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

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved that Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, be now read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Two members of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may each speak to the motion for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. Members are permitted to split their time with another member.

The hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered this evening on unceded Algonquin territory.

Bill C-4 has three parts. Part 1 creates three benefits to support Canada's economic recovery in response to COVID-19 and makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and regulations, part 2 amends the Canada Labour Code to extend worker protections corresponding to these benefits, and part 3 amends the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to provide ongoing financial support to Canadians.

I will focus my comments on part 1 of Bill C-4.

During my term as employment minister, I have seen the unemployment rate go from the lowest in recorded history in January of 2020 to the highest. That, of course, means I have been presented with a big challenge in this role of serving Canadians. As employment minister, I am required to ensure that workers are supported in times of job loss and job transition. I also work to ensure that workers are well prepared for the job opportunities of the future.

I know the pandemic has had a devastating impact on individuals and families and that every lost job jeopardizes a household's financial security. That is why our priority has been supporting workers and their families ever since the pandemic started.

We created the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, during the time in the pandemic when we were telling people to stay home in order to flatten the curve and keep Canadians safe. We knew we are asking a lot from working Canadians, and that is why we worked tirelessly to get the CERB out of the gate in record time.

I want to take a moment to thank the incredible public servants in my department of ESDC and the Canada Revenue Agency, who worked day and night to ensure our systems could deliver the CERB effectively and efficiently for Canadians and their families.

We swiftly followed the CERB with the Canada emergency student benefit, or CESB, for students facing uncertain or non-existent job prospects over the summer.

It was clear from the beginning that the pandemic was disproportionately impacting some Canadians, including women, seniors and persons with disabilities. That is why we also provided extra support for families with children, a one-time $300 payment per child, in May and an increase to the maximum yearly Canada child benefit to keep up with the cost of living. This is in addition to the one-time payment for seniors and, coming this fall, the one-time payment for persons with disabilities. We stepped up and took action.

We also created thousands of jobs and training opportunities for youth and ensured that the not-for-profit sector received support so organizations could continue to help their communities.

To provide certainty and continuity, we recently extended the CERB by an additional four weeks, from 24 to 28 weeks. For Canadian families that rely on the CERB, our government supported them as they figured out what was happening with school and day care for their kids. In addition to this extension, we made changes to the EI program so more people could access EI benefits.

Since March 15, almost nine million people have received the CERB, helping millions of Canadians and their families avoid catastrophic household income loss, while at the same time helping to keep our economy afloat. While many Canadians have returned to the labour market, either through the Canada emergency wage subsidy or as a result of regions and sectors safely reopening throughout the summer months, we know that we need to continue to be vigilant and nimble in our efforts to support people as we continue to work together to stop the spread of the virus.

We are still in a crisis situation. We estimate that millions of Canadians still need some level of income support. People are still living in uncertain times, and our government will continue to be there for them. The new benefits in this bill are an important investment in workers and families.

This legislation reflects our vision laid out in the Speech from the Throne last week. We have a plan for a stronger and more resilient Canada. It is a plan that puts the health of Canadians at the core of government decision-making. It is a plan for equality of opportunity. It is clear and simple and leaves no one behind.

This legislation makes good on this promise. If you have lost your job, we have your back. If you cannot work because you are sick with COVID-19, we have your back. If you have to stay home to take care of a loved one for reasons related to COVID-19, we have your back.

We are here tonight to debate legislation that would create a suite of three new benefits: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

Before diving into these new benefits, I would like to say a few words about the employment insurance program and the recent measures put in place to help Canadians.

There is no denying that this pandemic has highlighted the tremendous need for a modernized EI program in Canada. I have spoken about this before. It is vital that we create an employment insurance system that reflects how Canadians work and that is flexible in its ability to respond to major changes in the Canadian labour market.

Despite the imminent need to reform EI, this program is the best tool we have right now and it surpasses any new system that could possibly be brought in quickly during a pandemic. That is why in August our government announced temporary changes to the EI program that would allow more Canadians to access it this fall once the CERB ended. These changes, which have already been made through regulations, will help millions of Canadians meet the eligibility criteria in three ways.

First, with these changes, people can qualify for EI with as few as 120 hours of work. To do this, we are providing all EI claimants with a one-time credit of insurable hours; that is 300 hours for regular benefit claimants and 480 hours for special benefit claimants. This credit will boost people's insurable hours and help them qualify for EI benefits. Furthermore, the hours credit is available for one year and is retroactive to March 15.

This is of the utmost importance for women who, as we all know, have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. The credit of 480 insurable hours means that any woman who has had a baby since March 15 can retroactively apply for EI maternity benefits if she did not previously have enough hours to qualify prior to these new measures. This is really important. This also includes expectant mothers who received the CERB over the course of the last 28 weeks. They will now be able to transition seamlessly into EI to access their maternity and parental leave benefits.

The second way we are helping people to meet EI eligibility requirements is by setting a national unemployment rate of 13.1% across all regions of the country. This is providing a uniform requirement of 420 hours for people to qualify for EI. This adjustment will help boost the number of weeks people can receive benefits, thus providing the support Canadians need and expect.

I also want to assure Canadians in EI regions with a higher rate than 13.1% that their benefit entitlement will be based on the higher of either 13.1% or their regional rate.

The third measure we are undertaking with the EI system is to freeze the EI premium rate for two years, which will help both employees and employers.

Our changes are allowing more Canadians to access employment insurance and its associated tools and resources, like working while on claim, training, work sharing and supplemental unemployment benefit plans. All these things connect people to the workforce and provide incentives to work.

That said, many workers are still not eligible for employment insurance, even after these changes. Examples include self-employed workers, workers in the entertainment industry and workers with dependants who are forced to stay home because of school or day care closures.

That is why our government is proposing to introduce a suite of three new benefits via the legislation we have before us now. As I mentioned earlier, they are the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

The Canada recovery benefit will support workers who have stopped working or who had their income reduced by at least 50% due to COVID-19 and who are not eligible for EI. It will provide Canadians with $500 per week for up to 26 weeks between September 27, 2020 and September 25, 2021.

As with EI, workers must be actively looking for work. They must place no undue restrictions on their availability to work and must not decline a reasonable job offer. Just like the EI system, this new benefit will allow people to earn income from employment and/or self-employment while still receiving the benefit. We have designed a process modelled after EI's working while on claim.

Individuals who have a net income greater than $38,000 in 2020 or 2021 will be required to repay the benefit at a rate of 50¢ for every dollar earned above the threshold up to the full amount of the Canada recovery benefit received.

Our objective is to ensure that it is always in a person's interest to work when it is reasonable for he or she to do so. The Canada recovery benefit aims to accomplish just that. It balances the need for income support, while incentivizing work, and ensures that we continue to target Canadians who need the support the most.

The new recovery benefits will be subject to rigorous checks from the outset to ensure that they are paid only to those who are eligible. Unlike the CERB, the benefits will be retroactive and will be taxed at the source.

The second benefit is the Canada recovery sickness benefit. It will provide $500 per week for up to two weeks if workers are ill, are susceptible to becoming ill or must self-isolate for reasons related to COVID-19.

We want Canadians to stay calm if they are sick or maybe sick. We also want Canadians to not have to choose between making this choice and paying their bills. We want the choice to be immediate at symptom onset or advice and for Canadians to err on the side of caution. We do not want Canadians to wait for a confirmed diagnosis or a doctor's note. As much as this benefit is about the individual health of workers, it is vital to Canada's successful economic recovery. We have to ensure that workers do not go to work if they have COVID-19, or are at a high risk of contracting COVID-19 or are showing symptoms of the virus. It is in all our best interests that workplaces are safe and healthy.

Finally, while schools, day cares and day program facilities are working to safely reopen according to public health guidelines, we know that closures can and will happen. This is where the third benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, comes in. It will provide $500 per week per household for up to 26 weeks for workers who cannot work for more than 50% of the time because they have to care for a loved one due to a school, day care or day program closure.

The benefit will also be available to workers forced to stay home because a person in their care is deemed by a health care professional to be at high risk or has lost access to their usual caregiver because of COVID-19.

Finally, the benefit would support workers who have care responsibilities for a child or family member who is sick, in quarantine or at high risk of serious health complications due to COVID-19.

In order to ensure that federally regulated employees have access to job protected leave, the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code in part 2 of the legislation ensure access for these employees to the Canada recovery sickness and the Canada recovery caregiver benefits.

Taken together, these measures will help Canadians to safely bridge the gap between the major lockdown we had last spring and a cautious reopening of the economy this fall and winter.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the government's determination to build a stronger workforce and create jobs.

As is laid out in the throne speech, we have a unique opportunity to unlock the full potential of every Canadian. We cannot afford to leave anyone behind. Our plan is about fortifying the jobs we have, filling the jobs that are available and developing strategies to create new jobs with appropriately skilled workers.

At the core of these commitments will be the largest investment in Canadian history in training for workers. As a first step, the bill outlines an investment of $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories to support on-the-ground training services for Canadians. This initial investment will be done through the existing workforce development agreements and labour market development agreements.

We are digging in to ensure we continue to support Canadians, because we are still in a crisis. If we want to get to the point where we build back better, we first need to ensure that the foundation to do so is solid. I encourage my hon. colleagues to support this legislation to help provide that much needed solid foundation for Canadians.

I want to conclude by thanking all our front-line workers who are fearlessly looking after our health and safety in these unprecedented times. I also want to thank all the parents, teachers, teaching assistants, child care workers and support staff who make it possible for our students to return to school this fall.

As a mother of four with two still in elementary school, I know they are going above and beyond every day to keep our kids safe. We all need to stay vigilant and keep up the efforts we have been doing to stop the spread of COVID-19. I know it is not easy, but we are in this together.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first acknowledge that the minister is the only member of the Liberal front bench with the spine to have acknowledged that the government dropped the ball on the WE scandal. I appreciate her direct answers to direct questions through the COVID crisis.

Earlier today, the minister conceded she has not had the time to consult with provincial governments because of the last-minute desperate inclusion of the NDP forced two-week paid sick leave benefit into the Canada recovery benefit. I am wondering now, given that small businesses are concerned this may in fact work against their ability to get workers back to safe workplaces, if she will consult with those governments and respect their concerns with regard to this groundbreaking change to the Canada Labour Code.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, earlier I stated that I had spoken with my provincial and territorial employment counterparts about this legislation, including the sickness benefits. As well, it has been part of the discussions between the first ministers and the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister with respect to the safe restart agreement. The two-week sick leave was laid out very clearly in that agreement. We are making good on that promise.

Sick leave has been a part of our fundamental COVID-19 response since the very beginning. It was eligibility criteria for the CERB. It is something I signalled a month ago was going to be part of this legislation, and we remain committed to absolutely providing two weeks of sick leave for workers.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech.

She has a very important portfolio when it comes to employment. She talked a lot about adjustments to employment insurance. As long as we are reviewing the program, why not do it properly?

