wide-ranging. The government pushed it through. It contained some worthwhile measures, notably those pertaining to support measures, the recovery and the green recovery. We said that we would pass it.

After the budget came Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, which incorporated a small part of the budget. We adopted that one as well, figuring that we would wait to see what came after the budget.

Nothing came after the budget, however, because the government called an election. The Liberals campaigned on measures that were in the budget that we had adopted, but today's update, which was presented after the election campaign, does not incorporate those measures. They are gone, which means they were nothing more than election promises that were only useful on the campaign trail.

The budget presented last spring contained 52 legislative measures and 100 pages of tax measures. Most of them did not end up in Bill C-30 and are not in today's update either. With this update, the government is therefore telling us that everything it announced in its last budget was only there to get the Liberals re-elected and to win a majority. It did not win that majority, however, because we wanted to keep it a minority. It is trying again with this budget.

That is the message being sent. It is very worrisome. The government seems to have no vision. I cannot get over it. This is my third election, and it is the first time that I have seen Parliament's return delayed, since we had to wait two months to come back. The ministers were late getting appointed. The Speech from the Throne was short, and there was not much in it. It was also boring, especially in the way it was read. I will refrain from being too critical about that, but it is true that the person who read it has to be held responsible.

The update is the logical next step in all this, having been tabled by a government that acts because it is forced to, but that is tired and breaking down. It needs a bit more pep.

If the government is out of ideas, the Bloc Québécois has plenty. It has energy too. The government needs to listen to us because we are going to propose some legislation to bring in.

Let us start with resolving the issue of health. Polls show that it is the top priority. We do not want conditions imposed on the provinces, we want transfers. That is what the provinces are calling for. The government needs to fix this because it is urgent, and so is the situation with seniors.

Motions in amendment

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to speak tonight to this important bill. I am going to take a bit of a different slant on this.

As members know, I was first elected in 2019, so I am a relatively new member of this House. This period of time just before the session ends for the summer is a very busy time, as I understand. This is my first experience with it. It is the first time I have gotten to see the government trying to complete its agenda, which is kind of lagging. What I have been expecting is the very best the government has to offer to get its agenda through before the House rises for the summer.

My background, really briefly, is that I come from the accounting world, and specifically the management accounting area. Efficiency was one of the things I really focused on. I worked in a manufacturing plant and I helped people figure out the easiest way to do their job so that it required the least amount of labour and we could produce the best product, most efficiently, at the best price. Essentially, it is where I learned one of my mottoes, which is “Work smarter, not harder.”

As I have watched what has gone on here in the last couple of weeks from my lens, a relatively new lens, I have witnessed the exact opposite of efficiency. It has been quite fascinating. In fact, I imagine that when our Prime Minister was on his way back from his vacation trip to Europe a couple of weeks ago, he had to stop in a quarantine hotel like all other Canadians, except that he of course stayed in a special hotel that was close to his house and was only there for a few hours—but I digress. He probably would have called his government House leader to ask how things were going and how the legislation was coming along. Unfortunately, the government House leader would have had to give him the sad news that nothing had happened, that in fact everything had stalled out because of the many mistakes made by the government. In fact, everything was in chaos, as he could see if he looked at Bill C-30 or Bill C-10 or anything else.

As we look at this bill, the government House leader has denied many times that the Liberals are going to call an election shortly, saying it is the event that just is not going to happen. However, in April, on this bill, the Liberals seemed to suddenly realize that they needed to pass something, and that is where Bill C-12 came into the picture. They needed to pass something just in case the event that is not going to happen happens.

After months of inaction on this bill, suddenly there was a big panic. Why is the government willing to ram through a flawed bill just before the summer? It is just in case that event that is not going to happen happens. Of course, the Liberals could wait until September, but here we are instead. It is the last panic time before the event that is not going to happen happens. This is hypocritical, and it is very disrespectful to our democracy.

I want to look at Bill C-12 through my new eyes. I had a front-row seat to this bill because I am on the environment committee. I have been able to see this first-hand. One of the questions I was asking myself was, “How do we have success when creating a new law?” Of course, the first step is to write a good bill. When the minister came to our committee, the first thing he said was that he was open to amendments. I am assuming he said that because he knew that the bill was not well written and that it had many flaws.

He just opened the floodgates, because there were 114 amendments that came to committee, and 17 of those came from the government itself. The bill was only 10 pages long at that point. That is over 11 amendments per page, or four per clause. That is a lot of amendments. Those numbers alone should prove that this bill was flawed.

Every morning we are led in a prayer by the Speaker, and one of the lines in that prayer is “Grant us wisdom....to make good laws....” I cannot sit back and watch this law come into force. It is a bad law. The number of amendments also showed that this was true.

The second way that we could have success when creating a new law is to get feedback. There was a lot of feedback. There were 75 briefs received by the environment committee, which is great. A lot of Canadians put in a lot of hard work to write reports and provide information to the committee. The bad news is that only eight of those briefs were received before we started our study. That was because the study was jammed in. It was rushed into committee with a very short deadline.

That means that 67 briefs were received after we did our study. It means that the work of many Canadians was ignored, and the government was happy to ignore it. It was not particularly interested in listening to the views of people who submitted the briefs. It had a plan, an idea of what it wanted to accomplish, and that is what it was going to do.

The third way we could make sure to have success in creating a new bill is to let the committee do its work. The first thing the government did was make a deal with the NDP. It did not want the committee to get bogged down in any details of actually providing useful information. It wanted to be able to ram things through.

The Liberal-NDP coalition did exactly that. It rammed this bill through the committee. Almost every single vote at the committee was marked by the Liberal-NDP coalition. The Liberals and the NDP made no bones about their coalition.

The NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley posted to his Twitter before the clause by clause started, “[T]he NDP will be proposing amendments that the government has agreed to support.... We have also jointly agreed to a number of other amendments.”

What was the practical result of this? The New Democrats and the Liberals fell silent. They did not ask questions. I am not even sure they read many of the amendments or even understood what they were. They had a plan. They just knew to vote for this and not vote for that. Therefore, it fell to the Conservatives and the Bloc MPs to scrutinize these amendments. As for me, I asked reasoned and thoughtful questions of the departmental experts as to the consequences of certain amendments, but the problem was that there were 114 amendments, as I said.

As I also mentioned, the government put forward 17 of its own amendments. That means that on 17 separate occasions, the minister messed up drafting the bill and he needed his MPs to fix it. That is like us buying a new car, driving it off the lot and just as we are leaving, the salesman says he has scheduled 17 appointments for us to come back for maintenance because the dealer messed up and there are a bunch of problems with the car. Therefore, we drive it off the lot, go back tomorrow and the dealer starts fixing it. It makes no sense.

The Liberals and the New Democrats on the committee were only interested in their amendments. They refused to engage with us on our amendments. To prove my point, there was kind of a funny example.

Subsection 7(4) of the original bill required that the minister would set national targets five years in advance. The government and NDP wanted to change that to 10 years in advance. The problem was the Greens put forward an identical amendment and because they got there first, we dealt with their amendment first.

As was the practice of the government and the NDP members, they did not want to support anyone else's amendments and certainly not the Greens'. Therefore, the Green amendment was voted on and was rejected. Next up was the government amendment that was literally identical. The chair, rightly so, ruled that it was inadmissible because we had just dealt with this at committee and we had decided not to proceed with it. That was a big problem. Everybody wanted to vote for that second one because the members actually wanted the amendment. However, I do not think they read the first one from the Greens, which was the same, and they did not realize they had just voted down, essentially, their own amendment.

In the end, after a very long discussion and a lot of time wasted, the government members finally realized that instead of saying 10 years, they could say “9 years 366 days”, which was different enough to get it passed. I found that quite humorous, that the government members were not able to accomplish this.

