Bill C-2

An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to extend subsidies under the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS), and the Canada Recovery Hiring Program until May 7, 2022, as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Support under the CEWS and the CERS would be available to the tourism and hospitality sector and to the hardest-hit organizations that face significant revenue declines. Eligible entities under these rules would need to demonstrate a revenue decline over the course of 12 months of the pandemic, as well as a current-month revenue decline. In addition, organizations subject to a qualifying public health restriction would be eligible for support, if they have one or more locations subject to a public health restriction lasting for at least seven days that requires them to cease some or all of their activities. Part 1 also allows the government to extend the subsidies by regulation but no later than July 2, 2022.
Part 2 enacts the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act to authorize the payment of the Canada worker lockdown benefit in regions where a lockdown is imposed for reasons related to COVID-19. It also makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations .
Part 3 amends the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to, among other things,
(a) extend the period within which a person may be eligible for a Canada recovery sickness benefit or a Canada recovery caregiving benefit;
(b) increase the maximum number of weeks in respect of which a Canada recovery sickness benefit is payable to a person from four to six; and
(c) increase the maximum number of weeks in respect of which a Canada recovery caregiving benefit is payable to a person from 42 to 44.
It also makes a related amendment to the Canada Recovery Benefits Regulations .
Part 3.1 provides for the completion of a performance audit and tabling of a report by the Auditor General of Canada in respect of certain benefits.
Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, create a regime that provides for a leave of absence related to COVID-19 under which an employee may take
(a) up to six weeks if they are unable to work because, among other things, they have contracted COVID-19, have underlying conditions that in the opinion of certain persons or entities would make them more susceptible to COVID-19 or have isolated themselves on the advice of certain persons or entities for reasons related to COVID-19; and
(b) up to 44 weeks if they are unable to work because, for certain reasons related to COVID-19, they must care for a child who is under the age of 12 or a family member who requires supervised care.
It also makes a related amendment to the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 .

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government has a very strong plan. I was not here for the last Parliament when we saw a number of COVID reliefs come in to help Canadians, including businesses, get through a very difficult period. We are now working through the Speech from the Throne and legislation coming out of it, such as Bill C-2 that was introduced earlier this week, to help Canadians continue to thrive and survive, to deal with issues such as labour shortages and get people into the workforce. That is why I am so proud to be part of this government moving forward through COVID relief and doing the work that needs to be done in Canada.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to see Bill C-2 advance to committee so we can discuss it. I encourage the member to reconstitute committees.

There is so much missing from this throne speech. There are so many voices that are not heard: the voices of rural Canadians, the voices of those who work in the energy sector and the voices of those who have been impacted by the floods in B.C. The government can do more. The government can always do more.

I implore the member to include everybody in the throne speech and not just the select few of the Liberal Party.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we take a look at the throne speech, we will find a very ambitious plan. Part of that plan is the materialization of bills that are so important to all Canadians. I am talking about one that we were debating yesterday, Bill C-2. Canadians understand the sacrifices that have been made over the last 18 months and the importance of government stepping up to the plate to be there for small businesses and individual Canadians, to support health care workers and Canadians in general.

This is something I believe Canadians want us to do. Does my colleague across the way see herself recognizing the need to see Bill C-2 advance? The principles of Bill C-2 would continue to provide the support Canadians want, and it is just a part of what we saw in the throne speech.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have put in place measures that have made a real difference in helping Canadians access home ownership over the last few years. However, we definitely know that we have more to do.

One of the commitments we made during the election was a $4-billion housing accelerator fund for municipalities. That $4 billion will help them move faster in building supply, issuing permits and developing low-income and middle-class housing, creating the supply that is so needed to take the pressure off families and communities. This is in addition to the other initiatives we have had, whether it is the Canada housing benefit or the rapid housing initiative that has worked with municipalities.

However, we will also do more. We will help families buy their first home sooner, with a more flexible and generous first-time homebuyer incentive and a new rent-to-own program, and by reducing closing costs for first-time buyers. These are all concrete, tangible solutions that will help move things in the right direction for Canadians.