I have an example. Shortly before the lockdown, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion adopted by a majority of members of Parliament that sought to extend employment insurance sickness benefits to 50 weeks. Why not take advantage of this opportunity to include that provision in the bill instead of turning a deaf ear?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the changes being made to the CERB are outside the EI program.

That was out of necessity to be able to give Canadians this benefit quickly. The EI measures we have announced are temporary measures in place for a year. Our government is committed to increasing EI sickness leave from 15 weeks to 26 weeks, and of course we are happy to continue to have the conversation with other parties in this House about even further increasing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the minister's approach and salute her work in being willing to collaborate with other partners. She and I have done a lot of work over the last number of months since the pandemic began, but of course, that does not mean we have always agreed on everything.

The minister will know it is the NDP's position that Canadians should be entitled to 10 paid sick days on a permanent basis and that we believe the federal government could provide leadership by legislating that first in federal jurisdiction. That is not represented in the legislation we are debating tonight because the government gave a hard no on legislating those permanent sick days.

I wonder if the minister could provide the justification for that to Canadians. I asked some other Liberal members here today and never received an answer to the question. I am hoping she can put on the record for Canadians why it is that the Liberal government opposes 10 permanent paid sick days for Canadians.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed working with my colleague on a number of these important measures to make them even better for Canadians.

This legislation is about temporary measures to help Canadians get through a pandemic crisis. It is not about discarding an important conversation of what should be permanent in the future. It is about putting in place two weeks of paid sick leave for workers who have COVID-19-related sickness or isolation. It does not preclude any conversation in the future about making anything we are talking about on EI or these measures permanent.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I heard the minister say that the Canada recovery benefit does not disincentivize work, but rather incentivizes it. Some small business owners have concerns about the Canada emergency response benefit. As we transition into the new recovery benefits, can the minister explain the flexibilities of the new benefits in relation to CERB and how the recovery benefits would further incentivize people to work?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have done our very best to model all the disincentives to work that are in the EI system. In this legislation, workers have to be available to work. They have to be actively seeking work. They have to take job offers when it is reasonable to do so. Workers, unlike with the CERB, they had to be resident; they have to be resident and present in Canada. They have to not have quit their job. They have to be seeking work. They have to not place any undue restrictions on their availability to work. They have to not have failed to return to work if it was reasonable to do so. They cannot have refused a reasonable job offer.

That is a significant improvement in terms of focusing Canadians on getting back to work.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

If we can stop the clock for a moment, before I continue I just want to remind the hon. members, whether they are in the room, at home or in their office, if they are speaking in the House, the rules apply. A tie is required to ask a question. I just want to remind everybody. For everyone who is at home, they are probably near their closet; they can pick one up and come back.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can already hear the questions coming in on one topic here, and that is in the repayment section. Simply put, I am wondering what was used to determine the $5,000 floor and the $38,000 ceiling for when people would have to start repaying money that they received from CERB.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tired but I want to get my math right. The $38,000 was established by using the $24,000 average annual income of a self-employed individual plus adding the maximum amount a person can get on CERB, which is $14,000, to get to a total of $38,000.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the minister's being here. When it came to the SUB plans for EI, the minister denied those SUB plans. When it came to helping people who were looking for work-share, her department and her office did not deliver on that. When it came to dealing with the disincentives on the CERB with having an EI working while on claim, Conservatives brought forward the back-to-work bonus and the Liberals ignored it for months. When it came to parents who were looking for their benefits, particularly single moms for their EI benefits for maternity leave, the minister made promises months ago and did not deliver.

The minister says a lot in this place. She says a lot at committee. She does not always deliver, and when she does, it is quite late into the process.

She has talked today about supporting Canadians with the benefits. She did not mention that the $500 a week for the CRB actually will be less than that because the government is going to be taking at source. Will she come clean with Canadians in letting them know that there is going to be less money coming to them through this benefit program, or is this going to be more marketing that is not true when Canadians go to pay their bills?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that question, so let me unpack it a bit.

First, I just made clear in my speech that in fact the $500 a week would be taxed and deducted at source. We made that decision to help Canadians as they enter the next tax payment season.

Quite frankly, the reason we have designed this new benefit system is to address a lot of the concerns the member has brought forward and we have talked about over and over again. The CRB and the sickness and caregiving benefits are modelled after the EI system.

There is a “working while on claim”-like process. People on EI will be able to access their SUB plans. We have created giving people a credit of insurable hours retroactive to March 15 for parents, for maternity, for women.

We needed to ensure the EI system could be ready to ingest the three million people we expect it to be ingesting over this week. We were not prepared to have failure as an option. It took as long as it took, and I am very proud of how hard people worked to get it ready.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

In 2019, my pitch to voters in northern Saskatchewan was that I would take my experience as an accountant, a multi-term mayor and a Crown corporation chair to Ottawa and represent the people of northern Saskatchewan to the best of my ability. In my relatively short time of service I have said to many of those around me that if I had run my business like the current government governs, I would have been bankrupt a long time ago. If I had shown the same contempt for my elected council as the Liberal government has for the elected members of this House, I would have had a mutiny and would definitely not have survived multiple terms as mayor.

Over the past several months the Liberals have shown a pattern of leaving things until the midnight hour and then essentially holding Parliament hostage to get their legislation passed. We have seen four examples of this: one in March, two in April and one in July. When I wrote this, little did I know how true the midnight hour comment would be as we see this literally playing out tonight.

Here we are on September 29 and the government is looking for approval for over $50 billion in spending with very limited time to either scrutinize it or for us to offer suggestions for ways to improve it. Each time this happened the line always was, “We must do this quickly or else.” Each time it meant there was no time for scrutiny and we should just trust the Liberals as they know what is best for Canadians and they do not need feedback from Canada's elected representatives in this House because they have got this.

Announcing these proposed measures the day after shutting down Parliament and then waiting until after the CERB ended to introduce the legislation seems a little suspicious to me. We definitely do not need any committee work on this; after all, committees are a bit of a thorn in the side of the Prime Minister, are they not? I do not know if members see a pattern here, but I do.

There is a second pattern here that is not just about this but about timing as well. There is a pattern where a lack of oversight and transparency is desired by the government, and it goes back further than the pandemic. In my very first experience as an MP, I was asked to participate in a committee of the whole proceeding on December 9, 2019, when we were asked to scrutinize over $4.9 million in a mere four hours. My first reaction was, “Seriously?” In my role as the mayor of my little city, we spent many hours and even days scrutinizing spending and I can assure members we were not dealing with numbers of this magnitude.

Let me fast forward a bit. I will never forget at the beginning of the pandemic when the government attempted to give itself unfettered powers to December 31, 2021, by slipping these powers into the very first emergency legislation. Members can call me naive if they would like, but I could not believe that any elected official would have the nerve to try and pull off something like this. I asked myself over and over in the days following who was crass enough to think that this was somehow a good idea and that it would fly.

The Liberals clearly have an issue with any kind of openness and transparency. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. May I be so bold as to suggest that a bit more scrutiny may have actually prevented some of the scandals we are seeing. May I be so bold as to suggest that a little more consultation up front and a better parliamentary process might have led to, for example, indigenous businesses being included in the original business supports, like CEWS and CEBA, instead of being added only as an afterthought when they were left out of the original legislation. This is the relationship the Prime Minister likes to repeatedly say is the most important one to his government. If that is in fact so, why did it take weeks of pressure and lobbying to have indigenous-owned limited partnerships included in CEWS? Why did it take months for indigenous businesses to have access to a version of CEBA when a little consultation would have clearly identified that the original version would not work for them as they do not utilize traditional banks.

The same point could be made about many small businesses and farmers as well. A little consultation would have easily determined that there was going to be a significant problem preventing many of them from accessing CEBA. This literally took months to resolve, leaving many fearing for their ability to survive.

Yesterday, my colleague, the member for Thornhill, shared some very wise words in his speech. I think they are worth repeating, so I will quote one paragraph. He said:

The COVID crisis is not just a health crisis. COVID has taken a terrible toll on our Canadian economy, as it has on economies around the world. Canada today has the highest unemployment rate in the G7, despite having almost the highest spending in the G7. With the amendment to Bill...[C-4], now before us today, Canada's deficit and debt would soar to historic record new levels.

Yesterday, I asked the people of my riding a question on social media. I asked what I should say to the government when I had an opportunity to speak today. Their number one answer was, “What is the plan for all the spending?” They then added that when someone takes out a loan, the lender wants to know how it will be paid back, along with other criteria. It is an interesting concept, that of a plan. What a novel concept. The answer I am giving my constituents is that I do not believe there is a plan. There is no plan to ever balance the budget, let alone repay any of the debt incurred.

Former Saskatchewan NDP finance minister Janice MacKinnon co-chairs the C.D. Howe Institute's Fiscal and Tax Working Group with former Liberal finance minister John Manley. In a recent report, they urged the federal government to set limits on spending and ensure that when spending is approved, it is truly necessary and contributes to Canada's longer-term productivity. That sounds like a plan.

In a recent Globe and Mail article, economics reporter David Parkinson shared some very interesting thoughts with us. He talked about the misery that was the second quarter of 2020. He talked about the lost quarter. He then referenced an 11.5% plunge in gross domestic product, which is the worst quarter-to-quarter decline ever.

Millions of Canadians are out of work, more than double the pre-pandemic unemployment rate. However, in the midst of all this, Canadians' incomes actually grew. Details contained in the last quarterly gross domestic product report revealed that household disposable income in Canada surged by 11% in the second quarter. That obviously led to the question of where this surprising income explosion came from. It certainly was not wages, because they tumbled by almost 9%. The answer is that federal government crisis income supports more than filled that income hole.

The employment compensation in our country was reduced by $21 billion, but disposable income went up by $54 billion in government transfers. That is astounding. This tells us that the government response has gone way beyond the goal of simply replacing lost income.

Let me be really clear: Some will take my comments to mean that I do not believe that some of the extraordinary emergency funding was needed, and continues to be needed to support Canadians in their time of need. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any compassionate and just society has a moral obligation to help people in a time of need.

However, I am a little bit dismayed by the lack of transparency and accountability displayed by the government. I am dismayed by the unacceptable snub of Parliament, and by the time lost during the unnecessary shutdown for all to consider debate and more reasonably determine some outcomes. I am dismayed by the constant rush to ram legislation through the House when in fact the rush is simply one of partisan, self-serving survival.

Finally, I am dismayed by the lack of a plan. What is the plan for our future that I can take back and share with the residents of Northern Saskatchewan?

[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, there is a plan. That is one of the reasons why the session was prorogued. A document called the throne speech was released on September 23. There are 32 pages on the English side that detail a plan, not only for days, but weeks, months and possibly years into the future.

More and more we get Conservatives standing up expressing their reservations in terms of the government spending too much. The question must be asked of many of those Conservatives because that is the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservative Party. We believe we need to support Canadians in a time of need, whether they are seniors—

[Some hon. member]

With whose money?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

To the member across the way asking with whose money, we are talking about tax dollars and a deficit. I can tell members that today we need to invest and support Canadians, their health and their well-being. Our economy dictates that the government gets engaged.

