Bill C-4 (Historical)

COVID-19 Response Measures Act

An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19

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

COVID-19 Response Measures Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately I wanted a brief question and a brief answer, and I tried to allow the same amount of time for both. I know this is a very passionate subject.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, as a Liberal member of Parliament, I am very proud of what we have been able to accomplish as a government over the last eight months. The member talked a lot about the prorogation. What we are talking about is that, instead of coming in on a Monday, we came in on a Wednesday. However, what the member does not talk about are the days we sat in the chamber in July and August. We would have to go back in history over 30 years before seeing that sort of coming together of parliamentarians on the floor of the House of Commons. There were hundreds of questions over the summer, possibly even thousands of questions, that were asked of ministers, giving opposition and government members the opportunity to provide direct input into the legislation we have right now.

I appreciate the fact that the Bloc will support the legislation, because through this legislation we recognize there is a way for the federal government, working with the provincial governments, to help all Canadians. I see that as a good thing. Does the member not agree?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. I may not have the 20 years of experience that he was talking about today during the debates—I am just starting my second term—but I would point out that the House was not sitting this summer. We were meeting in COVID committee. Although I have less experience in Parliament, I believe we need to correct this, because that was not Parliament. Soon we will begin to have regular sittings.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, one thing that stood out in my colleague's speech was when she mentioned the equality of chances. One of the main drivers of the economy in western Canada is the natural resources sector. Due to the government's policies, it is not able to equally participate in creating jobs in the economy because of the lack of investment in the sector.

Does the member have any instances similar to this in her riding in any industry, not necessarily in the resource sector?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. This allows me to address something that is very important to the Bloc Québécois and me.

I think we are due for a certain reckoning when it comes to some sectors of our economy. I am from a mining and forestry region where there is a heavy industry and good jobs that are being threatened by various industries, including the Chinese aluminum industry, and sometimes even by the United States.

It is an industry that we are proud of, but we know that we must turn to something else. I was saying earlier that we have to consider the present, but also the future. We must never forget that. The future, in my opinion and that of the Bloc Québécois, is green. We need to transition. We need new jobs. We have no choice. The planet needs this shift. It is what needs to happen. The thing we are missing is new jobs. We need R and D for the resources we have in order to create good jobs for our people.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague for talking about all Canadians coming back better. I appreciate the enthusiasm.

My friend Karen, a constituent of mine, lost her business due to the pandemic, like millions of Canadians. She closed her doors to protect public health. She also was hoping we would have an opportunity to reimagine our future as a country and get retrained so that she could fill a labour market gap in our country and be a health care assistant. Instead, the government prorogued Parliament and delayed CERB, which she is desperately waiting for, like many Canadians. She is scared, like a lot of people are. By delaying it, she was not able to access EI programs that could have had her starting in September.

Maybe my colleague can speak about the importance of training and investing in people so that we can reimagine how we move forward, and so that Karen can get the training to start a new career.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, my response will be brief.

As a teacher, I know the importance of training and I believe in training. However, this is a Quebec jurisdiction. If there is funding I would like it to be transferred to Quebec so that it may do what needs to be done in the area of education.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as others have said, the reality we have been dealing with for the past six months has plunged workers in Quebec and Canada into a climate of unparalleled uncertainty.

Week in and week out, our constituents have been calling us and reaching out to us for answers to their questions. The government has loosened the purse strings to support people during this difficult time, and that is great. Now the plan is to transition CERB recipients to special recovery benefits outlined in Bill C-4. The bill includes three benefits and measures to make EI more flexible.

As an aside regarding EI, it is important to remember that, over the past 25 years, successive governments have robbed the EI fund of $59 billion to balance their budgets. Those governments, Conservative and Liberal alike, used their discretion to redirect those billions towards other budget priorities of the day.