I have an amendment that was read tonight, and it is in a section of the bill referring to the work of the advisory body, specifically the annual report that it has to submit. My amendment would require that the minister make the annual report public and, further, that the minister publicly respond to this report. It would require the government to actually take action, which is something we all know the Liberals are quite allergic to. The Liberals tried to make an amendment on this section at committee, but theirs was sloppy and it left the legislation in very bad shape.

Essentially, the Liberal-NDP amendment added words but it did not remove redundant words, so the bill as it is written right now makes no sense in that section. It still includes a long sentence that should not be there and it starts with a partial word. It just does not make a whole lot of sense. My amendment allows that wording to make sense again.

The Green Party put forward some really good amendments. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was quite frustrated at committee. I want to quote her because it is quite telling. She said:

I have to say that this is the most dispiriting process of clause-by-clause that I've experienced in many years. Usually amendments are actually considered, people actually debate them and there is a good-faith process....

I condemn this government for what it has done: for telling people like me, who believed in good faith that there would be an actual appetite for change to improve the bill and who accepted it and prepared amendments, only to show up here and watch Liberals stay mute, the NDP stay mute and march through their amendments, passing them in force, and not listening and not caring about the possibility that other amendments might work.

What happens when there is a flawed committee process? Flawed legislation results. Bill C-12 is flawed legislation.

The Economy

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member refers to job losses in the past couple of months, she ignores the fact that after the previous wave, we actually saw more than 560,000 jobs created. When she is talking about the specific measures that are designed to help women take part in this economic rebound, I will acknowledge women have disproportionately been impacted.

That is specifically why we have made great game-changing investments in child care to allow more women to enter the workforce. It is why we made new investments to encourage women entrepreneurship to help kick-start economic growth. It is why we are going to continue to put supports in place that have undergone a gender-based analysis so we can understand the impact of our investments and how they impact women and men differently.

With respect to the hon. member, the best thing she can do, if she wants to support women's participation in this recovery, is to get out of the way and stop obstructing Bill C-30 so these supports can reach the people who need them.

Government Programs

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, the CRB is part of a comprehensive set of emergency and recovery measures to support Canadian workers. Through the CRB, Canadians can have access to up to 50 weeks of benefit.

Yes, the first 42 weeks are at $500, and the last eight weeks are at $300, but they also have access to more flexible EI benefits and access to the wage subsidy. All these other programs are in jeopardy if this House does not pass Bill C-30. That is what is at stake. Our entire recovery infrastructure is at stake if we do not get together and support Bill C-30.

Employment Insurance

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this pandemic, that is exactly the kind of worker we have been trying to help, whether it be through the CERB or through the CRB.

Bill C-30 has measures in it that will extend the CRB, that will help out businesses and that will help out employers who want to retain their employees. What we can do, as a Parliament, for this country, is support Bill C-30, get money to workers and get money to business so that we can all get through this pandemic.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, shame on the member for the interruption.

I have debated this issue. I have supported this issue's advancement, and I suspect that it will get through second reading at some point, as other private members' bills will. If there is keen interest such as I have heard today on the floor of the House from all members, I would suggest that they raise the issue with their respective House leadership teams. Maybe there is a way in which it can be accommodated.

Is this select group now going to prioritize all the other areas and bills that are before us and say these ones too should be rushed through the House of Commons without debate, let alone some debate? I could list Bill C-6 on conversion therapy. I could talk about Bill C-30, which is going to help millions of Canadians, many of whom are in desperate situations. Then there is Bill C-12, on net zero and the environment, and Bill C-10. That does not even go into the many private members' bills from many of our colleagues who are very interested in advancing their ideas, resolutions and bills.