Does the member agree that if the Government of Canada did not engage to the degree it has and work with the different provinces and other stakeholders, the impact on our country would be far more devastating?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech with the short question at the end.

First, let me make very clear, as I said in my comments, that any compassionate society and its leaders have a moral obligation and responsibility to care for those in need. However, from the stories I am hearing, the people in my riding are very concerned about the level of support that has been offered. When we talk $33 billion in one quarter, in excess of the lost wages, we have gone way beyond the goal of replacing income.

I have four kids, three of whom have spouses and one who has a significant other, and I have my first grandchild. That makes 11 of us. This current year of government spending, not including some of the new stuff that will happen over the coming months, means that my family of 11 people has taken on $110,000 of new debt. That terrifies me for my grandchildren.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for his speech. I particularly appreciated the part about parliamentarians' role in a debate.

We can agree with the principle of Bill C-4, but everyone knows that the devil is in the details. This bill has a potential lifespan of one year and will have significant consequences for workers, businesses and the economic recovery.

Using a gag order that the NDP has been kind enough to support, the government is forcing us to pass a bill very quickly because it wants to protect itself from difficult questions about WE Charity. However, this bill would have benefited from support from the people it is intended to help. Workers and businesses could have testified in committee on ways to improve it, since we do not know everything.

Does my colleague agree that this gag order is an affront not only to parliamentarians, but also to the people we represent?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question, and I apologize but I will answer in English as I do not speak French yet. I am working on it.

I would agree 100 per cent with my colleague's comments. This is a massive change to the Labour Code. In many ways we are concerned about a conflict with provincial jurisdictions, employers, boards of trade and chambers of commerce. None of these people was engaged. None of these was consulted. This was put before us to pass in a very short time frame, under a bunch of pressure at the 11th hour.

I would 100 per cent agree that there are some really deep concerns when we talk about the WE scandal. One of the comments I have consistently made is I am afraid that all we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg. When we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a short time frame, how many other WE scandals are under the surface?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate as well as to make some comments about the general economic circumstances that frame our discussion of the bill. It is fair to acknowledge that the government's response to this pandemic has been a bit chaotic. We have seen constantly shifting programmatic responses as well as advice from the government. There has been a general lack of consistency on many fronts, but at least there has always been firm certitude that the approach of the day is the right approach, until it changes.

It has been well established that if we had had border measures in place, if we had the right advice on masking earlier on, if we had quickly adopted rapid testing tools that had actually been in place for a long time in other countries, if we had learned from Czech Republic, South Korea or Taiwan and other places, and if we had tracing technology ready to go, then there would not have been that economic shutdown. There would not have been a need for an economic shutdown if a public health plan had been in place. This was all evidently quite avoidable if we see what other countries were able to do to respond more rapidly and avoid the same kind of economic disruption.

The economic devastation that we have experienced is the result of the failure of our health minister to respond early to this public health crisis. We still do not have the rapid testing that we need to ensure early warning and rapid response. We saw how, in the early days, the Minister of Health was saying the risk was low, closing the borders would be counterproductive and so forth. That is why we are here: because of the failure of the government to plan and respond effectively in the early days when it would have made the biggest difference.

Now we are teetering on a second wave. We are into a second wave in some parts of the country while we are desperately trying to avoid a second wave in others, and we still do not really have the public health tools in place. In my province, in Quebec and other provinces, we are not allowed to enter a diagnosis in the government's much celebrated, according to the Liberals, tracing app.

Because of a failure to plan for and respond to the public health challenges we face, we face an economic shutdown. Therefore Canadians legitimately expected financial support to be available to them during a time when they were not able to leave their homes to go to work. That is why some new benefit programs were legitimately created.

Having to stay at home, not working, and therefore receiving benefits was clearly not the first choice of Canadians. Canadians are not at all excited about seeing the government using freshly printed money to pay them to sit at home. The Canadians I know believe the supports should be available if they are not able to work, but people would much prefer to go back to work and in general would prefer for things to get back to normal as soon as possible.

Regardless of the nature of the programs that are in place, people cannot have anything near an acceptable standard of living unless most of the population is engaged in productive work. The health of our economy is dependent on the extent to which we are producing useful things. No economy was ever built by printing and distributing paper money. That much should be fairly obvious.

Fiscal control is not an end in and of itself, but it is a necessary means to the material and social flourishing of society. If we run massive deficits endlessly by constantly printing new paper money, the money gradually becomes less valuable. Money is not intrinsically valuable. It is simply a proxy measure of the value of goods and services that are produced in the economy. If we reduce the level of production, we cannot simply make up for it by printing more money.

The leader of the NDP is so proud of the extra $400 a month that he negotiated as part of the benefit package, but strikingly he seems unconcerned with how out of control spending risks reducing the effective value of that money over time.

Our economy can survive some level of deficit spending as well as supports that are timely, targeted and temporary. Even in those cases, the money has to be paid back. A timely, measured, targeted and temporary response is one thing, but the government's deficit is approaching $400 billion, which is larger than the entire federal budget was when the Liberals took office. The deficit is well over half the size of the entire debt run up in the preceding 150 years of Canadian history. We went through two world wars, the Great Depression, financial crises and even the tenure of the last Prime Minister Trudeau and the first four years of this government, and we are running up more than half as much debt in a single year as we did in the entire preceding period.

In the lexicon of this brave new world, anyone who thinks we should spend even a dime less is accused of peddling austerity, but for these Liberals, austerity is a word that has entirely lost its meaning.

There are many people who understand what austerity truly is. There are people around the world who are starving as a direct result of the humanitarian crisis caused by COVID-19. There are people around the world who have lived through the experience of a national debt crisis in which their money became worthless and their government could not bail them out. There are people in this country who are struggling to pay their heating bill because of the government's carbon tax. There are people who worry that jobs in their sector will never come back, whether that is in oil and gas, manufacturing or other primary and secondary industries that are no longer in vogue across the way. These people understand and are starting to worry about what true austerity would look like in their lives.

Yet, the government pressed ahead with pay raises for elected officials, because to do otherwise would be austerity. It will not rein in profligate spending at the CBC or pull back on corporate welfare handouts to wealthy, connected corporations, because to do so would be austerity. Any review, any efficiency, any constraint whatsoever is considered austerity. Any time people have to pay more to the government, no problem. Any time we suggest that government members should spend less on themselves or their friends, that is called austerity. This is a farce. This is a redefinition of words to mean the opposite of what they actually mean.

I submit that the Liberals generally have no concept of real austerity, because the Prime Minister has not known anything but exorbitant, inherited wealth, and he has tried to transfer as much of the benefits of government to his friends, having three times been caught breaking key ethical rules. What the Prime Minister needs to understand is that austerity for people is when one has to choose between buying food and paying one's heating bill, not when one has to choose between a WE vacation, a French villa and a private island.

If we do not get a handle on public spending soon, we will face real austerity. These deficit levels are completely unsustainable. As it is, they will lead to higher taxes, lower social spending or both in the future, regardless of who is in power, if the situation continues to get worse. We need to sound the alarm on this out-of-control spending, because if we continue at this rate for much longer, we will not be able to afford these types of benefits whether we like it or not. Spending money we do not have, debasing our currency and rendering the government incapable of supporting people in the long run is neither prudent nor compassionate.

Needless to say, the Conservatives are unimpressed by the circumstances that bring us to this debate. The government shut down Parliament for six weeks and is now trying to limit debate on this bill to a mere day. What we see across the board is that the federal government is creating problems and then claiming to be uniquely qualified to offer solutions.

By proroguing Parliament, the Liberals created a problem, the problem being that benefits were going to run out if legislation was not passed at an unprecedented pace. Their programming motion is presented as a solution to a problem that they themselves created. However, it is bigger than that. The need for these benefits is a problem that was created by the government through a failure to have a plan in place to manage the pandemic, a failure to close the border in time, a failure to implement rapid testing and a failure to learn the lessons of other countries.

When we challenge government members on their spending, they come back to us and ask, “How would you solve the problem? What would you cut? What would you spend less on?” The Conservative answer to this is quite simple: We would not have created the problem in the first place. Even at this late stage, we would ensure rapid approval of rapid testing technology, build benefit programs that provide the greatest possible incentive for people to return to work and quickly approve new development and resource projects, providing a public-dollar-free, private sector stimulus to help workers in our natural resource sectors get back to work. Natural resource workers are not looking for a “just transition” out of their jobs into unemployment. What they want is their jobs back.

Benefit programs can be very generous for people who are out of work as long as we are taking all the necessary steps to ensure that there are as few people out of work as possible. That is why Conservatives have led in putting forward constructive alternatives, in advancing the idea of a back-to-work bonus, in pushing the government to have a private sector stimulus of our natural resource economy and encouraging it to take up the public health measures that will allow people to work in safety.

I am pleased to report that hope is on the horizon. The member for Durham will soon be ready to emerge from isolation. He understands that there is an alternative to the profligate spending that we are seeing from the government and that this alternative does not mean cutting off people in need. We can reduce government spending by reducing people's need for government; by supporting economic growth, a stronger public health response and measures that allow people to return to work in all sectors, including our natural resource sectors; and by creating the wealth that allows all of us to prosper together.

[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, the member says that the newly crowned leader of the Conservative Party is going to come back and inspire us on how we can grow the economy. Let me remind the member that his new leader was a minister in the Harper regime. In nine years they generated about a million jobs, and it took us just over four years to generate well over a million jobs.

The Liberal Party and the government understand the importance of the economy. That is one of the reasons we brought in programs like the wage subsidy. It was to protect jobs and make sure that we were in a better position.

Would the member not agree that programs like the wage subsidy are one of the reasons we will be able to continue to grow our economy? These are the types of programs we have been spending money on, whether it is the wage subsidy, the CERB or others. There is probably a list of 24 or more good, healthy programs supporting Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way spoke about the record of the Harper government. The Harper government led Canada through the great global recession. Canada had the best job growth, the best GDP growth and the lowest deficit in the G7. We ran surpluses in the years preceding the global downturn, whereas the government ran massive deficits in the years preceding the current situation. Now we have not only the largest deficit in Canadian history, but a deficit that exceeds half of the debt that was accumulated in the time up to that period.

We will take no lessons from the members across the way whatsoever. Canada had the best job growth during the global recession. Now we are struggling for jobs and struggling to provide opportunities, and the government thinks that more borrowing is the way out of it. It is not. We need a strategy to grow our economy that gets people back to work.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impassioned speech.

He is very knowledgeable about international relations, and I agree with him that the government should have shut down the borders when all of this started. The Bloc Québécois had called for the borders to be closed from the beginning of the crisis, but the Liberal government took weeks to do so. Unfortunately, it was too late.

The borders are closed now, and that is a good thing, but it has created other problems. The closure has sadly created obstacles for family reunification, and I know that some of the member's colleagues are passionate advocates for this issue.

Does he agree that, if it wanted to, the Liberal government could allow hundreds or thousands of people to see their loved ones safely?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great point by my colleague from the Bloc. The Conservatives have been raising this in question period. There is an inconsistency it seems: Some Canadians in very difficult situations, people who may have serious health challenges and want to have their partners and family members with them, have not been given approval to do so, yet other people seem to have been able to get exceptions in very different circumstances.

I think the member is right to suggest that there have been inconsistencies and problems in the government's response. That is why we have been continually calling on the government to do better.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to the member always gives us a great opportunity to hear a crisp articulation of the Conservative world view.

There is certainly room for criticism of the government's response to the pandemic, but I think it is a fiction to pretend that somehow a Conservative government could have stopped the virus from coming into Canada. When we look around the world, this is indeed a global pandemic. There have been severe economic consequences right across the global.

What I would like to hear, which I have not heard today, is the real answer from the Conservatives on what plan they have for income support for Canadians. Given the situation we find ourselves in now, no matter how we got here, what is their plan, going forward, to support Canadians who would like to work but cannot go back to work because the jobs do not exist and who still need to put a roof over their heads?

The member gave a great lecture on the consequences of public debt. Perhaps he would like to opine on the consequences of millions of individual bankruptcies in Canada and the economic effect that would have.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the point is that we do not have to choose. We can have programs that support people when they are unemployed. However, the ability to deliver good, strong supports for people who are unemployed is contingent on the fact that we have enough people who are employed, are able to work and can pay into those programs, and are therefore able to grow our economy.

There has to be something to redistribute money, in other words. My colleagues in the NDP are enthusiastic about redistribution. I say that if we are redistributing money that is merely printed and not wealth that is created, we are not actually helping people in the long run or even in the medium term.

I will quibble with his point that inevitably the pandemic was going to be at the same proportion. I agree it is a global pandemic that has affected every country to some extent, but it has affected some countries considerably less because they took measures early on that the government was unwilling to take. There are still—

[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.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are very much in a second wave of this pandemic. When we look at what people are going through right now, it is fair to say that there is a lot of fear. There is a lot of worry, and there is a lot of uncertainty in people's lives. In this second wave, when people are afraid, worried and uncertain, they need to know that help will be there if they need it. We see the number of cases rising in major cities in Ontario and in Quebec.

Now people are deeply concerned because the numbers are going up. People are scared that their places of work will be closed again. In this precarious situation, when everyone fears for the future, it is essential to provide the help that people need.

It is essential, in the context of a second wave, that people can count on support.

The first act of the Liberal government after proroguing Parliament for nearly two months was going to be cutting the help that families receive. That is what the Liberals told us in the summer. They prorogued Parliament and, while people are afraid and the second wave is upon us, they were going to cut the help that families need to get by.

Instead of $2,000 a month, which is not a luxurious amount, but just enough to get by, the Liberal government was going to cut that by $400 to $1,600 a month. The Liberals were going to force those families who were just getting by to get by with $400 less, despite the fact that we knew before the pandemic that families were just a couple of hundred dollars away from not being able to make ends meet. It was cruel what the Liberal government was going to do.

On one hand, the Liberals were presenting a throne speech with all sorts of promises and words to make life better for people, but those words rang very hollow. They were empty words. The first action of the government was going to be to cut the help that people need, so we fought back.

We fought back and made it very clear for Canadians, who are right now afraid of the future, who are worried about the second wave, that there is no way that we would allow the government to cut the help that families receive. We fought back and we won for Canadians. This was a victory for Canadians. This was a victory to say that we believe in investing in people and we believe that support should be there for families. If there is a situation where jobs have to be put on pause or if there is another shutdown, people need to know that they can count on support.

I was talking to my colleague from Vancouver Island and he was sharing a story of a woman in her 50s who has been a massage therapist for most of her life. She had a successful career, but as a result of COVID-19, she had to shut down. Even after the shutdown, a lot of people are nervous, as we know, about going back to some of the things that they used to do, so she was not seeing a pickup in her business again. She could not go back to work, so she lost everything.

On top of that, the Liberal government timed the throne speech to land just as CERB was ending. There was no time to give that woman any sense of security that there would be help for her. Right now, she is not sure how she is going to pay her rent. She is going to go to her line of credit to see if she can scrounge up enough money to pay rent, and she is waiting every day to find out what is going to happen. She asks if she will get help, but she does not know. I want her to know that we are going to pass this legislation tonight, and she will get that help.

Many people cannot work because of COVID-19. Their job and even their entire sector have ceased to exist. It is in no way the workers' fault.

They are scared. They don't know what they are going to do. They do not know how they are going to make ends meet.

This Liberal government planned the Speech from the Throne just when the CERB was ending. That was not right. I want people who need the CERB to know that we will fight for them. This evening, we will be voting in favour of a bill to continue helping people.

However, that is not the only thing that people worried about. As we all know, there are so many Canadians faced with the impossible choice of going into work sick and risking infecting their colleagues, or staying at home without pay not knowing how to pay their bills at the end of the month. That is an impossible choice made even more impossible by a pandemic. How does it make any sense that a worker be faced with this impossible choice when facing a global pandemic?

Back in May, we fought and obtained a commitment from the Liberal government to bring in paid sick leave for workers. Months later, there was no action. We made another clear demand. We said that if the Liberals wanted our support, they had to bring in paid sick leave for workers in legislation. There should never be any worker making that impossible choice. Any worker who is worried about being infected by COVID-19, who is potentially vulnerable or susceptible to COVID-19, should be able to stay at home and not risk infecting their co-workers and still be able to pay their bills. That is what we did. We fought and we won another massive victory for Canadians and for workers. We want them to know they will never have to make that impossible choice again.

We were able to obtain something that is the first of its kind. This is a historic moment. For the first time in the history of our country, there will be a federal paid sick leave for workers.

We are extremely proud of the work we have done. I want to thank my entire team. Together, we fought for Canadians. For the first time in our country's history, we have obtained paid sick leave. This is incredible. It means that workers do not have to make an impossible choice between going to work sick and staying home not knowing how to make ends meet.

We are there for them, we fought for them and we won for them.

These are two massive victories. We are very excited and honoured that we were able to fight for Canadians and win for Canadians. For New Democrats, it is not enough to put in place a paid sick leave during a pandemic. We believe that this is the first brick in the foundation for a permanent paid sick leave for all Canadians now and forever. That should be a part of our social safety net, not just in a pandemic, but all the time. No worker should live in fear that they cannot take time off from work if they are sick. That is our vision.

We know that there will be a lot of folks talking about how we are going to pay for these programs. It is a fair question. We need to be able to pay for these important investments in people. I am worried because as the deficit increases, we will hear more and more from Conservatives who will say we should cut the help to people in the middle of a pandemic. There will be some Liberals who are going to listen to the words of Conservatives and say that maybe we should cut the help. In fact, that is what the Liberals were about to do. They were convinced by the Conservatives there was too much help given to people and were going to cut that help. What other explanation is there for cutting the help in the middle of a second wave as the Liberals were planning to do but for the fact the New Democrats fought back and stopped them.

The Liberals are falling prey to this ideology, this belief of the Conservatives that when times are tough, let us put the burden, the weight and the pain on working people. That is what Conservatives do.

In some cases, I guess the Liberals listen to that because we are seeing a lot of talk about the deficit. It is important and scary to see a massive deficit, but the way forward is not to put the pain on the woman who lost her entire career in massage therapy on Vancouver Island, the solution is not to put the pain on working-class Canadians who have lost their jobs or on small businesses that are on the brink. Who should pay for this pandemic? The ultra wealthy who made record profits during this pandemic. We are not going to hear this from the Conservatives. We are not going to hear this from the Liberals. They talk about taxing extreme wealth inequality and I challenge anyone on the Liberal bench to explain what that even means. How can the government tax inequality? I know what it can tax. It can tax the ultra rich. It can tax those who make profits in Canada but hide all that profit and pay no taxes in Canada. That is what it can do.

What we are proposing is this. Those who have profited off this pandemic, the ultra rich who have made record profits during this pandemic, the ultra rich who have made billions of dollars in profits, should be the ones who pay for the recovery. If a company makes a profit in Canada, that company should pay taxes in Canada. The reality is there are far too many companies. One is not more than enough, there are so many companies that make a profit here in our country but pay virtually no tax in our country. That is who we should go after. There are companies that make record profits from Canadians in Canada, take that money and put it in an offshore tax haven, hiding it and not paying their fair share. That happens again and again. Recently we saw that the CRA had even taken a company to court for hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes it did not pay. The judge found it had certainly made profits in Canada, that it had taken all those profits and put them into a bank out of Canada and it was legal to do so. That needs to end. We need to stop that. We need to be very clear that the pain of, the cost of and the recovery from this pandemic should not fall on Canadians, on workers or the people who have felt the pain, but on those who have profited. That is what the New Democrats are going to do. We are going to fight to make sure the wealthiest pay their fair share.

While we are dealing with the crisis of COVID–19, it is immediate and we are feeling it right now. People are feeling the pain, they are worried and afraid, so I want them to know that we see them, hear them, know that they are going through difficult times right now and we are going to be there for them. From the beginning of this pandemic, we have fought every step of the way to make sure Canadians were at the centre of everything we did. Whether it was the CERB, the wage subsidy, students, people living with disabilities or seniors, every step of the way we fought for them and I want them to know they can count on us to continue to fight for them.

We know there is not only one crisis we are up against. We are not just facing a COVID–19 crisis. There are so many other crises we are up against. We know the climate crisis is still raging. In my home province of British Columbia and riding of Burnaby South, just a couple of weeks ago the air quality was so bad in the Lower Mainland it was one of the worst air quality ratings of all major cities in the world. While in the classrooms people were being advised to open the windows to let the fresh air in, at the same time they were being told close the windows to prevent the incoming fumes from the forest fires and climate fires. We know the climate crisis is impacting us right now. It is an emergency and we have to do everything we can to fight that crisis as well. That means making the right investments so we create jobs in communities that help us reduce our emissions and make a better quality of life. One example is if we invested in retrofits and building affordable housing, we could create local jobs, make life more affordable and fight the climate crisis. That is what a just recovery would look like.

We also know we are up against a crisis of systemic racism. Just recently, there was an example of an indigenous woman in Quebec, a heart-rending story, who pleaded for help with her dying breath. It was recorded and put on Facebook. She asked for somebody to please help her.

She asked that someone come for her.

She was dying in a hospital bed and the video recorded hospital staff mocking her and insulting her as she was lying and dying. I have said before that systemic racism kills people. It strips people of their dignity and it kills them. This woman died and while she was sick was subjected to racial taunts and systemic discrimination.

I have said again and again that it is not enough to just talk about these things. That woman's life was precious. She did not deserve to die that way. We have to end systemic racism in all its forms, whether it is in health care, in our criminal justice system or in our judicial system. We have to stop talking about it and actually get to the work of ending systemic racism. Enough is enough.

We know we are still faced with an opioid crisis that is taking the lives of so many Canadians. We have to stop our approach to this crisis as a criminal justice problem, as a problem that we can arrest our way out of and, instead, look at it for what it really is: a health care crisis that is going to require compassion and care to save lives.