With the EI fund having been plundered, COVID-19 certainly required a robust, costly measure that would have to be implemented quickly. That was the CERB. In terms of public finances, one can imagine that the support scenario might have played out differently if the EI fund had not been plundered so badly. Many women and young people have suffered because of this.

The CERB was good, but it had what I would call some design flaws. It helped a lot of families, and with all the uncertainty and the second wave, the Canada recovery benefit is very welcome, especially as it puts a renewed focus on the employment insurance system and more specifically the stabilizing role it plays for the economy. That is the role this system must play.

We were elected by people who are close to us in our ridings. We have responsibilities to them. Even though, as an opposition party, we did not introduce Bill C-4, it is still our duty to point out to the government the inconsistencies in some of the measures or some of the rules. It is also our duty to act with kindness and integrity in the hope that we will be heard. That is how we give a voice to our constituents, regardless of their political stripe. However, are our voices heard when they are conveyed by elected members?

I want to share with this assembly a specific case that is certainly not unique in Canada: the parents of critically ill children benefit EI program. That program came into effect in 2017 with a remarkably compassionate objective.

In the summer of 2019, an evaluation was done. The evaluation noted that there were just over 15,000 recipients, 80% of whom were women earning around $40,000 a year. The conclusions and recommendations section of the evaluation stated, and I quote:

...the Parents of Critically Ill Children benefit was effective overall in meeting its policy objectives. The benefit:

-was effective in easing financial pressures on parents in order to allow them more time to provide care to their...child;

-provided adequate temporary income support;

-helped keep claimants attached to the labour force; and

-contributed to positive social impacts....

These objectives seem quite similar to the objectives of maternity benefits, in that they allow parents to take care of children. Unlike maternity benefits, these special EI benefits for parents of critically ill children were not factored in when calculating eligibility for the CERB, even though the objectives are very similar.

I bring this up because my office has been devoting considerable time and effort to the case of Ms. Beaulieu, from Repentigny, since April. We have written letters, held Zoom meetings and made phone calls to two departments, including calls to the ministers themselves, a deputy minister and regional assistants. Ms. Beaulieu is one of the people who was left out of the CERB. Her four-year-old son has a critical illness. Ms. Beaulieu will likely never be able to hold a full-time job again.

Because of COVID-19, she lost her part-time job, the first job she had been able to hold in two years. As a result of the design flaw in the CERB that I mentioned earlier, parents of critically ill children do not qualify for the special benefits. This woman's eligible earnings fell less than $3,000 short of the threshold to qualify for the CERB.

The report indicated that, from 2013 to 2017, the period that was assessed, 15,300 people were eligible to receive the benefit. That is only 15,300 people in four years. When someone is taking care of a sick young child and then COVID-19 suddenly strikes and they lose their income, what are they supposed to do? The options are nothing short of heartbreaking.

How is it possible that no adjustments have been made to these measures after five months of lobbying? How is it that the government took advantage of this new bill to make changes to EI, but it did not listen to these people? Very few people are applying for this benefit, and they can easily be identified based on the seriousness of the child's health status or medical condition.

The government was quick to offer the CERB to other segments of the population. Why did it not listen to this legitimate request on behalf of caregivers of critically ill children? There were simple solutions; they only needed to be deemed eligible. If the government is going to review the terms of the EI program at all, why not do it properly? I just summarized a situation for which solutions could easily have been found.

I have another example. A few weeks before the pandemic eroded our parliamentary democracy, the House voted by a wide margin in favour of a motion moved by the Bloc Québécois to increase EI sickness benefits to a maximum of 50 weeks. This would also have been a great opportunity to align EI with a majority decision from the House. What does this failure to act say to the elected members of the House who voted overwhelmingly in favour of this motion and whose views on the changes were not considered? It is pretty disappointing that the government is refusing to listen.

