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

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is late. I appreciate the way you are managing things. I have a question for the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I know his region quite well, and I liked his speech very much. I have explored every corner of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I know the issue he raised is a real concern there. This money that was stolen from the EI fund means that workers who paid for insurance for years in case they lost their jobs ended up not getting insurance benefits when they needed them. Often, in almost 60% of cases, people who lost their jobs did not have access to EI. That is ridiculous and disgusting. It shows a total lack of respect for workers.

My question is quite simple. The fact is that the Conservative Party and the Liberal government stole from an insurance program that was there for workers. In this case, it was not available for the people who lost their jobs. What impact did that have in my colleague's riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, probably much like in every corner of Quebec and Canada, this obviously has had extremely serious repercussions.

Agriculture and agri-food are huge in my riding. While Saint-Hyacinthe is a major centre for agri-food processing, the service industry is also very important for the region. There have been serious repercussions. Since the pandemic has only exacerbated those problems, it is never too late to do the right thing. Let's hope, once again, that this is not just temporary. It would be nice to hear some commitments in that regard.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned in his speech that I found interesting was that things that seemed impossible for the Liberal government suddenly became possible when COVID-19 hit. I noticed the same thing about the illegal border crossers at Roxham Road. Suddenly we seemed to be able to solve that problem once COVID-19 hit.

I am wondering what the member's thoughts are on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague certainly asked a leading question.

We often hear about things being impossible, but it is often a self-imposed impossibility, so to speak. In many cases, it could be called self-censorship. Motivation can often be found when needed, but at other times it is elusive.

My colleague's remarks were eloquent enough without my needing to add anything. He asked a question that was really more of a comment, and I agree with him.

[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 have a question in regard to recognizing that in order to maximize the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic what we have witnessed is governments at different levels, the provincial governments across Canada, working with Ottawa and we have seen a heightened sense of co-operation.

Would the member agree that governments working with different types of responsibilities still working together on the responsibility of serving Canadians first and foremost was one of the reasons why we were so effective at getting the resources to the people who needed them the most during this pandemic and one of the reasons why it is important that we continue on with the legislation that I understand the member will be voting for and I appreciate the member's and the Bloc's for support for the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is asking about working together, working with governments at different levels.

In the past two weeks, health transfers have been a popular topic. Of course, when there is a pandemic, work is done within a Parliament or between governments at different levels, but the Quebec National Assembly is unanimously calling for health transfers. I am not talking about the Government of Quebec or the Premier of Quebec. Everyone across the political spectrum, from Québec Solidaire to the CAQ, is calling for this.

For the past two weeks, the government has been accusing us of trying to pick a fight, but these problems have been around since the 1990s, when a minister in Jean Chrétien's government called cuts to health transfers a political weapon.

Who is the one picking a fight here?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I am delighted to be able to join today. I am delighted to be able to virtually participate in our discussion on Bill C-4. I have enjoyed listening to all the members speak and I do miss being able to be in the House, but there is some benefit because it is a little bit earlier in the day in Alberta where I am at the moment.

I am going to talk about Bill C-4 and I am also going to take a moment to talk about what COVID-19 means in Alberta and how Bill C-4 will help in Alberta. I was certainly moved by the words we heard from the member for Calgary Nose Hill and I would like to add to that, if I may.

I first want to say that Bill C-4 is a good first step. I am so proud that because of what the NDP fought for, including the paid sick leave and for supports for Canadians who cannot return to work, Canadians, Albertans, Edmontonians, people in Edmonton Strathcona, will not be as anxious about they will deal with the second wave of COVID-19 we know is coming.

People will worry about their health and safety, and the health and safety of their family, but they do not need to worry about their bills or how they are going afford to meet their needs. Extending the supports until summer and keeping the support at $2,000 a month means that people impacted by this pandemic can pay their rent and can put food on their tables in the coming months.

Paid sick leave means that Canadians who are sick or Canadians whose children are sick, can stay home and do the right thing to protect themselves and our communities without worrying about losing income.

I would like to congratulate the government on listening to the NDP and recognizing that Canadians need sick leave during a global pandemic. Of course, Canadians need sick leave at all times, but we will keep fighting for that. Canadians also need to know that they will have adequate support until they go back to work.