We know that the impact of COVID-19 disproportionately affected women, so we need a she-covery. We need to be very thoughtful and purposeful with our investments to acknowledge that if women were impacted disproportionately, then we need to have a clear path to remedying that problem. One of the solutions that all of the experts are calling for is massive investment in child care. Therefore, if women, parents in general, but specifically women, choose to go back to work, they do not have to be faced with the impossible reality of not being able to find affordable child care or losing their careers. That should not be a choice that anyone has to make, particularly for women. If we believe in a society where everyone has the right to work and participate, we need to invest in child care.

I will end on this last note.

There is always talk about what should be done about the many crises we are facing, including the climate crisis and the systemic racism crisis, but we have to act. We do not have time to wait before taking action; we have to do it now. Words are no longer enough, and now is the time to act. We have solutions, and we can do something, so I demand that the government take concrete action to address these crises.

We must ask ourselves what the price of inaction is. Unless we take action, inequalities will certainly continue, and the gap between the average person and the very wealthy will only widen. That is why action is needed.

The reality is we need to act. Some people will say we should just let it be and not act. Inaction is a choice. If we do not act, if we do not fight the inequality in a meaningful way, if we do not make the wealthiest pay their fair share, inaction will result in the wealthiest getting even wealthier and everyone else falling behind, and that simply is not a choice New Democrats are going to let happen.

We are going to make sure that this crisis does not create more wealth inequality. We are going to ensure that this crisis does not make life worse for women or working-class people. We are going to fight for them because we know the cost of inaction is too grave. We will fight to make sure we have a more just, resilient and fairer economy, one that works for everyone, one in which everybody has the opportunity to live their best life.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to rise to the challenge the leader of the New Democratic Party gave us when he asked what we are doing regarding Canada's wealthiest. The Prime Minister addressed that point in a question and answer earlier today, where he illustrated that one of the first actions we took after the 2015 election was to reduce the taxes of Canada's middle class and at the same time increase the taxes for Canada's wealthiest.

I remind the leader of the New Democratic Party today that the NDP voted against that particular tax decrease. In fairness, he was not the leader back then. It was Tom Mulcair, and those were the days in which they had a tough time even acknowledging the need for a deficit. I appreciate the fact that the NDP is supporting the bill. It was a very bold move for New Democrats to come forward and say that they wanted to see this legislation.

Would the leader of the NDP not agree it is absolutely critical that the government invest in people in order to minimize the negative impacts of the second wave?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, what the member is talking about is an action taken over five years ago. Right now we are calling for clear action to make sure that those who profited off this pandemic pay their fair share, that we close offshore tax havens and that any company that makes profits in Canada pays taxes in Canada. The fact that I have to say that and it is not already happening is a problem. The fact that the Liberal government has been in a majority and allowed that to continue speaks for itself.

We are saying very clearly that everyday people pay their taxes. The member contributes. What about those companies that make record profits and then hide those profits and do not pay any taxes here? That is what the Liberal government has failed to address and that is what we are fighting for.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it curious that the parliamentary secretary speaks about what the Prime Minister spoke about today about the top 1% paying their fair share. Shortly after that was implemented, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the net negative effect to the treasury was going to be $8.9 billion over six years. What that meant was that the Liberals' top 1% tax plan actually was going to cost Canadians money.

The ones who benefited the most from this were actually MPs, where we saw, according to the Centre for Policy Alternatives, our tax rate decrease. We are $343 billion in deficits and approaching $1.2 trillion in debt. Has the hon. member costed out what a tax on the top 1% would be, and would it pay down the $343 billion in deficits and the $1.2 billion in debt?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of our measures, which we campaigned on and we still believe must happen, is a tax on the ultra-wealthy, those who have fortunes of over $20 million. The Parliamentary Budget Officer costed out this proposal, a tax on the wealth of those who have fortunes of over $20 million. Over 10 years, it would raise over $70 billion. That is a massive revenue increase. It is something that has been costed out.

There are many other examples. We know we are losing billions of dollars of revenue to offshore tax havens. Companies make profits in Canada off the backs of Canadians, and then they hide that profit in offshore tax havens. There should be no excuse. If one is going to make profits in Canada, one should pay taxes in Canada. It is a simple thing we are asking. Everyone else pays their salaries, earns here and pays taxes here. If a company makes money off Canadians, it surely has to pay taxes here.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party and the team who made the improvements in the legislation we have before us tonight. It is very important. It is important to see people are not going to be receiving less off CERB as they transition to EI.

I also recognize, though, the leader of the New Democratic Party is in a position to do considerably more. About climate he said, “the climate crisis is still raging”. Of course it is. It is worse by the minute. With the power that party has, I wonder why in the election we heard that this was going to be a priority for the NDP. The NDP in British Columbia has of course increased greenhouse gases and bet its money on fracking and LNG.

I wonder when we will see this federal NDP press the federal Liberals to give us more than lip service on climate. This is the moment. We are running out of time.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, in fairness, the member is right when she talks about a Liberal government that pays lip service to the climate crisis but then does the opposite. The Liberals talk about these lofty goals, and then miss each and every one of them without any accountability. They talk about planting two billion trees and have planted zero. They talk about the importance of our climate and then buy a pipeline.

What we need to do is to stop the pretty, empty words. We need some concrete action. One of the things that we are fighting for and pushing for, once we get past the immediacy of the second wave of the pandemic, is the recovery where we invest in people, create jobs locally and fight the climate crisis by reducing emissions. We must do that. Nothing less can happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP leader for his speech and for the work that he has done over the past while.

I am proud of the work that we have done to drive aspects of the government's response to the pandemic. Sometimes, and just from the previous question, I get the sense that we made it look too easy, but I know how hard fought and hard won the victories we did get are. I know that there are some people now in the country who think there is some kind of hotline, that we just call up the Prime Minister and he gives us anything we want, but that is not true.

We hear from people who would like us to push all sorts of things, including proportional representation and climate action, which are things we remain very committed to. I know that the NDP leader raised the question of proportional representation with the Prime Minister, and I would like him to tell us if there was any openness at all to discussing issues outside of the constraints of the pandemic and just how difficult it has been to extract these concessions from the government.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He was critical in the negotiations in achieving this massive victory, as was our House leader. In fact, I want to thank all of our team for their solidarity.

This was hard fought. Every step of the way, with any victory that we won for people, we had to fight tooth and nail. The Liberal government was not just going to do any of these things. It was not going to help students. We had to fight for that. It was not going to help those living with disabilities. We had to fight for that. Then it offered something that was so little that we had to fight more to make sure that it did not exclude so many Canadians, but there is still so much more to do.

With respect to the help for Canadians and paid sick leave, the Liberals promised this in May. We had to fight for months and months to get legislation. We had to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to win for Canadians, and we are not going to stop fighting.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Beauce, dozens of businesses are at risk of closing down or are being forced to slow down production.

This is not because they cannot sell their products, but because they are in need of workers, and factories are not the only ones with this problem. For example, Giovannina Pizzeria in Sainte-Marie has been a family-owned business for over 50 years. It has to close at least three days a week now.

How will Bill C-4 help in this case?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, the labour shortage is a big problem, and it has come up a lot on my visits to Quebec.

That said, we did manage to do something important with this bill. A number of workers are afraid to work because they do not have paid sick leave. With this paid sick leave, they will now know that if they become sick, they will be able to stay home. This makes workers more confident about returning to work. They will have this assistance, this support, which can give them more confidence.

I know that there is still a lot of work to be done. I am prepared to do what it takes to move forward on this issue. It is a big problem in many regions of Quebec and across the country.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening in support of Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

This is a very important bill. It will allow us to build on the measures already set out in Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan so we can protect Canadians during the next wave of the pandemic and, more importantly, continue to support them as the economy reopens.

A number of my colleagues have already spoken eloquently about the new measures this bill proposes, such as the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. I will also talk about them in a few minutes, but I would first like to talk about the importance of passing Bill C-4 quickly. Time is running out.

As we know, the legislation we are debating here today would, among other things, extend the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to the end of this year. It is a very long title for a very important act that is otherwise set to expire. As hon. members may recall, it was enacted in March as part of Bill C-13, adopted by the House. It allows the government to spend the money needed to protect Canadians and address the public health crisis of the global COVID-19 pandemic. It has been a cornerstone of Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan, a plan that has been critical to supporting Canadians and Canadian businesses.

I know I have spoken about this many times, but I cannot understate the extent to which Canadians have relied on our economic response to get them through these extraordinary times. Through this plan, our government has delivered on programs, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, that have helped millions of Canadians. The CERB has ensured that millions of Canadians have not had to make impossible choices between putting food on their tables and paying their bills when they have lost their jobs or seen their incomes reduced as a result of the pandemic.

The CERB has helped nearly nine million Canadians since March.

Given how many Canadians lost their jobs this year, it quickly became apparent that many of them would need financial support until they could get back to work. However, the existing income support programs were not designed to deal with a crisis of this magnitude. That is why we created the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, and made sure that many Canadians would be eligible, for instance by allowing workers to earn up to $1,000 per month while still receiving the CERB.

The Canada emergency response benefit has been a key program, supporting millions of Canadians unable to work because of COVID-19. It has had a tangible impact on the quality of life of millions of families from coast to coast to coast, in every constituency in this country, and that is thanks to the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act. The Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act also paves the way to support businesses across this country, especially our small businesses.

Canadians have worked their whole lives to establish businesses that serve their communities and provide good local jobs. Small businesses not only are the backbone of our economy, but define our neighbourhoods. They give our main streets their character, owners become community leaders and they become the places we rely on to connect to one another.

The list goes on. It is largely thanks to the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act that we are able to help Canadians, support our businesses, and protect everyone's health and safety. However, there is still more work to be done. The increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and the arrival of the second wave clearly show that we are still grappling with the pandemic. We must not let our guard down. We must continue to protect the Canadians who need us most. We must continue to support them, but first we must give ourselves the means to do so, and we must do it now. When Parliament passed the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act in March, the date of repeal was set for September 30, 2020. This means that the act will expire tomorrow, but COVID-19 will not expire. We must extend the act. We owe it to Canadians.

The limited extension of this act would allow the government to continue to do a lot of the things we have been doing to support Canadians and businesses that are most in need. For example, this act would allow the government to keep buying the necessary personal protective equipment to help essential workers. It would also crucially continue support for the public health, social and economic response in indigenous communities. We understand that indigenous communities are vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19, which is why we acted quickly to provide nearly a billion dollars to support public health and community-led responses in these communities.

Extending the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to December 31 would ensure that there are no needless interruptions to several programs, especially since a second wave of the pandemic is imminent and has already hit some regions. The extension would enable the government to continue to support the provinces and territories and improve the capacity of our health care system. Take, for example, the federal government's investment in testing and contact tracing. We are talking about a legislative framework that has been essential to our assistance plan.

Extending the act would also enable the government to help small businesses and maintain support measures for farmers, food companies and food supply chains. It would ensure that there is no interruption to the final payments under existing programs, such as the CERB, while we begin to transition to the new assistance programs.