We know full well what the deployment of programs like the CERB represents. Nothing is perfect, but our job is to work on improving what is introduced. The changes that should have been made to the CERB were delayed or non-existent. In the case of Ms. Beaulieu, we presented a solid argument. We did so diligently and respectfully in the appropriate forums. Eligibility for the special benefits for parents of critically ill children was never considered. To date, no official answer has been provided on this issue. One minister's staffer even refused to let me contact a deputy minister who was designated as the lead on this issue. Obstacle after obstacle was thrown up.

Ms. Beaulieu would have to wait. Two departments spent months passing the buck back and forth and telling us what we already knew. All we could do was watch as time ran out on the CERB program, without any benefits for critically ill children. Still today, because we continue to fight, we are told that an analysis is under way that will look into the rationale for treating earnings from these benefits the same as maternity benefits. From what I understand of the analysis, this has nothing to do with the issue; it is about determining whether Ms. Beaulieu is eligible. However, that is not what we want. We want this for everyone affected by this matter.

We support the new recovery benefits proposed in Bill C-4, but what are we supposed to think of the past six months and the approach that was taken? How should we interpret the complacency and lack of consideration for such a serious case? The government gave itself extraordinary powers through Bill C-13. Today I will not mention the files that have been overlooked for the past few months, but on the flip side, I do have to criticize the political reasons behind the Liberals' decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks. Opportunities have been missed, as this bill would have been put through its paces.

To the MPs who watched time run out without doing anything or even responding to the communications from various ridings regarding cases like the one I talked about today, I have just one word to describe how people perceived it. That word is indifference.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to some of the Conservative speakers, we often hear them say that we have gone too far in some of the support programs we have provided. We hear members of the New Democrats and, at times, even members from the Bloc say there is still more that we could do.

The reality is we went from having no program to creating the CERB program, with the support of a first-class public service. It is a program that has provided support for just under nine million Canadians, and the minister herself has indicated that it is not perfect. We are looking for changes. Now we are bringing it through this legislation, picking up where we can continue to support Canadians.

My comment, as opposed to a question, is if the member has those ideas, I would encourage her to continue to advocate as members of the Liberal caucus have done. When we consult with our constituents, and when we have thoughts and ideas in terms of how we believe the system could be improved, we advocate for those changes.

I appreciate the fact that she has brought those matters to the floor this evening.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment.

I would like to remind him about a question I asked a little earlier during the previous debate. Essentially, we were here to make changes to the employment insurance system. I talked about how hard my office staff has been working. We have never stopped, and we are still working on that woman's case. Before making changes, we should have had time to discuss them, but Motion No. 7 was passed on May 26. This motion moved by the government and seconded by the NDP effectively eliminated both the House and democracy. We could not introduce bills, we could not move motions, we could not talk, we could not debate.

[An hon. member]

The Bloc did not ask any questions.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, there was nowhere for me to do that.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. We have heard an awful lot from the government about how the government is there as a team. It is working hard as a team, and it wants to include the whole team.

However, what we heard from the last member who spoke was that the team was not talking to her or to her party. We know that on the Conservative side, the present government has not talked to us about the issues of employment. We heard in the member's speech today about the issues of a number of people who are unemployed and the challenges they have.

I would be interested to hear from the member on the issue of those who are self-employed. I am wondering if the member would comment on how she sees the issue. It is great to have the conversation now, when we should have had it before this motion was brought forward. I would like to hear where the member stands on the issues of self-employment and how to get self-employed people back to work.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about another group of workers that is unfortunately slipping through the cracks. With respect to self-employed workers, I mentioned a case having to do with benefits for sick children. The net is full of holes. We know nothing in this world is perfect. We know that an effort was made and that the CERB was useful to individuals and families. However, if we got a chance to talk about holes in the net, we just might be able to close them up. We were denied that opportunity this spring and again with prorogation. We keep hearing about how this is a crisis, an emergency. I think the parliamentary secretary pointed out that no Parliament sits during the summer. However, when there is an emergency, Parliament can sit in the summer. We could have sat this summer and closed up all the holes in the net.