We know that this bill would provide help to millions of Canadians and I am proud of that. I appreciate the collaborative way that some, certainly not all, parliamentarians have worked to help Canadians during this pandemic. I am particularly proud of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and the members who have been fighting for Canadians since the very beginning of this pandemic. We are ensuring help for people out of work through no fault of their own, seniors, students and recent graduates, small businesses and people living with disabilities, all those who were forgotten by the Liberals in their initial plans. I am proud that we were able to improve on almost every single proposal by the government and I am proud to say we will continue to fight for Canadians and we do not think that our job is done.

I do want to focus on Alberta for a moment. Even before the pandemic was declared six months ago, Edmonton had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Our economy was in free fall. The provincial government had done cuts that were leading to layoffs. The post-secondary institutions we needed for innovation and diversification were dealing with deep cuts to support. Women were facing higher levels of violence than in other regions of the country. We were also already facing a homelessness crisis.

I recall standing in the House and asking what the government's plan was to support Alberta workers facing a decimated oil and gas sector and the desperate need for us to help to diversify the Alberta economy. I pleaded with the government then to create a plan and solution to the economic crisis that is gripping my province. A plan for an economy that will support Alberta now and into the future. That was in February. I stood up in the House and said those things in February and then COVID-19 hit and that has made it worse.

While some provinces are beginning to see a recovery, in Alberta, we are not. In my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, CERB has been a lifeline for tens of thousands of constituents and constituents need the support to keep their homes, to pay their rent, and to put food on the table for their families.

I have personally spoken to hundreds of Albertans who have used CERB to survive. I am not sure if members heard in the news today, but not a single one of those people I spoke to used that benefit for Cheezies, cartoons or drugs. I am appalled that a Conservative in my province thinks that 1,062,640 Albertans did not need the support they received during this unprecedented global health pandemic.

I live in Edmonton Strathcona, the heart of the creative sector. It is where we have the fringe festival, the Edmonton Folk Music Festival, theatres and restaurants that work with those theatres. Those artists, musicians, venue operators and restaurant owners were all so worried about what would happen and how they would survive at the end of CERB. I am so pleased that I can offer them support with the CRB.

I have spoken to small business owners, to parents and to recent graduates struggling with debt and a lack of income. I have spoken to people with disabilities who are desperate to know when they will be supported. I cannot say it enough that people in Alberta are dealing with the triple blow of an economic catastrophe, a provincial government that has implemented a cruel regime of cuts and layoffs, and a global pandemic unlike anything we have ever seen. Those people in Alberta need the support that the bill would provide, but it is not enough for Alberta. Albertans will need all of us, all parties, to fight for them in the coming years ahead.

We know that the supports in Bill C-4 are good, but they do not go far enough. If it was not apparent before COVID-19, we know that so many people in Canada, so many people in Edmonton Strathcona, have precarious employment. They rely on part-time work and gig work. They are contract workers or self-employed, and they are not covered by EI benefits. It is critical to recognize that the EI system is inadequate for our needs with or without a pandemic. We need to make these temporary emergency fixes permanent, because all workers need to be protected, not just some.

We know that at the beginning of the pandemic my NDP colleagues and I pushed for an emergency basic income that would have gotten support out to everyone who needed it. Instead, the government relied on the EI system. We asked for something that would go out to everyone, but we did not get that. What we got instead was a system that was based on exclusions. Dozens of students did not qualify for CERB. Expectant mothers lost their EI benefits. People living with disabilities facing enormous challenges were left out. What we have to do now is to make sure that those people are not left out going forward.

I am pleased that the government is extending emergency support beyond basic EI into the summer. I am pleased that the government has adopted our recommendation not to cut the benefit to Canadians from $2,000 a month. I am happy to see the Canadian recovery child care benefit and the Canadian recovery sickness benefit, but I have concerns. These things have to become permanent. Sick leave has to become permanent. Things like child care cannot be limited to children who are under 12 years old. I am the mother of a 12-year-old child. If that child has COVID or is ill, I cannot leave them at home. We need to do better. We need to look at what is in Bill C-4, recognize the value in it and improve it.

I am happy to support Bill C-4 for what it does for Canadians, but there is so much more we must do. We must extend the moratorium on student loan payments. We must provide support for students and graduates who cannot find work. We have to ensure that there is accessible, reliable, universal child care. We need to make sure that our seniors are protected in long-term care centres that are not driven by profit, but rather have national standards that protect all seniors. We need to invest in our public health care system with things like pharmacare, mental health care and dental care.

We must identify the people who are left behind, and we cannot let them fall through the cracks again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. I have a good relationship with him.