We are now six months into the worst health and economic crisis in Canadian history. COVID-19 has affected all aspects of Canadians' lives, from their health to their livelihoods. We will overcome this pandemic, but this will require the work of every order of government, every community and every one of us. For our part, we will support people and businesses through this crisis as long as it lasts. Let me be absolutely clear with the House and with all Canadians: We will do whatever it takes to get through this pandemic.

We are trusting science to lead the fight until a safe, effective vaccine becomes available. Until then, we must remain vigilant and use the tools available to us, such as testing, treatment and physical distancing. The government will continue to be there for Canadians, just as Canadians are there for each other. We will do whatever is necessary.

Canadians are counting on their government to be there for them when they need it. We know that too many are still unable to work because of COVID-19, including many women, many newcomers to Canada and many people who are self-employed. As we have said previously, and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion said earlier this evening, we will continue to support these vulnerable Canadians. Those who have been receiving CERB will be supported by the employment insurance system. Let me be clear on something: We will not let down those who do not qualify for EI.

Bill C-4 would ensure that the workers impacted by COVID-19 have the support they need by creating three new transitional benefits to ensure that Canadians can continue to support their families and make ends meet.

First, under the Canada recovery benefit, $500 per week for up to 26 weeks could be available to those individuals not working due to the pandemic and who do not qualify for EI, including the self-employed. This would also be available to those individuals working reduced hours who have lost 50% or more of their income due to the pandemic.

Second, the Canada recovery sickness benefit would provide $500 per week for up to two weeks to workers who are unable to work for at least 50% of the time they would have otherwise worked, either because they contracted COVID-19, think they might have it or because they isolated because of the virus.

Third, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit would be available to those who cannot work because they are caring for a close relative or because their child cannot go to school or day care because of the pandemic. These Canadians could receive $500 per week for up to 26 weeks.

These transitional benefits are proposed as part of the government's plan to support Canadians, as we work to build a stronger, more resilient economy. All three would be available for one year. We know this crisis will not pass this week or next.

This pandemic is the worst public health crisis Canada has ever encountered. Canadians of all ages everywhere in the country have been hit hard. Millions of Canadians lost their jobs or had their hours cut along with their income. Job losses may be the most obvious effect of the global economic shock we have all had to withstand, but the shock also highlighted a whole range of quality-of-life issues, such as mental health, family violence and social ties.

We firmly believe that policy development must be guided by prosperity and quality of life for all Canadians. That is what will help us build a stronger, more resilient country, and that is what guides us as we develop the pandemic recovery plan.

This is not the time for austerity. As Canadians continue to weather the consequences of the pandemic, we must maintain certain assistance program and launch others. Bill C-4 will enable us to round out many of the existing measures. It will also help us make our COVID-19 economic response plan more effective. In the medium and long terms, we will also have to recover from the pandemic by building a stronger and more resilient Canada.

Canada entered this crisis in the best fiscal position of its peers. For the past six months, the government has been using that fiscal firepower so Canadians, businesses and our entire economy have the support needed to weather the storm. The same firepower can also help us to overcome this crisis and build back as a stronger, more resilient country.

It is critical to ensure that the Canadians who need it the most continue to receive the support they need. It will help to ensure that Canadians and the businesses where they work continue to receive the support they need.

I will end by saying this. Our government's first priority is addressing this pandemic and ensuring Canadians are healthy and safe. We are getting them the help they need today, while finding solutions which will improve their quality of life over the months and years to come.

Our government's priority is to fight this pandemic and make sure Canadians stay healthy and safe. We will give them the help they need now, and we will come up with solutions to improve their quality of life in the months and years to come.

The measures contained in this bill would help us to do exactly that. I urge every member of the House to do the same.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, dozens of businesses in my riding of Beauce are at risk closing down or are being forced to slow down production due to a labour shortage. It is not that they cannot sell their products, it is that the labour shortage is a serious problem locally. Factories are not the only ones with this problem. In my riding, Giovannina, a restaurant in Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce, has to close three days a week because they are short-staffed.

How will Bill C-4 help in this case?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his concern about his constituents.

We know that we are all working to find solutions and help workers and businesses during this pandemic. From the start, as we have seen, the emergency wage subsidy was a very important solution that allowed more people to continue working.

This bill, Bill C-4, will also allow workers and Canadians to continue to be supported during this crisis. We know that their health and safety are a priority during this period. In addition to providing this support to Canadians and Quebeckers, we will continue to work hard to create more than one million jobs, returning us to pre-pandemic levels. We will also work with the provinces, territories and parliamentarians to find ways to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize, but others want to ask questions. Answers should be about the same length as the questions.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister told us that it was not going to last a few weeks, but a full year. I would like to ask her why we are once again being presented with a temporary measure when so many changes could have been made to employment insurance.

After the EI program was ransacked for years and the EI fund plundered, why is the measure temporary? Is it so that they can have an excuse to get rid of it in a year?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her question and comments.

In my opinion it is important is to demonstrate adaptability despite the uncertainty of these times. At the start of the pandemic, we truly wanted to help Canadians who had lost their jobs or could not work. The CERB supported millions of Canadians.

We are going to transition to the EI system. We will improve our EI system by developing these supports. With Bill C-4, we will give Canadians and Quebeckers ways to obtain support so they can subsequently return to work.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister talked about having the backs of businesses, but the government's flawed commercial rent assistance program has been a boondoggle. This morning we learned from the PBO that it only will have spent half the money budgeted because it made it a landlord-driven application process.

The minister of small business said we should stay tuned three weeks ago. We are looking at this. The government keeps saying that it is listening to small businesses, but small businesses are saying that this program is only going to save businesses two days from now.

Businesses in Quebec will be closing their doors because the second wave of the virus is hitting us. The lockdown will affect restaurants, cinemas and other businesses. They cannot wait to stay tuned any longer. They need the minister and the government to fix that program.

The government keeps pointing its finger at the provinces, but the provinces are saying that it is the federal government that needs to lead on this. These businesses are counting on the federal government. Will the minister fix this?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the member for sharing what I have heard across the country since the beginning of this crisis. Many businesses have asked for support. That is how we know that thousands of small businesses have been hard hit. It is why we brought many programs forward: CEWS, the Canadian emergency wage subsidy; the Canadian emergency response benefit; and the Canadian emergency business account. As of September 28, commercial rent assistance has helped over 120,000 Canadian small businesses, representing over a million jobs, over $1.68 billion in support.

Our government is actively exploring options to further support small businesses as they face the ongoing challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the challenges of fixed costs and rent. This is at a time when health concerns and precautions prevent many businesses from operating at full capacity.

We will continue to work with businesses to ensure they have a bridge through this pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, there is an issue clearly looming as we look at where we are in terms of the deficit and our debt. I was recently looking at an article by our former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, pointing out that we really cannot continue spending without looking at the revenue side of the ledger.

As the minister looking at middle-class prosperity, when will we look at a wealth tax? We need to find new sources of revenue. The Green Party has been advocating for a wealth tax. I wonder if she has had a look at it. The PBO has costed it and it is viable.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her leadership on many files. By working all together, we will find ways to make sure we get through this pandemic. She has encouraged us to all work together, and it is important to do that.

I want to recognize that the PBO has done important work on behalf of Parliamentarians and all Canadians. As we entered as a country into this crisis, we had a strong fiscal position relative to our G7 peers. By using this fiscal firepower, we will continue to ensure Canadians, workers and businesses get the support they need. We have a well-deserved international reputation for small and prudent fiscal management. Our plan continues to be fiscally sustainable, and we will continue to be responsible.

Canadians are counting on our government to be there for them. We have done, and will continue to do, exactly that.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the commercial rent assistance program. I have outlined that many businesses have not received the support they need. The minister spoke about the other programs. What we are hearing from small businesses, and CFIB again this morning, is that many of these businesses simply will not survive without commercial rent assistance. They have closed their doors for public health reasons to do the right thing, and they should not be on the hook when their landlord does not apply or if they do not meet the threshold and only lost 60% of their business. Trying to survive losing 50% or 60% of business is going to be nearly impossible. They need help. They need the government to fix this program.

Will the minister reassure those small businesses that she can help them and fix this broken program?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to say that since the beginning, we have developed and implemented many programs to support businesses. I mentioned this earlier. The CECRA program has had its difficulties, but we have been working really hard to make sure we work with provinces and territories to find a way to encourage owners to use the CECRA program that was developed and offered.

As I said earlier, over 120,000 Canadian small businesses, representing over a million jobs, had access to commercial rent assistance. As we continue to face COVID-19 challenges, we will continue to find ways to support the fixed costs of businesses, including rent, and we are working on this as fast as we can.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

Before I came here at this late hour, I watched something that I am having trouble processing right now. That is the coverage of the death of a first nation woman, Joyce Echaquan. It should trouble all of us. We are sitting in this place tonight, debating this bill, and I am reflecting on the Prime Minister's comments. I actually agree with him for once. I do not agree with his overall response, but he made some comments earlier this week around the Speech from the Throne, and how the pandemic had exposed cracks in our society. It has, but it has exposed the cracks to people in Canada who have such privilege that they do not have to live in those cracks on a daily basis.

I worry about our capacity to address these issues because we have such a divide. There is a privilege in making the statement, “This pandemic has exposed cracks in our society” like a revelation, because there are people living this so profoundly day to day. What we saw tonight in the death of this woman should shake us all, regardless of political stripe. It should shake us into realizing that there is much more to be done, and statements of sympathy and caring down a path that is set one way or the other is not going to address this in a pluralism. It just is not.

That is where I would like to frame some of my comments tonight on the bill. How do we address these cracks? We are ostensibly addressing a bill tonight, given that closure was invoked on it. That is a signal often given by the government to say it is an important piece of legislation that is going to fix a bunch of problems. I think it is a missed opportunity. The process we are going through here, the time that we lost in prorogation, at this moment in our country's history, is a missed opportunity for us to look past our individual dogmas and actually chart a course forward that can address some of these fundamental inequities, the systemic racism, the systemic misogyny, the class divide that we see widening in our country.

I wanted to come in here and talk about this issue from the perspective of the people who live this reality in my community, because they have experienced the situation of the pandemic in a unique way. We already had a severe jobs crisis going into the pandemic.

I am hoping everyone can put their partisanship aside for a minute tonight, and understand what it is like to be living in a community that has no hope of getting back to work. We are here debating a bill tonight that is not tied to a plan for long-term economic viability or tied to measures that will get us through the pandemic beyond lockdown. That is the failure of the bill.

Of course, I think everybody in this place, including me, wants to ensure that Canadians have the benefits they need through the pandemic. There is no question of that. I know people in my community who need the CERB to make ends meet. That is the reality. For them it is like, “You guys have shut down my job. I need to eat, and you as government have made a decision to do this, so where is it?”

I was going to give a huge speech about how prorogation cost five weeks that we could have continued their benefits in.

Members have to understand what it is like to not only be told that one's job is dirty, but to have it disappear and then have no plan for what comes next.

