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

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Calgary Nose Hill not just for splitting her time with me tonight and giving me an opportunity to speak to this bill, but also for her passion, her empathy, the respect that she has for this institution and the respect that she has for this country. She affected me and I think she affected a lot of Canadians tonight.

Now, I am an emotional guy by nature. Those who know me know that it does not take much for me to get emotional. I cry when I watch Uncle Buck. That is just the way it is. That scene at the end gets me every time.

I get emotional about this place as well. I have said many times in this House, and now even more so as the shadow minister for veterans affairs, that I think of the lives that have been lost. I think of the blood that has been spilled. I think of the families that have been decimated by war to allow all of us the privilege to sit in this place, to sit in our symbol of democracy, because of the fights that have gone on over the course of not just Canadian history but the history of war and other things. It is something I respect, and it is something, quite frankly, that I treat with the reverence that it deserves.

It is a place where Canadians can come together through their elected officials to have discussions, to have debates, to talk about how we can make the lives of Canadians better than what they are now. Canadians have been suffering greatly over the course of the last six months. We can all acknowledge that. Any of us who have been on the front lines, and we all have, know the types of calls we have had to our offices, with the level of despair, the level of anxiety and the level of anguish, and we have been there trying to help them.

We have taken that team Canada approach over the course of the last six months. To me, this was never a partisan thing. It was all about helping my constituents who were dealing with issues like the CERB and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. When the Canada emergency business account came out at 10%, I was getting phone calls from business people. They were crying on the phone with me. Many of them were crying because it was not enough, not just for them to keep their businesses but to keep the people employed.

We all went to work, all of us, not just Conservatives, not just NDP or Bloc or Greens. All of us worked together to recognize the issues that existed with the legislation that was being proposed, whether it was the emergency business account, the wage subsidy, the CERB, rent relief program, or repatriation. I worked directly with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because there were lots of people from my riding in Costa Rica. Again, there was anxiety and anguish for the families who were in Barrie—Innisfil but also the families that were stuck there. We worked together on this stuff to try to help Canadians who were stranded abroad.

I gave credit publicly to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as he deserved, because he worked very well with us to repatriate those Canadians who were stuck. Many of them were from opposition ridings.

On the long-term care centres, I was getting phone calls. My family was directly affected. My mother-in-law was stuck in a long-term care facility. We have seen the decline in her mental capacity over the course of the last six months. Talk about anguish, my wife is dealing with that every single day.

When we come to this place, because of the sanctity of it, because of the respect and reverence that we have for it, the least that we can expect is the ability to deal with legislation and not have it rammed through like the Liberals are doing. There are things within this legislation that all of us can improve on. I said it yesterday. There are stakeholders. There are people who are going to be directly affected by this, just as business owners were affected when the Canadian business account was announced, when the wage subsidy was announced and other programs. They were calling us telling us that it was woefully inadequate. The rent relief program was another example.

There are things that we can improve on with this piece of legislation, but we cannot do it in four and a half hours. We cannot do it unless and until we get the input from not just parliamentarians but also those people who are going to be impacted by what this legislation calls for.

It is a $57-billion bill and we are being given four and a half hours to deal with it. I can be bombastic and say that the government and the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to save their political skin. They had every opportunity over the course of the last month to deal with this piece of legislation so that we would not be in the situation where we are trying to ram it through. There is no question that Canadians need it, because many Canadians are still feeling that anxiety. They are still feeling that anguish and they are wondering what the future holds for them.

It is easy for people to become cynical of government. When I look back at the 2015 plan of the government, the real plan, the Liberals talked against the very things that they are now doing. Maybe it was the newness of a government; maybe it was the naivete of a government that they thought that they could do all these things. That is what got them elected. That is why people voted for them.

They said that the government “will not interfere with the work of parliamentary officers; and it will not resort to devices like prorogation and omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny.” They also said, “And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.”

The Liberals are not doing that. They are not doing that at all. The very thing that got them elected in 2015 is the very thing they are moving away from now, and this is not the first time. I can go through the history of Motion No. 6. I can go through the history of earlier this year with the piece of legislation where the Liberals were trying to effectively seize control and power of Parliament for spending purposes for a period of a year and a half. That is not an indication of a government that respects this place, that reveres this place for those who have given so much to allow us to be in it. It is not an indication of that at all.