That does not take away from the importance of the debate on this bill. I suspect that when it comes to a vote, every member will likely vote for it as they did previously. The ones who are trying to score political cheap shots today are the opposition parties. In the days going into summer, this is brought to the table. If the people who are pushing for this legislation really wanted to do a service for the audience, there is a better way of doing it. I suspect some of them know that, but they have chosen to do this in their partisanship, while saying the Liberal government is preventing it.

Out of respect for some of the individuals I have referenced, I will work within my caucus, as I know my colleague from Toronto who spoke prior to me will. We understand what the bill and the legislation will do, but we also understand that after today there are three days left of this session before we break for the summer. There are still opportunities to try to shame one political entity into unanimous consent for personal or political views, or to try to make others look bad. I believe that the manner in which this issue is being dealt with today is just wrong.

I have been on House leadership teams for 30 years. It would be nice to see this bill passed at all stages. If that is possible, then I would really recommend that members watching or participating use that same passion in talking to their House leaderships. There might even be some other members who have other ideas for legislation that may be important to them and to Canadians, and that could allow us to set a good example around the world.

Canada taking action can have a positive outcome for other nations. I recognize that, but I also recognize that at the end of the day, in order for us to succeed we have to have a process. If we are respectful of the process and work in collaboration as parties, we could probably achieve a lot more, as we did for the private member's bill the first and second go-round.

I would invite members who are following the debate to participate in a discussion afterwards with regard to how I feel, using my expertise, about what could be done with regard to this legislation.

I suggest this as an open gesture of goodwill, because I, like the former Liberal speaker, support the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening very closely to what has been said. In good part I agree when members talk about the partisanship we are seeing on the floor, but I take it from a different perspective, where, over the last while, there has been a great deal of partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons.

I know that a good number of people are watching and are very much interested in this piece of legislation ultimately passing and receiving royal assent. There was a great sense of disappointment when it passed the House of Commons but the Senate was not able to get its royal assent. There is no doubt that a vast majority of Canadians recognized that it should be a crime to travel abroad without the donor's consent in order to get an organ transplant.

They try to give a false impression. I referred to it yesterday, and more and more we are seeing this unholy alliance of opposition parties coming together to try, in every way possible and in as partisan a way as possible, to make the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus look bad. Seriously, I am not aware of any Liberal member of Parliament who would want to prevent this from becoming law. There are procedures that need to take place. Each political entity has a House leadership team with whom the issue could be addressed.

I say, to individuals like Irwin Cotler, David Matis, Maria and so many others who have been strong advocates on this issue, that what they are witnessing today is a partisanship that is not coming from the government. The government is doing what it can to ensure that there is a series of pieces of legislation. I could cite specific examples that have been provided to me. We know that we could pass this with unanimous consent, as we could do for a number of pieces of legislation.

Where was this empathy for the people the legislation would benefit, for example, when we dealt with Bill C-3? Bill C-3 was about the judicial appointments and training. Members will recall that it, too, passed the House of Commons in the last Parliament and the government reintroduced it as Bill C-3. How many hours of debate took place on that bill, even though it went through the full process the previous time? It was hours and days, but the Conservatives did not want it passed, and for what reasons? I will let people follow the debate.

Members will say that the issue has been debated already. I remember opposition members, when the shoe was on the other foot, would say that it was the previous Parliament and there are new members of Parliament who were just elected back in 2019 and ask if they should not be afforded the opportunity, if they want to be able to contribute to the debate. I understand the rules, the process and how things operate regarding legislation. We now have an offer saying that if we pass this bill unanimously right now, we will be allowed to debate Bill C-30. Members can imagine the hypocrisy. That is the reason I raised the matter of privilege I raised earlier today.

Last Friday and this Friday the NDP and the Conservatives were working together through privileges to prevent the government from being able to deal with legislation. Is this legislation not also important? What about other private—

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debates all week and many of my colleagues have used their time in their interventions to acknowledge the wonderful work that various people have done.

I very much support Bill S-204.

As members know, we had a late night last night. We were voting on the main estimates to approve the necessary programs that were going to make a difference in all Canadians' lives, programs that would help get people back on their feet after surviving this global pandemic. It has not been easy, but we have been there for Canadians.

It is my hope that in the coming days, when we deal with bills like Bill S-204, we will see the swift passage of bills like Bill C-30 and other important pieces of legislation, which still need to be addressed, so we can ensure that the supports needed to help Canadians through the final stages of this pandemic are in place. That is why we are all here in this place. We do not need to be told by other colleagues that if we want to get Bill C-30 passed, we have to turn around and get some other bill passed. That is not the way democracy works.

We are to represent our constituents and make a positive difference, and I believe Bill S-204 would make a big difference in the lives of many people.

Bill S-204, formally known as Bill S-240, passed both in the House and in the other place in 2019. I was very proud to be one of the persons, along with my colleagues, who passed this important bill. I appreciate the fact that my colleague has raised this issue, brought it back and continues to move it forward, because it is a very important bill.

Unfortunately, Bill S-240 never became law due to the dissolution of the House before the federal election. That happened to many good pieces of legislation. It is long overdue that this Parliament pass legislation like Bill S-204, dealing with a practice that we all are appalled to know continues in spite of many of us calling for the abolition of it. We know it continues on many days and in many countries.

Similar bills have been sitting in Parliament for over 12 years, during which time many innocent lives have perished due to the organ transplant trade, something we all find completely appalling. Two previous private members' bills were tabled by my former colleague, the former member for Etobicoke Centre, and my life-long friend, someone we all love and respect, the Hon. Irwin Cotler.

I am the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Falun Gong and I am all too familiar with the issue of organ harvesting and how this bill could help put an end to this horrific practice. I have seen many pictures and talked to people who have had their family go through this terrible process.

Bill S-204 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs. The bill also would amend the Criminal Code to enable Canada to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute, and that is very important. There is no sense having legislation if we do not put teeth in it. We need that ability to prosecute, in Canada, Canadian citizens or permanent residents who commit any of the proposed offences abroad.

I was recently told about number of Canadians who were going abroad, specifically to China, and getting kidney transplants and different things done. I would like to ask Canadians, before they do that, to think about where those organs come from. This would make it an offence for any Canadian to go abroad to take advantage of that.

It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that permanent residents or foreign nationals would be inadmissible to Canada if the responsible person were of the opinion that they have engaged in any of these activities relating to trafficking in human organs. Imagine that for $5,000, someone can get a transplant, never asking where that organ came from.

Our government is committed to ensuring our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account. We condemn the illegal and exploitative trade of human organs in the strongest of terms, and that was shown in the previous vote on Bill S-240, and will be on this one as well. We continue to have very strong feelings on things like this, as I believe all Canadians do.

Organ trafficking, the practice of extracting organs through coercive means to sell them for profit, is absolutely reprehensible and it is a global challenge, not just the challenge we are talking about today, which frequently involves the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It is a complex issue that requires both legislative and policy responses. Our government is proud to support this important bill, with targeted amendments that would make it better to achieve its objectives.

I very much look forward to seeing its passage by Parliament contrary to what my colleagues seemed to indicate earlier. This a bill that we all want to pass and then have very strong enforcement to end human trafficking in organ transplants.

If I do not get another opportunity to do so, I wish everyone a blessed summer and I will see everyone in September.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is related to the request he has asked of the House. Would he agree that what he was attempting to do is best done through House leadership teams, where they can try to see if it is possible to do what he has requested?

For example, would the member support the quick passage of Bill C-30, which is the budget bill, given the implications for the pandemic and supports for Canadians? Would he support such a measure for Bill C-30, Bill C-6, Bill C-10 and Bill C-12?

Government Programs

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, the CRB is part of a comprehensive suite of emergency and recovery measures to support Canadian workers and businesses. Through the CRB, if opposition parties support Bill C-30, Canadians can have access to up to 50 weeks of benefits. They could also have access to more flexible EI benefits, businesses could continue to have access to the wage subsidy, and we could help Canadians reenter the labour market by creating 500,000 new training and work opportunities and launching the Canada recovery hiring program.

We will continue to do whatever it takes, but we implore opposition parties to help us put Bill C-30 through.

Seniors

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, “junior seniors” and “senior seniors” sounds absurd because it is absurd. That is what we will have in Canada if the Liberal government does not fix its budget, Bill C-30: a two-tier seniors system.

Many Canadians are outraged that seniors aged 65 to 74 have been left out of the plan for a long-overdue increase to old age security payments. Our government is hiding from them, saying it is living up to a campaign promise. Keeping a promise on bad policy does not make it good.

The minister says older seniors are “at greater risk of running out of their savings”. Also, government documentation refers to our large proportion of seniors aged 65 to 74 who still work. There it is: the government policies on the backs of seniors who feel they need to either work or use up their savings. By its design, it is a two-tier and unfair system.

The Liberals still have the power to fix this before we rise for the summer. I call on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Seniors to do what is right.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation and the Ta'an Kwach'an Council.

I want to talk about the background to the estimates and the budget, and the fall economic statement that provides the background that the budget is supporting, that the estimates will be supporting. I will talk about transportation and a number of other items.

The biggest emphasis in the budget is to finish the fight against COVID, and there is a large contribution to the provinces and territories for that. It is still not over and that is very essential. There is support for individuals and businesses to get through this economic fallout. We are on the road of recovery, but as a number of interventions have shown, in the tourism industry, for instance, there is still a lot of time before everyone is fully recovered, so we need to keep those supports going.

The third big objective is for the economy to come roaring back in a way that includes everyone, with special supports, for instance, for women and for indigenous businesses. We want the economy to come back with a green economy, which has so much potential for jobs. We want an economy that will come back in a competitive way, where we can compete internationally, that creates a lot of new jobs, particularly for youth.

People who have experienced not having a job at some point in their lives, and they have to support a family, feel a big pit in their stomachs. There are very few things that can be so scary, upsetting and devastating. Although it was a very large investment, as many people have said, a huge investment, it was very essential to keep people working through these difficult times. That was obviously a big objective and the parties co-operated in a very good way to achieve it.

Based on the questions of some members, they may not have been aware that there were 861,000 CEBA loans for over $46 billion. There were 5.3 million jobs saved with the wage subsidy of $73 billion. Our first rent assistance program saw 140,000 applications approved and 1.25 million employees were assisted with $2 billion. The second rent assistance was worth $2.5 billion and helped over 150,000 applicants.

Even with all these programs, there may have been people who fell through the cracks. As everyone knows, these programs had to be created very quickly if we were going to help people from going under. There may have been cracks that were not filled, so the regional relief and recovery fund was put into the regional development agencies across Canada, with the tremendous leadership of the Minister of Economic Development. A few fell through the cracks, but that fund helped over 23,000 applicants across the country, with $1.4 billion.

Tourism is important to me, and out of those amounts of money, tourism alone had over 4,400 approvals for $392 million.

A lot of these supports were so critical to keep jobs during these unprecedented times not seen since the war. The fall economic statement added to that. For tourism, there is the HASCAP program. The RRRF I just mentioned was so needed and efficient that we had to increase money for it. Then there was the regional air transport fund, which is so important in rural Canada.

One of the most exciting things was the announcement of the new regional economic development agency for British Columbia. British Columbia is a unique area and there will be all kinds of special supports, recognizing that uniqueness, with this new agency.

Of course, that leaves the prairie regional development agency on its own with all those previous funds, which it can now enhance even more its work, over and above all the projects that went there through the RRRF already. This will be great for the Prairies, and they can lead the way for us in resource projects. Their human resources are very bright, great research done is done in the prairie areas, and all kinds of businesses can lead with exports and help the recovery in Canada.

I want to talk about some of the things that are really essential for the north. First, I am most excited about the increase in the northern residents deduction for the Territories and the northern parts of the provinces. A lot of people were not eligible for this deduction. People could only claim it if their employer put it on their T4 slip, gave them a travel allowance and then they could collect this northern residents travel reduction. However, this budget has allowed for everyone to have access that deduction. They do not need their employer to include it on their T4 slips. That will be so exciting for the economies of the north, and for the people of the north as a personal support.

Our biggest employer and hardest hit one is tourism. There is a record amount of additional funds specific to tourism in the budget, $1 billion, of which $200 million is for local festivals, cultural events, heritage celebrations, local museums and amateur sports events. In my riding, we have all those things in great numbers and, of course, they greatly contribute to employment and to our economy.

There are another $200 million for the major events in those areas, such as festivals, cultural events, heritage, local museums and amateur sports events. That does not affect my riding so much, but in the big cities of the country, that will be critical for those activities to carry on, to provide employment and to keep jobs. For decades, I think parliamentarians have underestimated the cultural sector and its importance to the creation of jobs and to moving forward our cultural ideas and thought processes.

There are also $100 million for Destination Canada. Canada has not put as much into marketing our great nation as some other countries of the world. It is something I have always advocated for, and I am so excited to see that funding for Destination Canada, again to help our tourism industry.

Then we have the $500 million tourism relief fund, once again, recognizing the tourism industry and how hard it has been hit. Our borders are open to all the other businesses. Trucks can come across. The one thing the border is not open to during the pandemic is tourism. On top of all that for tourism, is a $700 million for small business financing fund. It will not all go to tourism businesses, but again, it provides more support for small businesses to particularly help them in the green area, to be inclusive, to be competitive and to create more jobs.

In the north, our two biggest sectors are mining and tourism. In my riding, the mining sector's first request was support for hydroelectric power. We are running out of power in the north. Therefore, the budget includes $40.4 million to study and prepare potential hydroelectric projects across the north.

The Yukon government is one of the most progressive in the country with its climate change plan and reducing greenhouse gas plan, and it wanted some assistance, so the budget has included $25 million for it.

As a Conservative member mentioned earlier this evening, and I believe it was the member for Niagara Falls, tourism will not be back right away. It will take some time, yet our rent subsidy and our wage subsidy are running out this month. Therefore, unless we get the budget implementation act passed, there is going to be a lot of difficulty in the tourism sector, both for businesses and for NGOs that need the wage subsidy and the rent subsidy, which this budget implementation act, Bill C-30, would extend into the fall.

Another item that is very important for us and that probably has not been mentioned much is the centre of excellence for critical minerals. Critical minerals are needed a lot for batteries, for one thing, so they are absolutely essential, first for the mining industry and to have a clean environment to deal with the climate change crisis. As members know, one country in particular is trying to corner the market on critical metals, and we have an agreement with the United States. It is very important for us, for various reasons, so I am very excited to see that in the budget.

In past budgets, there has not been so much for communities, but communities were hit hard by this. Their various types of support were also reduced during the pandemic. I was delighted to see a Canada community revitalization fund, something brand new. There is $500 million there so the small communities across the country can have projects that are very important to them.

There are a number of supports for seniors. During our term, we increased the GIS for the lowest-income seniors, and there are several other supports for seniors during COVID. There is a huge increase to the new horizons for seniors program, and there is an addition in the budget of 10% for seniors over 75 to add to all that, for the most needy seniors.

Then there is a very large Canada digital adoption program. As members know, we are in the 21st century, the digital economy. It is a lot of learning for me, but if we are going to keep up with the rest of the world, our businesses have to keep up, so it is great to have that fund to help businesses transform over. There are a lot of jobs for young people in there as mentors to help the businesses transfer into the digital economy.

There is also the Canada recovery hiring program. As I mentioned, one of the big objectives is to hire more people, to get people back to work. If businesses had to lay people off, reduce their hours or reduce their wages, all those things can be supplemented from June 6 to November 20 through the Canada recovery hiring program. The very flexible idea is that for each month or each eligibility period for this program and for the wage subsidy, they can pick whichever one is best for their company.

I do not have time to talk about it now, but there are a number of improvements to small-business financing. Certainly there are significant investments in first nations. People will remember back to the biggest investment in history of $5 billion, proposed by Paul Martin for the Kelowna Accord. Well, this budget has $18 billion for first nations and $4.3 billion for infrastructure, for instance.

In my career, very seldom have I seen money for social financing, for NGOs and charities, but in this budget there is $200 million for a social financing fund. To get companies ready, there is an investment of $50 million in the investment readiness fund, because the first one was so successful it was all used up. There is a very unique concept being floated of social financing bonds for those who want to invest to help the country in a socially responsible way.

As I mentioned, communities need support, and there is a community services recovery fund to help various community services and NGOs adapt and modernize, after they have been hit so hard by COVID and so many of their resources have been decimated by COVID.

There is money for domestic vaccine production, which I think everyone appreciates. There is a huge increase, another increase, in the broadband fund, and that is very important for my riding, as well as cellphone coverage. There are 100,000 people being lifted out of poverty with the increase in the Canada workers benefit. There are huge funds for training, as I said, to get people employed again, 500,000 people, of which 215,000 are youth.

I will mention something that probably no one else will mention, the polar continental shelf funding of $24 million. That is to help Arctic research.

There is also $140 million for food security.

The Liard First Nation has a great housing manufacturing project that I am supporting. On self-governing first nations housing, they have great ideas. I would also like to see support for getting off-grid, remote mines off diesel, and increases for the equipment and O&M for indigenous broadcasters, who do such wonderful work in my riding.

I really appreciate the large investments in salmon, to enhance salmon on the west coast. They come right up into my riding. Salmon are very important for indigenous culture and ceremonies, for one thing, as well as for food.

There is also the doubling of the student grant for two more years and extending the waiver of interest to 2023.

I want to talk about aviation in the north for a bit. We really appreciate the northern air support that started almost from the beginning of the pandemic. It is important to know that we need interlining with the mainline carriers. We cannot let the mainline carriers put our small, local carriers out of business. We really need the mainline carriers to interline, to have co-operative arrangements where everyone wins. Neither airline has to go half-empty. The big carriers could get new customers for their overseas routes, while the local carriers that service the north could get the flights down to Edmonton, Vancouver, the big cities that are so needed for their competitiveness.

I could talk about a lot of other things, but I do not have time now. The Conservatives brought up that what is really important for them is a plan. We have huge plans. The fall economic statement was a 168-page plan. It had all sorts of things to return the economy. Then the budget is a 740-page plan.

I will just mention some of the items in that plan to get companies back to work, over and above all the ones I have already mentioned. There is money for food security, indigenous and women entrepreneurs, an A1 strategy, artificial intelligence strategy, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research—again, we are in the 21st century—a quantum strategy, the Canadian Photonics Fabrication Centre, business-led R and D through the colleges, Mitacs for 85,000 placements, CanCode, the net-zero accelerator to help the resource industry, the clean-growth hub, support for Measurement Canada, strategic innovation funds, IRAP expansion, which has been so important for innovation in Canada for decades, Elevated IP, the strategic intellectual property program review, the innovation superclusters, the data in the digital world, and support for the Standards Council of Canada and the Competition Bureau.

I encourage everyone to support all these items that I have mentioned, and the ones in the estimates, so that we could get Canadians back to work and businesses could keep our economy going. We would not need to continue government supports for either individuals or businesses once we get everyone back. We need to continue support for Canada and around the world. When COVID exists anywhere in the world, it is still a threat to us.

I will leave it at that. I hope we get support from all parties, which have been very co-operative and helpful during the pandemic.