I will speak from a woman's perspective tonight. The women in my riding have gone through so much. They are trying to keep marriages going throughout the downturn of the energy sector, and they hear that their jobs are dirty and that they just need to diversify the economy. These are women who care about the planet. They care about climate change, but they also work in an industry where they know that our energy is part of the solution to a transition to that clean economy and there is no plan, beyond government handouts, to restore their dignity and work. It is just take away jobs, take away dignity, take away marriages and take away their houses.

I just feel that the bill before us is a continuation of that spirit of the paternalistic attitude, the misogynistic attitude that is pervasive in this place. It is pervasive in our approach to legislation. It is pervasive in our messaging and our paternalism, be it “everybody just do their part,” or “we just need to give you more benefits.” There is dignity and beauty in self-determination that our systems, and the government's response to current events, have removed from people. So, yes, cracks in our society have been exposed to those who benefit from the power structures of systemic racism, of systemic misogyny, of systemic regional alienation, but they are apparent to everyone else. They are apparent to people who live this day to day. They are apparent in every part of our society, and I just feel like the bill fails it.

Of course we want benefits to be continued for people. I want the people in my community to work, but I want them to have an answer for their kids when they ask about Halloween, about holiday dinners, or when they wonder if they can go and see their mom in a long-term care facility after it has been shut down. It is not sufficient to say that an entire society should be dependent on the government. It is paternalistic, and it is misogynistic, to say that the government should be the only answer to this situation.

I guess I am pleading, after nearly 10 years of being in this place. I have tried the fight. I have tried the bombast. I do well at that. I am proud of the fact that, over the last two weeks, a small group of feisty people in Room 600 Valour got the government to admit to rapid testing, and I thank Bari, Julia, Sean and Jill. Those guys got her done. However, I am tired of this attitude that is so disconnected that some of the people in my riding feel that they cannot be Canadian any more. That breaks my heart, and it breaks my heart to watch what we saw on TV tonight.

It is such a late hour, and I did not come with a prepared speech, but we can do better. The government has to do better, because our country is failing. It is not about politics any more. It is about doing something bigger than that, and the bill before us could be so much better. It could do so much more. It could inspire Canadians. It could get us through this, but instead it is being rammed through in four hours. I cannot speak in 10 minutes to everything I talked about tonight, but Canadians need us to do that, and that is why this place matters. That is why each of us matters in here.

It is up to each of us, regardless of political stripe, to reclaim that power that every Canadian has and to make democracy matter again, especially with what we saw tonight south of the border. This is not entertainment, folks. These are people's lives, and what is happening here with the bill, with prorogation, is not enough. We need to do better. I call out of desperation and with a plea for hope that the government can do better than this. It is not enough.

I am happy to answer questions.

[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 my colleague's comments this evening. They remind me of a tour I had earlier this month of an organization called LITE, Local Investment Toward Employment. She is right that there is a certain segment of society which far too often we overlook. I do not think it is intentional; I believe unintentional things take place that unfortunately cause some people to fall through the cracks as the Prime Minister made reference to and the member just spoke to. It was Tyler Pearce who provided me with a tour of the facility. This organization does some incredible work which COVID–19 has had an impact on. The people who are being serviced in many ways are completely dysfunctional and need the assistance and the opportunity to put in a few hours and get some cash. There is a willingness to do that.

In good part, I agree with what my colleague across the way is saying and maybe government needs to be more involved in directly supporting those individuals who are finding it so difficult to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will go to the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is deliberately intentional that we overlook that stuff because, to be honest, the plight of people who suffer only comes to this place when it becomes politically inconvenient. That is what is wrong with our system in Canada right now. We are at a place in our nation's history where people have actually forgotten the power they hold because they have been conditioned to think what we are getting here is sufficient, that a daily ration from the government is what Canada is capable of. It is not. It is much more than that.

The country my family came to and worked in was one where anything was possible. I am not sure that it is the same country for the people who are coming to Canada today or live here. It is arrogant to say it is not intentional because the choices we make here have intent and our choices in this bill mean that we do not have a plan going forward to deal with the pandemic in a way that is beyond that daily handout from the government. I believe there should be more. I wish there were more—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a passionate plea on behalf of those who are falling through the cracks during this pandemic.

I may digress a little from the main topic, Bill C-4, to speak on the same issue. In the middle of a pandemic, the Bloc suggested amendments to the throne speech, to make sure it did not leave out seniors aged 65 to 75, for example. We suggested immediate health transfers so that no one in Quebec's health care system would fall through the cracks. However, the Conservatives voted against our amendment.

Does my colleague think that the government is letting other people fall through the cracks right now?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I worry about seniors in Canada. I worry about my mother. I worry about how I am going to be a caregiver to my parents as I do this job. I worry about so many people and what has happened with the long-term care facilities in Canada right now during the pandemic.

What we should be doing here is having a discourse of thought on how we can solve these problems for Canadians. I feel like my power is being eroded, that I do not have the chance to meet with my colleague. We have never had a chance to have wine and talk about the areas we agree on and do not agree on because we have not been together.

Tonight I hope we realize the sanctity of this place and its ability to keep peace and bring prosperity and do not let that power go away. Of course I am open to talking about ways to help our seniors. I hope to have that glass of wine with her, but we need better than what we have here and we should have time to discuss that and come together as a country rather than accepting the status quo.

[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.

[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 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 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 from Winnipeg, 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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are truly reflecting on their actions today, then they really should ask themselves why they did not follow what the New Democrats said and brought in a universal direct income program. If they did that, people would not have to fight continually for the government to fill the holes and gaps that it created. The Liberals should truly reflect on that and understand the implications of what it means. Going forward, what can we do and what can the government do to do better?

In this debate on Bill C-4, why not put in the legislation that it would be a permanent program so that we do not need to have this debate over and over again? Who among the Liberals said to the Prime Minister that this is not acceptable and that they want to see a permanent program? I challenge the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am having some difficulty understanding my colleague's beliefs. She voted in favour of the gag order, but she voted against the Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government not to leave out seniors between the ages of 65 and 75. Perhaps that is not what really bothered her. She voted against health transfers. Perhaps that is not what really bothered her either. There was one other thing in the motion, and that was respect for Quebec's jurisdiction. Her colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie even said that he supported the Bloc Québécois because he believes in respecting Quebec's jurisdiction.

Am I to understand that a gag order is more important to her than respecting Quebec's jurisdiction?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The New Democrats have always recognized Quebec's unique history within Canada.

With respect to the motion put forward by the Bloc, the component I find myself challenged with is the suggestion that the federal government should provide funding to Quebec and other provinces with no strings attached. In some cases we actually do need to set national standards. For example, with the Canada Health Act, we need to set national standards to ensure that when dollars flow we have the deliverables from the provinces.

Take a look at what is going on right now in New Brunswick with Clinic 554. Right now people are not able to access the very services they need for reproductive health, particularly the LGBTQ2+ and transgender communities. That is not okay. We need to set national standards to ensure that everyone can access the health care they need.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House at any hour to address the important issues that Canadians are facing as we are in this pandemic.

To begin with, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the territory of the Algonquin nation.

To the Algonquin Nation, I express gratitude for their extraordinary generosity and hospitality. Meegwetch.

This evening has been an interesting experience because we are of course at distance and each party has to reduce its numbers in the House. I have been with my colleague from Fredericton and my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith. We have been coming in by turns, so in our last round of voting I was voting by Zoom. Probably some of us now in the House were as well. There was an eerie moment when, as we were voting, one could hear Donald Trump's voice. Someone on one of the channels was paying attention to the U.S. presidential debate.

I only mention this because I am extremely grateful to be Canadian. I am very grateful to be with all of the members here tonight and those who are still on Zoom. I am very grateful that even in our partisan debates, which for Canadians can sometimes veer toward the toxic, we hear each other and, for the most part, speak respectfully to each other. We do not have a leader who yells and refuses to condemn white supremacy. It is distressing, to put it mildly.

In the context of speaking to this, I want to commend those things about all of us that make us Canadian. I am grateful that this Parliament is a minority Parliament. I do not much like false majorities where a minority of the voters can deliver 100% of the power to the party that has the most seats. I am grateful for how closely this Parliament, facing the COVID pandemic, as the member for Barrie—Innisfil was mentioning earlier tonight, was working with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the parliamentary secretary and many others to get our constituents home. We have for the most part, throughout this pandemic, found ways to work together.

I am grateful that the New Democratic Party worked with the Liberals to vastly improve the piece of legislation we have in front of us. However, we cannot say it solves all the problems, and I will speak to that for the bulk of my remarks.

Earlier tonight, one of our colleagues said that Canada was failing, and I want to address that directly. We are struggling. Every single part of the human family is, no matter where we find those governments and societies, however they are knit together in successful, healthy democracies that are prosperous like ours or in countries that were on the verge of collapse before COVID hit. Every country is struggling to one degree or another. I thank God I am not in Brazil, where Bolsonaro just got rid of all the restrictions on logging in the mangrove forests while the Amazon is so dry that the Pantanal wetland, an extraordinary wetland of biodiversity, is on fire.

This is our entire planet's heritage, and our planet is now on fire. In British Columbia, we are breathing in the smoke from fires in California, Oregon and Washington State. We are dealing with two emergencies at once: the pandemic and climate change.

When I look around the world at where I could live, what I could be, what country I could belong to, we are not failing; we are struggling. We are working together too, and as long as we keep the spirit of working together, we will get through this okay. We will get through this and will be capable of building back better. We will be capable of reimagining our future. We will deliver. We may not not trust each other all that much because we belong to different political parties, but when we get past the thing about our parties, we trust each other. If I were in trouble, I could call any of the people here and I know there would be help coming. We are one family, all of us Canadians.

In that context, I welcome this legislation. I hope it alleviates the concerns for most Canadians, but it clearly does not speak to all of us. There is much more work to do.

One particular group of Canadians that has been let down badly through all of this is Canadians with disabilities. We have a lot more work to do there, as well as for businesses. As my friend from Courtenay—Alberni mentioned earlier, so many businesses are in deep trouble.

I am very concerned for the tourism sector. There is an iconic tourism business in my riding, the Butchart Gardens. My colleagues from Vancouver Island and others across Canada know Butchart Gardens. I have been talking to the general manager and the CEO, who are very worried that they will not make it to next year. Their business has dropped by 90%. They had to lay off 450 people. Help is not coming, so the tourism business particularly needs an infusion of relief help and cash. Somehow we have to do that.

Individual small businesses, restaurateurs, touring companies, in fact all kinds of companies, small and large, are still in trouble and we do not know when the pandemic will end. I remember when it started, more or less, and standing here on March 13, I wondered if we really did not have to come back until April 20. That seemed a rather long time.

Do my colleagues remember how that felt? We had no idea then and we still do not know, so it is very important for Canada that we actually hold together.

I will reference something before I turn back to the bill: One of Canada's more brilliant academics, Thomas Homer-Dixon, has a new book out called Commanding Hope, which is about how it really matters to use hope as a tool to hang on to and pull people through in tough times. It could not have come out at a better time than now, with the dual threats of the climate crisis and the pandemic. He mentioned to me that, in polling around the world, an encouraging sign was that most countries are encouraging more social cohesion than before the pandemic started. That is not the case in the United States or Brazil, but most nations are feeling that sense of all being in this together that my father used to tell me about. He grew up in London during the Blitz.

My father said, at one point when we had been busy fighting the government of Nova Scotia on one environmental fight or another, that he really preferred the Second World War. I asked him how he could possibly prefer the Second World War when he was at risk of being blown up at any moment. He said, “Back then, you know, we really had the feeling the government was on our side.” That is how people are feeling now, I think.

In a long time, generationally speaking, we have been distanced from the notion that if someone is in real trouble they are not going to turn to the billionaire class to bail them out, because they are busy making money on their own. They are not figuring out how to hold bake sales for the rest of us.

Coming back to this bill, I am extremely glad to see the changes that have been made to make sure that it is $500 a week and not $400 a week. I am extremely glad to know that we are trying to figure out how we can have a Canada recovery benefit, a Canada recovery sickness benefit, and a Canada recovery caregivers benefit. Reading the details of this, what comes to me is how hard it is to legislate by specific example while hoping not to forget anyone.

I would like to read an example. Of course all of my colleagues here have read this, but if anyone is an insomniac and watching this right now: Someone will qualify for this benefit if they have a child who is normally cared for, and who is under the age of 12, on the first day of the week because the school that the child normally attended has had to close for reasons related to COVID. Maybe the school would be open at certain times of the day, or the child could not attend school because the child had contracted or might have contracted COVID-19. Maybe the child was in isolation because a doctor said they might be better off in isolation, or they might be at risk of health complications. Maybe the person who usually cared for the child was not available because of COVID-19, or because they cared for a family member who required supervised care because the day program or facility that the family member normally attended was closed.

I could go on and on. In trying to anticipate every specific in order to have the benefit work for everyone, listing specifics inevitably leaves something out. I would suggest again, and not for the first time in this place, that we really need to think about the universality of our social safety net. Our health care system works because it was made universal. If Tommy Douglas had sat down in Saskatchewan way back when and said, “Let us create a health care system where we can list the people who might need help,” it would not have worked. If people happen to be very sick, and let us say there is only xamount of money in their bank account, or let us say someone is only a bit sick, it would never work. Universality is necessary for a social safety net. It is really time to talk about and implement a guaranteed livable income.

We know the Parliamentary Budget Officer did an initial review and said that a universal income would be cheaper than CERB. A truly universal income would be enormous but would end up saving our society money in the health care system, because poverty is the single largest social determinant of health. It would save us money on corrections, because it is a lot cheaper to make sure people are going to school, getting a good start in life and going to university than keeping them in jail, which costs over $100,000 a year per prisoner. As Hugh Segal, former Progressive Conservative Senator has shown in his book, Bootstraps Need Boots, there are multiple good, solid reasons to move to a guaranteed livable income.

I put this to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion earlier today and I was really pleased with her answer, which I will paraphrase. She said what we are doing now is getting this benefit out to replace CERB, and CERB is going to turn into EI. Then there are relief and sickness programs, and I completely agree with the New Democrats that being able to take sick leave is something that every Canadian should be able to count on.

However, all that aside, the minister shared that just because we are doing this now does not mean that there are other conversations to be had. Let us hang on to that and really work with Finance Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the provincial and municipal orders of government and figure out how much money could be saved if we stopped having shame-based poverty band-aid programs. These include welfare programs where, if a single mother goes back to work, any money she makes is clawed back from welfare, or if a single mother lives with her boyfriend, she loses all the benefits. This kind of programming does not eliminate poverty, it perpetuates poverty.

It is in the interests of Canada as whole. It is in the interests of the health of our society, our resilience and our ability to manage the next pandemic. We really cannot manage what happens with the climate crisis if we do not act fast. Frankly, the Speech from the Throne is quite inadequate in that regard, but tonight's debate is not on the Speech from the Throne, so I will stick to the Canada recovery benefit and the other sections of the bill.

This gives us a sense of what must be done, but we are still falling short. I take heart from the minister's response about 13 hours ago. Her response earlier today was that there is a conversation to be had about guaranteed livable income in this country. How much progress is that? In the 2019 election, only a year ago, only the Greens were talking about guaranteed livable income. Some NDP spoke of it as well, but not in the platform.

We need to grab this moment. How large are the transformational moments that are possible now? This is not just a pandemic affecting Canada. This is global. Every single modern democracy, every G20 country is dealing with debt and deficits.

We have to think big. We have to reimagine our rules. I was pleased that the Prime Minister said to the United Nations, let's think about something as big as a new version of the Bretton Woods Conference. Let's really look at what can be done, because we are at a hinge moment in history.

This bill helps. It will not be enough, but let us pass it quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the member who just spoke. Frankly, I have been around since she got her start, and I have to admit that I adore her. We are really opening up tonight.

My mother told me something I will never forget. We cannot compare ourselves to the worst of our kind because then we will certainly be the best. This evening, we listened to Mr. Bolsonaro and Mr. Trump. Obviously, compared to them, we are the best.

The reason we are here tonight is that the government imposed closure and prorogued Parliament six weeks ago. I do not think that is what it means to be the best.

I have enormous respect for the member, and I would like her to tell me why she thinks the government prorogued Parliament. Was it really to deliver a throne speech and reorient its vision vis-à-vis COVID-19? Or was it to hide scandals like the WE Charity scandal?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am truly delighted to know that he adores me. It is so difficult to talk about the other things right now. I apologize, it is late and it is difficult for me to speak French.

I do not think there is any doubt that we would not have had prorogation if Bill Morneau and the Prime Minister had not bumped into the WE Charity scandal. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

I am much more charitable than most, in that I recognize the immense difference between this and the 2008 prorogation, which was epically unconstitutional. It was an effort by a prime minister to avoid a vote he knew he would lose, in which he might not have been able to form a government because there was a coalition waiting in the wings. That is a very different situation. In all of the Commonwealth nations, those that use Westminster parliamentary democracy, our very interesting archaic system, only one other country had ever had a prime minister go to the Governor General for prorogation to avoid a vote they knew they would lose. The previous example was also Canadian: Sir John A. Macdonald. The only other country where this had ever happened was Sri Lanka, where the Governor General turned them down.

There are prorogations that are toxic and unconstitutional, and there are prorogations that are convenient and politically unworthy. This was of the latter variety.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbour. I can see the beautiful Mount Maxwell on Salt Spring Island from my house, and that is part of the riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I want to thank her for expanding the conversation we are having tonight on Bill C-4, to talk about how this really is a first step. I think many Canadians are seeing this as a moment in time where we have the ability to reimagine what Canada's full potential can be.

We have heard a lot of discussion today. Part of the discussion has centred on the cost, and I will agree that it has been a significant cost, but I am really glad that in the course of her debate she also started touching on the cost of institutionalized poverty and how that continues to be such a drag on so many of our communities right across this great country. I look, in the Cowichan Valley, at how the opioid crisis is ravaging the downtown core of Duncan right now. That is traced back to institutionalized poverty. These are individuals who have suffered multiple forms of trauma.

Whether it is mental health, physical abuse or the ongoing trauma of everyday lived experiences in poverty, those have real costs to our society. They have costs that the member mentioned in incarceration rates and in our health services.

I just want to ask her to again comment on how investments in things like a guaranteed livable income are actually, in the long run, going to make our country a better place, not only socially and in terms of health, but also economically, to put us on a path for the better.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, of course, I know my dear colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford could not see Mount Maxwell lately because we were in so much smoke. It has been a very depressing time between knowing we can only visit our friends outdoors and at a distance, but we cannot because we have to go indoors because of the smoke, and our friends cannot come in with us because they are not in our bubble. It is a distressing time.

The institutionalized poverty and accepting it as normal is not something Canada should ever do. I do not know how many people experienced this walking along in Europe, but I did not see anybody homeless on the street there with a hat upside-down hoping they could panhandle their way to their next meal. That is not something we see. I talk about Jim with my friend from New Westminster—Burnaby. I have not seen Jim lately, but I have not been walking on the street. Jim is a friend, a veteran, who needs to panhandle for his medication just outside of the Château Laurier.

There is no excuse for a country like Canada to tolerate poverty. Martin Luther King said many years ago that there was only one solution he had ever found to eliminate poverty and it is a guaranteed income.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that the signature, eloquence and passion of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not diminished one bit even at 1:50 in the morning.

I very much appreciate the comments the member shared at the beginning of her speech when she emphasized the collaboration and the real, true team Canada approach, which is really the signature of this piece of legislation and how it came about. It is a common theme that I noticed, and was also in the comments that were made by my colleague, the MP for Edmonton Strathcona as well as the MP for Vancouver East. They acknowledge the fact that this bill really is the product of the government and the opposition working together, listening to each other. I think that is the particular strength of Bill C-4, that it is undergirded and supported by the fact that this was a tremendous listening exercise.

We listened not just to each other, not just to members across the aisle, but we also listened to our constituents. We listened to workers, Canadians, families, unions and businesses. That really is that particular strength, the collaboration, that listening and working together, for Bill C-4.

As the member pointed out as well, moving forward, the legislation is going to evolve. This legislation that is being brought forward is not going to preclude other changes. In fact, the evolution has always been the signature of our response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that we adapt to it.

I would ask the member to comment on that sense of collaboration and team work that really undergirded the design and development of Bill C-4.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been holding community meetings, as I am sure other members have, but the community meetings we used to have in the local community hall have been replaced by the latest thing that has come to both aid us and torment us: Zoom. I meet with my constituents frequently, and their concerns are the same as I think all of us have heard. There are concerns about how they are going to make ends meet and concerns about keeping a business open, but they are very encouraged when I tell them that we are all working together. Civil servants are working awfully hard. Everyone knows that by hanging together, we will help each other.

Partisanship is our enemy in this. That is why I am very nervous with first New Brunswick, and now British Columbia and Saskatchewan, because the more elections we have, I feel as though the less safe we are. It is not that democracy as experienced in an election is not a healthy thing, but I worry about us trying to score points off each other more than band together to help our constituents.

The legislation before us shows that spirit of collaboration in the interests of Canada.

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

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, September 23, we will now proceed to a recorded vote.

Call in the members.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The list of members voting by video conference has now been established for use by the table.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #6

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The member for Richmond—Arthabaska on a point of order.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. We saw many members turn their cameras off during the vote. It seems to me that the rules are extremely clear, and I am sure that your staff, the IT people, can check on that. You have already pointed out this situation several times. One day, a vote might bring down the government. There are important decisions to be made. It seems to me that the rules are extremely clear. I would like you to clarify the situation for us so that we can be sure to follow the rules we were given.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

As I mentioned earlier, it is very important that members' cameras remain on for the duration of the vote. Members' cameras must be on from start to finish.

I will finish and we will then proceed to points of order.

The bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, is deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska on a point of order.