Even as the Conservative politicians these days are rending their shirts about the housing crisis, they offer no solutions. Indeed, the only concrete solution they had in their platform during the 2021 election was, get this, to give a tax break to wealthy landlords to help them sell their buildings. It really takes a federal Conservative to think we are somehow going to help people rent or buy homes they cannot afford by giving tax breaks to wealthy landlords. That simply does not work. What we have is a comprehensive plan that will indeed support Canadians in buying affordable housing and finding lower-priced places to stay. We are working on housing affordability.

Every step of the way our focus has been on supporting Canadians, whether it is by indexing the Canada child benefit to the cost of inflation or through a child care program that is not only going to help families with their costs, but also get more women into the workplace while giving kids the level playing field they need to succeed. We are making investments for the longer term of our future. We are standing up for the middle class, and will continue to address the labour shortages by boosting economic immigration levels and investing in skills training.

Obviously, Canadians are concerned about the economy, and they want to know that we are there to help them. We are going to be there to do that, and we are going to be there to invest. However, there are other issues that Canadians expect us to work on, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

Canadians want concrete action, and that is what we will do. They want us to take action on climate change, to innovate in new technologies and clean energy, and to create green jobs. They want us to build a more inclusive country and move faster on the path to reconciliation.

We recognize that climate change exists. Furthermore, we have long recognized what the Conservatives refuse to recognize, even today in 2021, which is that we cannot have a plan for the economy if we do not have a plan for the environment.

The Conservatives refuse to address climate change. They refuse to build an economic future for Canadians that will achieve net zero by 2050, not just for our country, but for our planet. We need to make the investments necessary to transform our economy in order to have lower carbon emissions, more innovation, more green jobs and, most importantly, green careers.

Unfortunately, these are the issues that the Conservatives continue to block, from putting a price on pollution to capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector until they reach net zero by 2050. This is how we will prepare our economy, our industries, our workers and our energy needs for the 21st century.

These are investments we are making, not only for the economy and jobs, but also to protect nature.

When we took office in 2015, barely 1% of our coastlines and oceans was being protected by the Harper government. In just a few years, we brought that up to 14%, and we are on track to reach 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. The same goes for our lands, 30% of which will be protected by 2030.

We know that protecting the environment means more than just preserving its beauty and resources for future generations. It also means taking meaningful action to fight climate change now. That is our vision. It means understanding that by protecting nature, wetlands, and our rivers, lakes and oceans, we can ensure a better future with less climate change, while making unprecedented investments to transform our economy the right way.

As for reconciliation, we know that we need to build partnerships and that we need to find solutions to address climate change. In fact, we would not have been able to protect as much of our coastlines and oceans if not for the leadership of indigenous peoples and our partnerships with them. I am thinking specifically of the Inuit, who have shown a solid understanding of the fact that addressing climate change and spurring economic growth in their communities and across the country must go hand in hand.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition raising reconciliation in his address to Parliament a little earlier. One thing we can all do concretely in the House is work towards the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately, however, the Conservative Party voted against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the last Parliament. I hope that the indication by the Leader of the Opposition that reconciliation is important to him means that the Conservatives are going to change their approach on UNDRIP, and actually realize that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an important thing for Canada and the world to lead on. We will also continue to work with all parties in the House on these sorts of issues as we move forward.

I want to respond to a few of the points the Conservative leader made in his approach this morning. Unfortunately, he did not really demonstrate all that much in the way of leadership as much as he tried to score cheap political points.

We all know that the best thing for our economy is to put the pandemic behind us, yet the Conservative Party will not even confirm how many of its own MPs are vaccinated. That is simply not leading by example. We can hear from the members opposite that they hate it when people bring this up. At a time when we know the way through this pandemic is through vaccinations, they cannot be unequivocal on the need to get vaccinated and the need to lead by example. It is really disappointing. If the Conservatives had won in this past election, right now people would be travelling on planes and trains without the need to be fully vaccinated and would be putting Canadians at risk. That was a commitment the Conservatives had made to Canadians: that they would not have to be fully vaccinated to travel on a plane or a train.

That is simply not the kind of leadership Canadians expected. It is certainly not the kind of leadership they chose. It is also something that would be bad not just for the course of the pandemic in our country, but indeed for the economy. The Conservatives continue to demonstrate that they do not understand that the best thing to do to grow our economy is to finish this pandemic.

The members opposite have spoken a lot today about Canada's relationship with the United States as well. We will continue to stand up for Canadian interests. We will continue to stand up in the fight for the removal of softwood lumber tariffs, the fight to continue producing electric vehicles in Canada and the fight to continue making sure that our products, such as potatoes, continue to have access to the United States.

When the Conservative leader talks about the fact that we are not doing enough to go at the United States, it reminds me of what he said when we stood up for steelworkers and aluminum workers against the last American administration. His comment was that those retaliatory tariffs were dumb. That was the word he used. He said that it was a dumb thing to push back against the United States when they were imposing tariffs on steelworkers and aluminum workers and threatening massive waves of protectionism.

We did not listen to the Leader of the Opposition then. We went ahead in standing up strongly and firmly for Canadian interests, and that U.S. administration backed down. We protected our steelworkers and our aluminum workers, so members will understand that I am not going to take lessons from the leader of the official opposition on how to capitulate to the Americans. We will instead stand up strongly and firmly every step of the way.

Our government is focused on concrete solutions that deliver results. We have one of the most successful vaccination campaigns in the world. This reminds us, again, of the complaints and the partisan, personal attacks made by members of the official opposition, the Conservative Party, that when we were getting our vaccines they were not coming fast enough, we did not do well enough and we were not covering Canadians. Here we are, with one of the top vaccination rates in the entire world, and the party that spent all its time complaining that we were not doing enough to get vaccines into this country is now the only party in the House that did not bother to get fully vaccinated. That sort of playing political games and scoring cheap rhetorical points while not actually following up on the substance of what needs to happen to keep Canadians safe is, unfortunately, par for the course for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Despite all the talking down of the Canadian economy and our approach to supporting Canadians during the pandemic by the Conservatives, we have now recovered over 100% of the jobs we lost during the peak of the pandemic and have created new jobs on top of that. That is something that happened because we have been investing in Canadians and supporting small businesses across the country.

Over the past few months I could not go into a small business or a restaurant across the country without someone telling me, “Thank you for that wage benefit,” or “Thank you for the support that you were able to give us to get through it.” In return, I thanked them for hanging in there and staying open, and now for getting going again. I say yes, we will continue to support them in fighting the labour shortage that we are facing.

We had a year of closed borders to immigration when we were able to accept only a small number of people as immigrants. We now know that we have to get back to bringing people in to continue to grow our economy. We need to work on skills training. We need to give young people opportunities. We will continue to work not just to make sure people have jobs, but that jobs are filled. Growing the economy requires a government with a commitment to do what we have said from the very beginning: that every step of the way, we will have Canadians' backs.

We continue to be there for the economy and for small businesses. We continue to be there for families, with the Canada child benefit indexed to inflation and $10-a-day child care.

We will provide targeted support for the hardest-hit sectors, such as tourism. The leader of the official opposition talked about support for the tourism industry. I hope his party will work with us and we will get their support, because right now coming before the House we have Bill C-2, which will have targeted supports for the tourism industry. This is a sector that is very worried about what consequences the omicron variant might have for its industry and people's plans.

We have a piece of legislation we are putting forward that would make sure we are there to support those industries that are hardest hit. It would make sure we are there to support small businesses or businesses that are facing challenges, but would also make sure that we have lockdown supports if provinces have to move forward with targeted measures.

We will be there as a federal government, as we have been from the very beginning, to allow Canadians to make it through this health crisis knowing that their government has their backs and that we will bounce back and come roaring back stronger than ever. That is what is in Bill C-2 that we are moving forward. I certainly hope that the Conservatives and the other parties in the House realize that Canadians deserve a Parliament that is focused on them and is there to support them every step of the way.

We are committed to establishing the Canada mental health transfer to expand the delivery of high-quality free mental health services. We know that Canadians, like people around the world, have suffered because of the pandemic. The isolation, the pressures, the anxiety and the challenges they have faced have left their mark, and that is why investing historic amounts in mental health supports across the country will go a long way to help Canadians.

In the first days of this Parliament alone, we have introduced legislation to bring in 10 days of paid sick leave for workers in the federally regulated private sector and we will work with the provinces on echoing that across the country.

We want to protect health care workers from unacceptable intimidation. We are going to ban conversion therapy. However, there is always more to do.

Of course, we know that there is always more work to be done, but Canadians expect us to work collaboratively and respectfully in the House of Commons.

They fully understand that there are different points of view and that there will always be robust debate about how best to help and serve Canadians. I look forward to these discussions.

However, Canadians expect to see parliamentarians who are there for them, who think every day about how to serve them better and how to provide them with support and growth that they can benefit from. That is what they expect, and that is what this government is prepared to do.

I am reaching out to all parliamentarians with this Speech from the Throne, which focuses on concerns that we agree on. As I said, I look forward to the debates on how best to meet the expectations of Canadians.

The key question is whether we will be there for Canadians. I can assure the House that on the government side, the answer is yes.

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely do believe that increasing supply is an important part of addressing the housing challenge, but all of us have been talking a lot about the economy today. That is entirely appropriate, so let me propose one thing we can all do to support Canadians in this difficult moment, when the omicron variant has appeared. It is to support Bill C-2, which would provide essential targeted support for tourism and hospitality, and critical lockdown support, should we need it. Let us set aside partisan posturing and support this essential and urgent legislation.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having about a bill like Bill C-2 so we can talk about who is falling through the cracks. The start-ups and those individuals who cannot prove revenue prior to 2019 or 2020 are having a difficult time getting support from the government and have been throughout the pandemic. I agree with the point that my hon. colleague has raised and wish we could discuss it further with the government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, another issue that has surfaced in my riding of Vancouver East concerns start-up businesses. They have been excluded from pandemic support and many of them are struggling. We now have an opportunity before us with Bill C-2 to make changes so that start-up companies can get the support they need to survive the pandemic.

Would the Conservatives support such a change?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would be nice to talk about Bill C-2 at committee if we could get it up and running.

Of course, we need to step up and help Canadians. However, we also need to make sure that the Canadians who need the most help are the ones getting the help. We would know this if we could get a discussion on Bill C-2 about who is falling through the cracks. I mentioned a few individuals in my speech, in particular the independent travel agents who do not seem to fall within Bill C-2. We would like to get some further clarification on that. I think it would be important to have a full understanding of the bill before we decide whether to support it or not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the leader of the official opposition and now those of the member opposite. The concern I have is that I expect the Conservatives will vote against the throne speech, which would not surprise me, and I do not think it would surprise anyone in Canada.

When it comes right down to it, there is a very tangible plan for all of us. One of those plans is Bill C-2, which is a continuation of supports for Canadians to get through the pandemic, both for the individual and small businesses, in particular.

Anticipating that the member will be voting against the throne speech, could he give an indication of what he will be doing with the tangible plan that is being dealt with in Bill C-2?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the aisle for her intervention.

As I was saying, in my riding, a large number of students are obliged to live together in small and increasingly expensive apartments.

There is also a real homelessness problem, and providing more housing is an obvious solution. I am thinking about the organization L'Anonyme, which, thanks to funding from the Reaching Home program, was able to offer housing to people who do not qualify for social housing, and the organization CAP-CARE, which used the $1 million in funding it received to provide more than 22,000 overnight stays to people dealing with homelessness. Today, these people are living in uncertainty, not knowing whether they will be able to find a permanent home to meet their urgent need.

I would also like to point out the close connection between poverty, access to housing and drug addiction. Poverty and homelessness are among the major causes of the opioid crisis. Across Canada, 17 people die of drug-related causes every day, and in Montreal alone, 14 die every month.

Montreal's regional public health care department recorded a 25% increase in drug-related deaths between March 2020 and March 2021. Organizations such as L'Anonyme, Dopamine and CAP-CARE are on the front lines of the opioid crisis. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their commitment, their dedication and all the work they do every day on the ground.

The government and I are aware that there is still a lot to do, especially in the riding of Hochelaga. From coast to coast to coast, our government will work tirelessly in collaboration with the provinces and territories to improve access to housing, free up funds for more housing units and protect Canadians' rights.

Access to housing is an essential need, but access to high-quality green spaces close to home is good for physical and mental health. Access to a high-quality living environment is also a right. Our government is investing more than $60 million to reduce pollution, adapt to climate change and support clean economic growth. These are our priorities.

Hochelaga and Montreal East are particularly affected by climate change. Our industrial past has left its mark, with highly contaminated land, heat islands, a lack of transportation infrastructure and bike paths, and, of course, a conspicuous lack of green spaces.

In fact, a group of doctors recently wrote the following in an open letter in La Presse:

...the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods, such as Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, have a greater lack of green spaces and a higher number of heat islands.

Let us be clear: This is a deadly combination.

It is vitally important for all of us to move forward with strong, bold measures. That is why the government wants to cap and cut oil and gas sector emissions, invest heavily in public transit, and mandate the sale of zero-emission vehicles.

We need to support local initiatives so that all communities across the country can help fight climate change. One concrete example in my riding is the funding of a vertical greenhouse in a major industrial area. This is a first in Montreal East. This farm will eventually be able to grow 80 tonnes of vegetables for food banks and for the community. Not only do we need a roof over our heads and a high-quality green community, but we also need full refrigerators.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge organizations working in the food banks and on the front lines. We are lucky that they have been there to support everyone in the community, including seniors, families, and people experiencing homelessness. I want to thank them very much.

A resilient and inclusive economy means that we as a government will be there to help families, workers and businesses get through the pandemic.

We are people of action. We know that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, tabled Bill C-2 to extend certain programs to support the economic recovery.

We will continue to make sure that no workers are left behind by establishing the Canada worker lockdown benefit and extending the caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit.

Not a day goes by without employees, employers and community organizations telling me that they and their businesses were saved by the measures we took during the pandemic.

One important measure in the throne speech is the first-ever Canada-wide early learning and child care system. This will not only support the economy, but it will also help women get back to work. We know that women have been hit hard by the pandemic.

It is unacceptable that families should have trouble finding affordable day care for their children. It is unacceptable that fathers and mothers should have to choose between their career and their children. Our government has reached an agreement with the government of Quebec. This historic $6‑billion agreement will help improve Quebec's child care system, a system we have been very proud of for more than 20 years.

Many members of the House came to Canada as immigrants. We rely on many entrepreneurs, artists, restaurateurs, scientists, professors emeritus and workers from other countries, to name but a few. These people have helped build a resilient and competitive country, and they continue to do so.

Our economy's vitality will depend on our ability to welcome new Canadians, and our government is committed to streamlining that process. I would like to thank the team in my riding and my colleagues' ridings for their work. My team has worked on more than 400 immigration files since I was first elected.

The most important issue for our government is the fight against COVID-19, and I think that we can all agree that it is the number one priority. We have seen with the variants that we still need to remain vigilant. That is what we need to do and will do in collaboration with the other levels of government. We gave health care workers across the country the tools to fight COVID-19. I do not have strong enough words to thank our health care workers and frontline workers for what they have done. We can now be proud that 85% of Canadians aged 12 and over have been vaccinated. This is a good example of how we can do anything when we work together. We are aware that there is still work to do when it comes to access to health care. We need to work with the provinces and the territories to strengthen the health care system and find solutions to specific problems, in particular mental health issues.

As a racialized woman, I have been a victim of racial profiling. My children, who were born in Quebec, have also been profiled. We need to recognize that systemic racism exists and that we need to do something about it. It is time for a change, time to make sure that people are protected against discrimination. That starts with reforming the criminal justice system and policing.

As a proud francophone, I am pleased to see that the modernization of the Official Languages Act is one of our governments' priorities. We need to protect and promote the French language, which is a minority language in North America.

I will conclude my speech by talking about the Broadcasting Act. There is a climate emergency, but there is also a real francophone cultural emergency. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of the upcoming bills aimed at safeguarding the French language in Canada.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House again now, at the beginning of a Parliament that I must remind my colleagues should not exist. We should be continuing with the previous Parliament. Clearly, that was the view of both Quebeckers and Canadians.

All of us, all governments, all countries, all hospitals and all seniors' residences, are desperately trying to really, truly emerge, once and for all, from a crisis where the main issue, besides the economy and the pressure that the crisis is putting on the health system, remains a human issue: the fear, anxiety, illness and distress of loved ones. We seem to be having great difficulty in emerging from this crisis, and once again, this applies to all governments, but this does not free us from the solemn obligation to do everything in our power, at all times, to come out on the other side in better shape and, shall we say, with as many people as possible.

It was in the wake of this human tragedy with far-reaching economic impacts that the Prime Minister of Canada decided, out of the blue, to call an election in the middle of the summer, although it did not come as a surprise to anyone because the writing had been on the wall for a long time. He was kind enough to explain the concept of urgency to us. Obviously, this all-powerful being had to be given a strong mandate to tackle the pandemic head-on and get us out of it once and for all.

I had my doubts, as I am sure many others did, the day after that very poorly timed, extremely disorganized, ill-conceived election. Some polling stations did not have enough staff. Things were done in haste and risks were taken, particularly with regard to health measures. The directives were unclear and applied differently from one polling station to another. If this election had been urgently required, we would have understood, but it was neither urgent nor necessary. The credibility of the democratic system was somewhat undermined when some MPs were told that they had been elected, only to be informed later that they had not actually won. It was completely ridiculous.

In addition, Canadians and Quebeckers asked, what is this nonsense? They felt so strongly about it that they re-elected the same Parliament. It is almost the same in Quebec. The people told the government that they had given it a mandate, so it should get to work and stop bothering them. The government should not betray or pervert its mandate out of sheer ambition by saying it would like to outnumber the other party. Clearly, that is not what voters wanted.

We were sure all of this would be explained in the Speech from the Throne. It is not the Speech from the Throne; it is more like the speech from the timeout chair. I took the liberty of saying that, even read slowly, it was very short. Any college or university student, such as the former students of my esteemed colleague from Mirabel, who is here with us, could have written something more creative, clear and captivating.

That is the throne speech. That is why we went out and spent $600 million. That is why Parliament shut down for five months. That is why it took two months to write something that could have been written in two hours and probably was.

People feel like the government is laughing in their faces. Is it any surprise that they are not engaged in our democracy?

The throne speech was an amateur job with no real substance. It did not offer a pandemic recovery plan or a specific agenda. I know we will be hearing more about that during and after this particular debate. There is no vision, no statement of intent. For crying out loud, it is a whole lot of nothing.

There is something of substance we have already touched on: Bill C‑2 on pandemic recovery programs, which is quite a bit clearer and more specific. There is more in the first bill they introduced than there was in the throne speech, which was supposed to put us on a four-year path to glory, prosperity and good health, or so they would have us believe. That is a bit odd.

When the government puts forward a good plan, we respond positively. Bill C‑2 is a bill that calls for collaboration, and we are ready to collaborate. Naturally, there is room for improvement; that is what the democratic legislative process promotes and demands.

In the meantime, the government's mandate, which was to manage and overcome the crisis and to pass this legislation much earlier, has not been fulfilled, and people have told the government to go do its job.

The Speech from the Throne contains the buzzword “collaborate”.

Not so long ago, there were expressions like “we walk hand in hand with Quebec and the provinces”. My God, I hope there were handcuffs involved, because the hands would not have been close for long.

We have everything but collaboration. Does the word “collaborate” in the Speech from the Throne, which was skilfully read out in several languages, mean “we will listen to what the provinces want”?

What the provinces and Quebec want is simple: an immediate, unconditional transfer of funding to cover 35% of health care system costs. Without this transfer, in the short term, the provinces and Quebec will have to divert resources to the health care system that should be allocated to other things and, in the medium term, some provinces will basically go bust, go bankrupt. This is because the great federal tradition, especially the Liberal one, is to try to bring the provinces, which are conquered territories if ever there was one, to their knees in exchange for a little money.

The Liberal approach is “sell us your jurisdictions”, which is why the throne speech ignored, or mentioned only very quickly, the fact that collaboration means a give-and-take on both sides. That left us dangerously dissatisfied and reveals something a little shocking. In the last few days and weeks, a lot of attention has been paid to the magnitude of the tragedy, to figuring out what led to such a high number of deaths.

Sometimes the media will also try to politicize it and point fingers—

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition back in this House. It is great to see him in the same seat as in the 43rd Parliament. He mentioned during his speech $400 billion that the government had perhaps overspent. I do not have the words right in front of me. By rough math, that is about two-thirds of what the government took on during the height of the pandemic to be able to support Canadians with the wage subsidy, the emergency business account and the CERB.

I think it is important for him to be able to come clear with Canadians what programs he would not have supported. The problem I have, if I may, as a backbench MP being able to address him, is that I hear in one moment from his colleagues that we should do more and are not doing enough and in the next breath that too much has been done and that there are deficits and debt.

What is the member's position? There has been flip-flop, whether it is on guns or vaccines. It is not clear to Canadians what this party stands for. We talked about tourism and small businesses. Will this party support Bill C-2, the measures to protect our tourism-related and hardest-hit sectors, in the days ahead?

Small Business

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that was a bit of a kitchen-sink question with lots of elements thrown in, but let me try to take them in turn.

When it comes to the flooding in B.C., we are there working with the Province of British Columbia. The Prime Minister will be there today.

When it comes to supply chain issues, we are monitoring that very, very closely. Let me point out that this is a global phenomenon. All Canadians appreciate that.

Finally, on small businesses, one way we can all help them right now is to vote for Bill C-2.

Employment

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely focused on supporting Canadian small businesses and Canadian workers. It is worth reminding everyone in the House of the success of Canadian businesses and Canadian workers in recovering those three million jobs that were lost during the COVID recession. A 101% recovery is great news for Canadians.

When it comes to supporting small businesses, I would like to take this opportunity to urge all members of the House to support Bill C-2. Small businesses in B.C., in Alberta and across the country need that support.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in today's debate. I want to start by recognizing how difficult the last 19 months have been for everyone.

It has certainly been difficult from an economic point of view, and I will be talking a little about that tomorrow in the debate on Bill C-2, and also difficult in terms of coping with the consequences of some of the public health measures that have had to be taken.

It has been difficult to be shut in our homes. It has been hard not to be able to go out and get together. I fully understand people's desire to get out and reunite with people. Indeed, I have enjoyed being able to come to this place and see some colleagues, even as I have some reservations about whether it is the appropriate thing to do and whether we are really there yet.

We know we are in the middle of a fourth wave. Depending on where we are in the country, our experiences of COVID are very different right now. There are provinces where ICUs are full and they are worried about the consequences for their medical system, and there are other provinces that are faring relatively well for the moment but are wondering what the future holds. We just heard the premier of Saskatchewan, today or yesterday, express some regret for not having implemented more strict public health measures earlier in the province's own fourth wave.

What have we done? We have followed the advice of public health officials, which is the right thing to do. I am an electrician by trade. I would not take kindly to somebody doing some research on the Internet and then coming to tell me how to wire something. I would tell them that I am a Red Seal electrician: I have the experience, and if anybody is going to correct me it would be somebody with similar training and experience, not somebody who had been investigating things on the Internet.

It has been right and good to follow the advice of public health authorities throughout the pandemic. They have told us to wear masks. They have told us to socially distance. Sometimes they have told us to stay home. They have told us to get vaccinated and that vaccination is our way through this. We are getting closer to a normal time, because more people are accepting that advice and choosing to get vaccinated. I commend them for that, and I encourage those who have not done that to do it soon.

For every person with some medical credentials out there who is a COVID denier, there are many more who accept the science. I do not believe there is any great conspiracy. Frankly, having spent six years here, I do not think the government is capable of the intelligence, discipline and coordination it would take to orchestrate a conspiracy that vast, nor do I think the so-called government-in-waiting is capable of such a thing. I find these conspiracy theories simply unbelievable.

If vaccination is part of the way for us to get back to normal, then I think it is incumbent upon us as elected officials to show leadership in that. One of the principal barriers to us being able to talk about how we conduct ourselves properly here, or to get back to some kind of normally functioning Parliament, is that the Conservative Party in particular has not been forthright about how many of its caucus members are vaccinated and how many are not.

The Conservatives say we should simply trust the system. I think we should expect more transparency from people who are elected to public office. We often hear from them about the transparency they want from the government, and about the right to demand more transparency from the government. We have to show that in the way we behave ourselves. We have a leadership obligation to get vaccinated and to show, be honest and report our own numbers. Every other caucus here has done that.

I take the Bloc's argument for an in-person Parliament to be a little different. The Bloc members are coming from a different place. They are saying that they did the right thing: They all got vaccinated, and they want to come and meet in person. I think that reasonable people can disagree about whether it is the right time to do that and whether we should have a hybrid Parliament. Their argument comes from a different place, because they have been transparent and have shown that leadership. I thank them for that, even as I disagree on the issue of whether a hybrid format should be available.

The member for Vancouver East made the point very well earlier when she talked about many of us having to get here on a plane. The fact is that if I am showing any two minor symptoms or one major symptom, I have to fill out a COVID screening on my phone to get my boarding pass.

If I have a scratchy throat and a runny nose, which happens often in Winnipeg in the winter, I either have to lie and get on the plane, doing the wrong thing, or I have to stay home. I would be glad for the opportunity to participate in Parliament from home, and do the right thing by avoiding getting on a plane when I am presenting symptoms.

I did a lot of work in the virtual Parliament. I was frustrated by some of the things that other members have raised. I was frustrated by committee meetings that were disrupted by technical difficulties. I was frustrated by problems with interpretation. I felt for and talked about and stood up for our interpreters who were facing a disproportionate amount of injury as a result of the hybrid format. All of those things are true, but I was able to get a lot of work done.

We got a benefit of $2,000 per month for people who could not go to work. We got a student benefit that would not have happened if it had not been for the interventions of the NDP. We got a sick leave program that would not have happened if it had not been for the interventions of the NDP.

It is not just what we managed to accomplish for Canadians in their time of need, but it was also some of the accountability work that we did. Some people around here may remember a guy by the name of Bill Morneau, who did the wrong thing with respect to the WE Charity scandal. It was in the virtual summer sittings and virtual committee meetings of 2020, which the NDP negotiated, that testimony came to light that brought Bill Morneau down for his wrongdoing on the WE Charity scandal. That summer, he resigned his position and ultimately left the government. If that is not accountability, I do not know what is.

The idea that there cannot be good parliamentary work in a virtual Parliament, both in terms of helping people and in terms of holding the government to account, simply is untrue. I do not accept those arguments.

As I alluded to earlier, in the lead-up to this Parliament feelers were put out to the Conservatives and the Bloc to talk about what our Parliament would look like, whether we would have a hybrid Parliament and, if so, what shape that might take. However, they chose to abstain from those discussions. We might have had a hybrid Parliament where committees met in person. That might have alleviated some of the burden on our interpreters. We might have had some kind of understanding about how many Liberals might be in the House. However, instead of being able to have a constructive conversation, the conversation was about the disorder in the Conservative caucus and whether the Conservatives were going to require their MPs to be vaccinated. They were splintering off into a bunch of subcaucuses, and we could not have the kind of real conversation that we needed to have in the lead-up to this moment, because now we are back.

Finally, Parliament has met again after the election. It took too long, but now we are here. Parliament is in session and there are things to do that are actually about the people we were elected to represent. Therefore, we should not spend all our time debating this. There was a window to talk about how we were going to do this. Some chose not to participate, so then what is the most reasonable thing to do?

The most reasonable thing to do, if parties are committed to having a hybrid Parliament in this time when the pandemic is not yet over, is to adopt the same rules that those parties once agreed to. If we were going to do something different, that would be worse from the point of view of forging a new path. This at least is what they once agreed to, so our hands are somewhat tied by the fact that they would not engage in good-faith conversations about what kind of alterations to the hybrid Parliament we might make or if there were ways that we might scale back the hybrid element in certain parts of Parliament.

I imagine this may happen again. This has a deadline, and the pandemic may not be over by June 2022. The next time we discuss this, I invite these parties to come to the table and talk about how to make Parliament work with the 21st-century tools that we have, in a way that makes sense during a pandemic.