Today, former NDP MP Françoise Boivin tweeted that she felt a pang at seeing her former NDP colleagues vote in favour of a gag order. I wonder what the member, who just gave a wonderful speech, thinks about that. One of her former colleagues, who was here during the Harper era and experienced these gag orders, would never have voted for one. She felt a pang at seeing her former colleagues vote in favour of the motion.

I would like to know how she feels about her former colleague's tweet.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I work very well together and he will know that, at the international human rights committee, we had planned to bring forward a report on the genocide of the Uighurs in China. Of course I was very disappointed to hear the government had chosen prorogation. It is the reason we are supporting this now. It is very disappointing that we have not been debating this, looking at it and taking care of Canadians while Parliament was prorogued, but I feel it is so important that we get the help out to Canadians. Of course I am completely disappointed that the Liberals dropped the ball on this and left it to the last minute. It is a complete abdication of their responsibility, but I understand that it is more important for us to get the support to Canadians as fast as we can.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my hon. colleague said we need this to go out as fast as possible but we also need a guillotine motion, a debate closure motion, and that the NDP are supporting that. We have all said we need to take care of the citizens of this country. Would it not be appropriate to just have allowed debate to fall on its own?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really wish we had that opportunity to debate, but because we have run out of time, I do not want to go back to the people of Edmonton Strathcona and tell them they have to wait. I spoke to a woman on the phone who burst into tears when I told her that we were fighting to have the CERB extended. I have talked to artists who do not know what they are going to do. I have stood on people's doorsteps and the one thing they have said to me is that they need to know how they are going to be taken care of because they cannot go back to work.

It is not about us in the House, or what we do in the virtual or the real House. It is about what Canadians need right now, and they need the support they are going to get from Bill C-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on this theme because, as the hon. member mentioned, it is frustrating to find ourselves with this sense of urgency, which was concocted by the government. I wonder what it will mean for Canadians if every time the Liberals come up with some kind of cockamamie political scheme, we decide to punish them.

I wonder if the member would like to remind members of the House when exactly the CERB expired and what that means for Canadians who do not know what is coming as a replacement and who already have to plan for October and have to know how they are going to pay their landlord and put food on the table. Yes, the blame lays squarely at the feet of the Liberal government for having created this sense of urgency when there was time to debate it.

However, is it the right thing to do to punish Canadians who are on the ropes for the incompetence of the Liberal government, or is it better to put that aside, in a state of emergency, and move swiftly to make sure that while we figure out the politics of it Canadian households are not on the ropes?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel we are really missing the thread if we start to focus on whether or not we have had adequate time to debate the bill. Yes, it is vital for the strength of our democracy, but as I said, I am talking to people in my riding who are desperate, who need support and who need to know what is happening when the CERB ends. This will give them the ability to have some peace of mind.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate tonight. We have heard all through the night from members of Parliament about the issues around the impact of the pandemic and what it is like for their constituents, for the people in their community. The impact has been significant. There is no question.

It is no less significant in my community of Vancouver East. Right from the get-go, when the pandemic was on the horizon, New Democrats got up on the floor to call on the government to act. Members will recall that the government's response was that it was going to waive the 10-day waiting period for EI. That was the extent of what the government was going to do.

New Democrats said that was absolutely unacceptable, because some 60% of Canadians do not qualify for EI. Through all of that process and in driving the issue, New Democrats would have ideally liked to see a universal direct payment or a livable basic income. The government resisted that, and instead it came in with the CERB program.

The CERB program is an important program, but let us be honest with ourselves. Even the Liberal members know this. The CERB program excluded a lot of people. As soon as the government announced that program, we had to fight like crazy to drive the issue, to bring forward the voices of the people who were left out and to say that we could not leave them behind.

The Liberals left seniors behind. They left people with disabilities behind. They left students behind. They left self-employed individuals behind. They left so many people behind, part-time workers, migrant workers, and on and on the list went. New Democrats went at it like there was no tomorrow to drive home the message that we had to do better, that it was our obligation to do better.

We did get there. The government slowly, bit by bit, fixed some of those programs. Even with that, there are still people who did not get the support they should have gotten. Here is one example, and I raised this directly with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Single parents who are reliant on child support, as a result of COVID-19, lost that income. The Canadian government did not see that as income and, therefore, they did not qualify for CERB. I raised that directly with the minister, who indicated that she understood that she had to be there and that the government had to be there to support women. However, to this day, that has not been fixed.