The thing that disturbs me most is, how can we not support this? How can we not support giving help to Canadians when they need it the most? However, this could have been done earlier than today. It could have been done with a lot more scrutiny and a lot more input, not just from parliamentarians but also stakeholders and individuals across this country who are going to be impacted by this.

The last thing I would say about this is that earlier tonight, John Ivison wrote an article in which he said:

The Liberals have signed a Faustian pact with the NDP that they seem intent on honouring until they have a large enough lead in the polls, at which point the New Democrats will be cut loose and patronized as being erratic and unreliable.

I will say this for my colleagues in the NDP. The Liberals are going to wrap the New Democrats around their finger. They are going to chew them up and then they will eventually spit them out. They know right now that they need them because they cannot win a majority government, but when they get to that point, unfortunately, the New Democrats will be irrelevant to them.

This is what the Liberals do. This is all about power for them, and it shows very little respect. In fact, it shows a lack of respect for this place that it so richly deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil for his passion. He gets emotional because he cares, and I do want to thank him for that. I do want to let him know, when he talks about the Liberals and the NDP, that we are here for people. We are not here for power. We are here to help get people the help they need. That is what we are here to do as New Democrats.

One thing I appreciate about my friend is that he cares deeply about veterans, and many veterans, throughout this pandemic, have not been able to get the help they need. They have been waiting for the help they need. In fact, they were not even mentioned in the throne speech. My friend also voted with his caucus for my motion, an NDP motion to end lapsed spending, two years ago in this House. Both the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition voted for it. It was a unanimous motion.

Last year the Liberals left $103 million in lapsed spending. We then learned from the PBO that if they hired people to fill some of the jobs that were cut by the Conservatives in the Harper government, at $23 million a year for the next five years, the backlog would be gone.

Does my friend support using lapsed spending, hiring those workers back, and ending the backlog once and for all, so the government meets all those service standards it is not meeting?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my friend for his passion and advocacy on the part of Canada's veterans. I know just how sincere he is in that advocacy. We did support the motion from a few years ago that called on the government to use lapsed spending to improve the case loads, which were already mounting two years ago. Of course, we found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer just yesterday that the case load is now at 50,000. That is 50,000 veterans, and their families, who are waiting for adjudication and for those claims to be processed.

Part of my responsibility, since I was named three weeks ago today, has been to reach out to those families, and many of them are quite concerned about the status of VAC claims. We absolutely, 100% supported it then, and we continue to support the use of that lapsed spending to hire people to help veterans and their families with those claims.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I do take some exception, and I totally disagree with the member when he makes reference to process and expresses his disappointment.

I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years. Most of those years, more than 20, were on the opposition side of the benches, and I am very familiar with opposition tactics. I am very familiar with being in government, opposition and a third party. I can tell members, with the experience I have, I would have no problem whatsoever going to any university, whether it is here in Ottawa, Winnipeg or the member's riding, speaking with the member and doing a comparison of how this government has provided accountability and transparency, and has been true to democratic principles. I would invite my colleague to take me up on it.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to start with that. This is a government with a Prime Minister who in 2015 said that they were going to be different, and they have been anything but. They are using omnibus bills. They are using prorogation when they said that they would never use prorogation. They are using prorogation for what reason? It was to get themselves out of a political scandal.

We find ourselves here tonight debating in just four and a half hours a piece of legislation that costs $57 billion, without the process of Parliament. Here we are, returning to the full process in a hybrid manner of Parliament, but not having the ability to scrutinize this piece of legislation to make it better.

He can live in the lollipop, gum drop and fairy dust world all he wants. Canadians know the truth, and the truth is that the Liberals have not been as he describes them.

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

Mr. Speaker, how fascinating.

One thing I want to say is that I was deeply moved by my hon. colleague's speech. I too am an emotional guy. I too am in touch with my emotions. What is fascinating in all of this is that in 2011, when Stephen Harper was in power, the Liberals claimed it was impossible to impose a gag order or to prorogue Parliament, and yet Stephen Harper did it. The NDP said the same thing. Now, the Conservatives are telling the Liberals that it is not possible to prorogue Parliament or to use a gag order.

I want to understand something. Could my hon. colleague tell me whether the Conservatives, if they were to regain power, would be okay with proroguing Parliament and using gag orders again, as they have done in the past?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak a little French because I know that my colleague would like me to speak more French in the House.

I was not here when the Harper government was in power. I ran for office in 2015 for Prime Minister Harper, but we are not the ones who promised to do things differently in the House. It was the Liberals who promised that. The Liberals did not fulfill their obligations to Canadians in 2015 and they are not doing so now. I think that is the big problem that we are talking about today.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I am extremely pleased to be here tonight to debate Bill C-4 on behalf of the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Before I begin, I would like to address a somewhat sensitive subject. I think that my colleagues were shocked and saddened by the same news as I was today. An indigenous woman died from an overdose of morphine administered by nursing staff in a Joliette hospital who did not listen to her when she said she was allergic to the drug. Staff were uttering racist and violent remarks as she lay dying, a horrible death.

Apart from Bill C-4 and the government's response to COVID-19, I think that it is going to take a lot more than a prorogation. The government can no longer hide behind that tactic to infringe on other jurisdictions. It is also going to take a lot more than a law instituting a national day for truth and reconciliation with indigenous people to fight systemic racism in Canada.

Now I am going to talk about Bill C-4. Earlier today, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons insinuate that the reason opposition parties wanted to prolong the debate was probably that they did not understand what it was about.

I can assure all members that we know exactly what this is about. We know it so well that we have already noticed the problems with this bill and want to fix them now, not when it is too late or when most individuals will already be involved in the program.

I would note that hundreds, if not thousands, of people have called their MPs to say that they did not think they were entitled to the CERB but that it was so easy to get that it must have been fine. Now many of them no longer have enough cash to pay that money back.

Those people could have stopped collecting the CERB at some point during the crisis when it was time to go back to work and do their bit to restart the economy. Unfortunately for our businesses, the lack of incentives to work meant that people were making more just staying home than they would have made going back to work.

This is the type of flaw that we must take the time to shed light on today in Bill C-4 even though the government wants to speed up the process. We owe at least that much to the people who elected us.

I will take this opportunity to make suggestions to the government to ensure the well-being of the people in my riding and those in Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois presented its recovery plan yesterday and I invite the Liberals to read it carefully and use it as a guide because it reflects the needs and demands of the people of Quebec.

I am from Amqui, a small town in the Matapédia region in eastern Quebec. I am deeply attached to my region and the success and survival of all the regions in Quebec. I am sure that the economic future of Quebec lies in these regions and only Quebeckers should decide how to use public funds.

The role of Canada, as long as we are part of it, is limited to the authority it is given under the Constitution. We talk about this Constitution a lot, probably because of the very centralizing Speech from the Throne that was delivered last week. What does the Constitution say? It says that the federal government must transfer to Quebec money to which it is entitled according to its areas of jurisdiction.

Since Ottawa is going to continue to pump huge amounts of money into the programs set out in Bill C-4, it is imperative that this be done properly. Yes, we need to support those most in need, those who have lost their jobs or have to stay home because of COVID-19. However, before it can start talking about creating thousands of new jobs, the federal government must ensure that existing jobs are protected. We need to support businesses that are struggling to stay afloat after the first wave.

One such business that comes to mind is Marmen, in Matane, a leader in the development of wind power in Quebec. This company is an expert in its field and is doing the Lower St. Lawrence region proud. Yesterday Marmen had the difficult task of announcing that it will have to lay off 55 employees on November 22 and another 100 or so the following week. When we hear news like that, we really need to hear the government say it will take the bull by the horns and make investments to support not only our people, but also our expertise.

We need a government that will once and for all stop investing directly in western Canada's fossil fuel industry through subsidies and tax breaks. We need a government that will invest in the energy transition instead, in wind power, forestry, innovative technologies and research and development. That is also what we need to hear. We also want to hear the government stand up for sectors that have been falling through the cracks since the crisis began.

I am thinking in particular of travel agencies, which have been hard-hit from the beginning of the crisis. Ms. Labrecque is the owner of a travel agency in Maria, in the Gaspé, which is in my riding. Unfortunately, she thinks that she will not be able to keep her doors open for more than a few weeks for lack of funds. One of the problems is that she does not qualify for the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program and her business is considered to be a risk. Given that the travel industry is paralyzed, she no longer has access to credit.

For some businesses in Quebec regions, the summer of 2020 set records for visitors, but not for those agencies trying to survive on only 3% to 4% of their usual revenue. More than 200 agencies in Quebec have already closed their doors permanently. From the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has criticized the commercial rent assistance program as being ineffective and a poorly designed program that has failed miserably.

Bill C-4 is unfortunately not enough to help the travel industry. It is a dying industry. The Bloc Québécois proposed a refundable tax credit of 50% of recognized fixed costs. I am very interested to hear what the government has to say about that.

I now want to talk about seniors, a topic that is very close to my heart. I am fortunate in that my four favourite seniors are still living. I want to take this opportunity today to acknowledge Noëlla, Florent, Lorraine and Jean-Marc, from the bottom of my heart. No matter how old I am or how old they are, I will always call them grand-maman, grand-papa, mamie and papi. I am fortunate in that they are in good health.

It is difficult for me to restrict contact with them during the pandemic, but it is even harder for them and for all seniors in Quebec and Canada. They have been isolated for months, without support from the federal government, aside from a single, paltry cheque. It was a pittance.

Seniors have been hit hard by the crisis, as has their physical and mental health. We need to help them by immediately and permanently increasing the old age security pension, starting at age 65. Yes, I said age 65 and not 75. The guaranteed income supplement is in urgent need of being adjusted so that no one is penalized. We are calling for the federal government's health transfers to be increased to 35%, without any conditions. We will be repeating this many times.

The tragedy that struck long-term care facilities and seniors' residences in Quebec during the pandemic is the result of many years of underfunding, particularly on the part of the federal government. The situation in many facilities in Quebec is still difficult.

To date, over 5,800 people have died in Quebec. Of those, 4,000 died in long-term care facilities and 976 died in private seniors' residences. Those numbers are growing every day. We must not kid ourselves. The storm is not over yet.

I would like to take a brief moment to talk about the health care workers who care for seniors. Personal support workers and registered practical nurses work under extremely difficult conditions and they deserve our respect and admiration.

Canada needs people like Ahmed Aouad who works in a seniors' residence in Mont-Joli in my riding. This man does vitally important work, particularly in the current context. For months, he has had to work seven days a week because of a labour shortage. Mr. Aouad is seriously considering leaving Quebec but it is not because he does not like his work, his home or his new country. On the contrary, he would like to live in the Lower St. Lawrence area. The reason he is considering leaving is that his wife lives in Morocco and it is practically impossible for her to come join him in Canada. The situation in Morocco is troubling, not only because of COVID-19, but also because of the political situation. All steps taken with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to help her come to Canada faster have been blocked indefinitely. I would have liked to send more time talking to this man, but I am sure I will have the opportunity to do so soon.

In closing, I want to point out that the government could have prorogued Parliament for 24 hours but decided to prorogue for five weeks. As a result, we are being asked to rush Bill C-4 through without hearing from witnesses, even though that would have enabled us to identify and correct problems in the bill. That all happened because the Prime Minister wanted to sweep the WE scandal under the rug. Although we wanted to do whatever it took to serve our constituents' best interests, we deplore the government's approach. The government introduced Bill C-4 at the last second and is now asking us to pass it without conducting a thorough analysis because there is not enough time.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member only gets one question in French.

This has been a very interesting day. Obviously there has been a series of votes. The vote earlier called for four and a half hours of debate on what is effectively a $57-billion piece of legislation. Prorogation delayed, over the course of the last five weeks, the ability of the House to sit, and the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, did it to save his political skin at the height of the WE Charity scandal.

I am interested to hear my hon. colleague's views on what the Prime Minister did, how that impacted our ability to scrutinize this piece of legislation and the impact this could potentially have going forward.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I wish he had asked it in French, but I do appreciate his effort earlier.

I will answer the same way several of my colleagues have already answered today. We could have spent all summer debating bills and other things that are just important as the response to COVID-19, as I said at the start of my speech. Instead, the government chose to prorogue Parliament on the grounds that we had had plenty of time during the debate to ask our questions. That is not true. Today we are rushing this bill through in the middle of the night. I am happy to be here, but I think we could have dealt with this a long time ago for our constituents.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I felt the same way when our colleague from Calgary Nose Hill spoke about the terrible tragedy of the death of Joyce Echaquan, an indigenous woman. A few minutes ago, I read in the news that an investigation has been launched and a nurse fired.

The problem of racism also exists in our public health system in British Columbia. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, a prominent indigenous woman and lawyer, is now leading an investigation into a similar matter. However, the circumstances are not as horrifying as those mentioned by my colleague.

What does my colleague think we can do to eliminate racism in our societies? It is not the focus of the bill before us, but that is what is in our hearts right now.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am glad that she raised this subject.

I will come back to what I was saying earlier. Prorogation had several negative repercussions. I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which was studying systemic racism in Canada's police services. Yes, racism is present in the health system, in police services and in many other places.

There have been reports on systemic racism. Everyone recognizes it. We were about to draft a new report, but Parliament was prorogued and the committee is no longer. The government must act. It knows what to do. The demands of the various groups have not changed. We know what needs to be done to eliminate or at least to work on eliminating systemic racism. However, the government chose to prorogue Parliament because of the scandal.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, Brian Sinclair, an indigenous person from Manitoba, sat in the emergency ward for 36 hours, and he died. He was dead for 36 hours before it was found out, and there was an issue of racism tied to it. Based on some comments I have heard, we should have an appreciation of how important it is, from a national government perspective, for there to be a role for us that goes far beyond some of the things we have talked about over the last little while.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on what role a federal government could play in the various issues that have been referenced this evening.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the federal government cannot do it all and cannot fix every problem, but it can certainly do a lot.

For instance, it could do more to support police services across Canada, such as providing more resources for officer training, to educate officers about systemic racism and the differences that exist in our society. There are a lot of things like that that it could do. It just has to pay attention and listen to what the opposition parties and groups that appear before parliamentary committees have been saying. It just needs to act.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-4. A debate is fine, but it would have been nice if the government had observed the rules of democracy from start to finish.

Near the end of her speech, my colleague said that the government could have prorogued Parliament for just 24 hours, rather than the five weeks. Like all bills, this bill may contain flaws that we might not notice at first glance, which is why the parliamentary process is useful, as it allows us to study the bill properly and hear from witnesses. That will all be impossible, unfortunately. We have to accept it, since now the government wants to fast track this bill, ignoring the need for rigorous, thorough analysis.

Not that the situation is not urgent; far from it. As we have been saying from the outset, a work incentive should have been included in the CERB way back in April. The lack of any incentive may have gone unnoticed when we were in lockdown, when virtually everything ground to a halt. That said, over the summer, Quebec tried to lift the lockdown and get the job market moving again. It was an extremely difficult situation.

Let's be honest. The CERB is not the only factor causing problems for employment. In times of uncertainty and fear, it is easy to imagine that many workers are afraid or do not really want to go back to work.

Let's get to the heart of the matter. As we know, the Bloc strongly favours workers. For that reason, as we have said, we support Bill C-4 in principle. We are naturally in favour of the idea of benefits that incentivize going back to work and that support people who have to stay home from work because they are sick or self-isolating. We are naturally in favour of providing support to those who would be putting themselves at risk by going to work. We are naturally in favour of supporting caregivers. That goes without saying. There is no problem there.

Furthermore, the bill will probably help unemployed workers, whether they are salaried or self-employed. Capping the benefit at $500 a week is entirely appropriate because under this new program, if an employer brings rehires an employee on a part-time basis, the employee does not lose the $500. My beloved riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is very reliant on agriculture and agri-food and is heavily dominated by the service sector. The coming into force of Bill C-4 will certainly do it some good. It will have a positive effect. While the CERB was rigid and vanished as soon as workers earned more than $1,000 a month, Bill C-4 adjusts the benefit in proportion to income. No worker will lose their income because they want to ply their trade. That is what the Bloc has been calling for since the spring. So much the better.

We are also in favour of support for caregivers. However, we think it would have made more sense to extend the benefit to parents of children aged zero to 16, instead of 0 to 11, purely because school is mandatory up until the age of 16. It is as simple as that.

We hope to be worthy of speaking for Quebec workers. Two days ago, Pierre Céré, from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, said that these benefits will ultimately support the economy as the second wave begins. These benefits will help people pay their rent or mortgage and bolster consumer spending. These benefits will help keep the economy operating at a certain level during these difficult times.

Yesterday I also spoke about this with Mouvement action chômage in Saint-Hyacinthe, a partner of my office. This organization thinks the bill is worthwhile, which is similar to our position. We think the bill is worthwhile, but woefully inadequate, and we think it contains some grey areas. Some other aspects are worthy of mention, such as the single eligibility criterion, which we have not seen since 1977; the elimination of the waiting period until October 25; the 26-week minimum; the reduction of hours to 120; and the reduction of sanctions for terminations that are deemed invalid. In addition, the benefits system is much more flexible. The bill does contain all kinds of good ideas. As members know, the Bloc would prefer that Quebec be allowed to administer its own program and its own EI fund.

The fact remains that this bill contains many of our long-held ideas and requests, along with several things that unions and lobby groups have been calling for for decades.

It even makes good on some election promises that the Liberals made in 2015 but did not keep.

Some may say that all that is fine and dandy, but that is precisely the problem. Why did it take a pandemic for this to happen?

The pandemic did not create the difficult conditions for unemployed workers. It simply exacerbated a situation that has existed for a long time. The major difference is that all of the demands and proposals that I shared with the House, our own and those of the unions and lobby groups, centred on an overhaul of the EI system, not a temporary fix. It almost seems as though the Canadian parties are leaving some wiggle room so that they can go back to the way things were as soon as the opportunity arises.

What will happen when the pandemic is over? Will we go back to the old EI system, or will Bill C-4 be the basis for real, lasting change?

Over the last 20 years and more, the EI system has been slowly but thoroughly dismantled. Fewer and fewer people qualify for benefits. Only four out of 10 unemployed workers have access to the program.

I remember that when I first became involved in politics about 10 years ago, during the election campaign, there were already posters asking who had stolen money from unemployed workers. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. Employment insurance has been altered so drastically that it can almost be seen as more of a tax than an actual assistance program. That says it all.

The National Assembly has adopted several unanimous motions calling on Ottawa to stop making changes that negatively impact Quebec workers. The story is always the same, no matter which party is in power in Ottawa or which party is in power in Quebec City. We are being accused of engaging in constitutional squabbling. I am not afraid to talk about the Constitution. The Constitution applies to us until proven otherwise, so we should be talking about it.

Ever since 1996, Ottawa has orchestrated an outright misappropriation of money from the employment insurance fund. Surpluses have been transferred to the federal government's consolidated revenue fund. In 2014, the real government of Canada, the Supreme Court, overturned Quebec unions' case against Ottawa for misappropriating nearly $60 billion from the fund. Canada's highest court, which some see as the government of judges, allowed that money to be diverted. Then, in 2008, the Supreme Court found that surpluses were illegally diverted in 2002, 2003 and 2005, but it did not require the government to pay back what it took. What kind of a lesson is that? In all, workers were stripped of several billion dollars. All that shows a consistently predatory approach to employment insurance.

To sum up, we are not happy with the way Bill C-4 was imposed, but we do support, to an extent, much of what it contains. Here is the real question: Is this a major step on the path to concrete, long-term change, or is this a temporary change that will evaporate the moment the crisis is behind us?

It would be good to ask the parties seeking to govern Canada about this. If the past is an indicator of the future, we have good reason to be worried—quite worried. Luckily, the Bloc will not give up the fight.