That has been the pattern of the Liberal government to date, quite frankly, and it has been the NDP's job to consistently go after the government to do better. Bill C-4 is exactly just that, because we went after the government to do better.

I know some people will say that the NDP is in bed with the Liberals. Let us be clear about that. We are not in bed with anyone, with the exception of Canadians who need help. Our job is to make sure that we deliver support to them at this most critical time, a time when we are faced with a pandemic.

The government decided to prorogue the House and it was a shameful act, to be honest. It left people in the lurch in the middle of a pandemic and wondering what was going to happen to them. Before the government left, it said it was going to end the CERB program, but it was going to come in with another measure that reduced the amount of support. It was going to reduce the amount from $2,000 a month to $1,600, leaving so many people behind.

New Democrats never gave up. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, and our critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, just went after it relentlessly, saying that we needed to do better and demanded better. The result is Bill C-4. We actually got the government to change the program, to move towards what it needed to be, which was to provide $2,000 a month in support for people in need, for all the people who were left out. This is why we have Bill C-4 before us today.

Right from the get-go, New Democrats have said there is something wrong with our labour standards, in the sense that somehow people who fall ill are not eligible for paid sick leave. What is wrong with this picture? It was particularly evident in the middle of the pandemic when this occurred.

The government was not really going to move on that. It was the New Democrats who continually drove that issue to where we are today, with the changes we see before us in Bill C-4, so that people could get the sick leave they need.

All of that said, these measures are a patchwork approach. That is the reality of what we have today, and it is better than nothing, but the government claims that it wants to build back better. It should give some meaning to those words and make these programs permanent. We should not have to fight this every single time we are in a situation where we do not know what the future may hold. People should not have to worry about their future. People should be treated with the kind of respect and dignity that we all deserve. That is what the New Democrats will continue to fight for.

I think this highlights a very clear issue for us with respect to what needs to be done. My very good colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, put forward a guaranteed livable income motion. We should be debating that. We should be talking about how to implement that to make sure that nobody gets left behind.

The government talked about the great work it is doing with respect to housing. I listened intently to the throne speech and was looking to hear from the government about real, concrete action to deliver housing to people in the middle of a pandemic. Just before the throne speech the government announced 3,000 housing units. It was a rapid housing response, it said. Let us put this in context. From a homelessness count that was recently done, we know there are over 2,000 homeless people in Vancouver alone. Three thousand units are not going to do it.

My colleague, the member for Nunavut, just took a tour of her region, and it makes my heart weep to hear the testimony she shared with me and my colleagues about what she saw, about the experiences of people who are homeless and living in “mouldy boxes”. These are houses so infested with mould that it is making them sick. People are losing their children because they do not have proper, safe, adequate, affordable housing. Families are breaking up. She called it the modern-day colonization. That is the reality. What is wrong with this picture when we have this situation today and the government brags about 3,000 units as though that is the solution?

Today I say it is not good enough. This is a start, and the New Democrats are doing their level best to drive forward this issue with the government. We have to do more than just talk. It is incumbent on all of us as elected members in the House to do that job, not to play games, not for partisan politics and not to point fingers. At the end of the day, we must ask what we are delivering to the people who elected us to represent them.

For those in Vancouver East and all the people in my community, people in the Strathcona encampment who are homeless today, people struggling with the opioid crisis, seniors who need standardized national long-term care support, and people and families who need support from the Canadian government, we need to be a real partner at the table. We need to deliver, not just talk. It is enough already. This is a heads-up to all Liberal members to stop patting themselves on the back. They should ask themselves what they are going to do today to do better.

[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 appreciate and recognize that the New Democrats are supporting the legislation. That is a good thing, as they have a great deal to contribute. However, I would not want to underestimate anything. The member said that we should not pat ourselves on the back, but she has spent a great deal of time patting the NDP on the back.

Looking at what we have accomplished in the last eight months, support programs have been put in place. From day one, the Prime Minister has said that we will be there for Canadians during this trying time. There was the creation of the CERB program and the wage loss program; supports for the GIS program, the OAS program and our students; and the summer programs. The list goes on. I can comment about members in the Liberal caucus, but members of all caucuses contributed immensely to the debate and ensured that we could get some of the changes we are seeing here today.

I wonder if the member acknowledges that it took a combination of a wide spectrum of people, even beyond members of Parliament, to ensure that we had the changes we are bringing forward today to continue to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast.