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 .

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay, colleagues, we will do that.

As you know, now that we have finished clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑355, my intention is to move to finishing the study on food price stabilization when we come back from the break week, as you instructed the other day in camera. That will be on Tuesday. We will get that report done. I will happily work with my two vice-chairs and Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Drouin to identify where you might want to go next.

We are running out of time. Assuming there are not any other urgent elements, I'm happy to go to you, Yves, very quickly, and then I'm going to hit the hammer and we're getting out of here.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek. You ended on the exact note that I'm going to start on.

I want to thank my colleagues for highlighting the interconnectedness between Bill C-33 and Bill C-26. My colleagues covered the importance of parliamentary supremacy, checks and balances and the need to keep the executive branch in check. Mr. Kurek ended on the note of the importance of upholding critical infrastructure and ensuring that bills are conducive to that.

I'm quite concerned at this time about this particular bill and how it impacts on infrastructure and cybersecurity. I read a very good article on infrastructure and cybersecurity. It was by Frank Lawrence and Eric Jensen, published in the Fortinet journal.

When I read the article, what was concerning to me was that it revealed that Canada is among those G7 and G20 nations without a firm regulatory framework around cybersecurity. Canada must act to protect the nation's critical infrastructure assets, and the only way to do that is what we're doing here today—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for giving me a reference point to begin my comments again, which start with:

Furthermore, excessive secrecy surrounding existing orders or regulations would further undermine accountability, as courts or oversight bodies wouldn’t be able to assess whether collection or sharing of information was reasonably necessary and proportionate in furtherance of those secret orders or regulations. In short, it is unclear how the proposed confidentiality and secrecy provisions align with the need for accountability measures to ensure there is not an inappropriate intrusion into s. 8 Charter rights.

27. The Charter statement notes various information sharing agreements that are contained in the legislation. However, there are broad information sharing powers in Bill C-26 that are not subject to any information sharing agreements, or limitations on how the information may be used once shared. Furthermore, the majority of the Supreme Court has previously noted (in the context of other information disclosure powers accompanying supervised warrant provisions in the Criminal Code), that information sharing agreements are not “a panacea”, given that there is “always a risk that a foreign law enforcement agency may misuse the information disclosed.”

Part 3. Towards More Secure, Transparent, Accountable Governments and Telecommunications Networks in Bill C-26

28. This Part 3 summarizes recommendations identified in Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness, as well as supplementary comments and recommendations flowing from the Charter analysis set out in Part 2. The report, including its specific textual recommendations, is enclosed as Appendix B. Where recommendations are identified in this brief for the first time, they are numbered with letters (i.e., Recommendation 1A) to maintain the original numbering of the report.

Here are some recommendations:

I. Limiting powers to order modifications to organizations’ technical or business activities

29. To include appropriate safeguards surrounding compulsion powers under Bill C-26, Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness makes the following recommendations:

a. Recommendation 1: Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders Must be Necessary, Proportionate, and Reasonable. Currently, the legislation allows the government to issue an order when necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. However, necessity is an insufficient curb on the government’s power; Bill C-26 should impose more conditions regarding the specific circumstances under which the government can exercise its power.

b. Recommendation 2: Orders Should Include a Reference to Timelines. The draft legislation should be amended to include a requirement that telecommunications providers must implement cybersecurity demands or orders within a reasonable period of time in situations where compliance with a demand or order would require significant or material changes to the recipients’ business or technical operations.

c. Recommendation 3: Government Should Undertake Impact Assessments Prior to Issuing Orders. Government assessments of its orders should identify secondary- or tertiary impacts that would have the effect of worsening an organization’s cybersecurity practices or stance. These assessments should be presented to telecommunications providers along with any demands or orders or regulations that are based upon these assessments. Such assessments should be included in any and all proportionality analyses of government demands or orders.

d. Recommendation 4: Forbearance or Cost/Cost-Minus Clauses Should Be Inserted. The government may issue a direction that could severely alter how a telecommunications provider is able to offer a service to customers. The legislation should be amended such that telecommunications providers can seek forbearance of certain orders where implementing them would have a material impact on the providers’ economic viability. Alternatively, if an order or regulation would have a deleterious effect on a telecommunications provider’s economic viability and the government demands that the order be fulfilled regardless, the provider should be compensated on either a cost or cost-minus basis.

e. Recommendation 5: The Standards That Can Be Imposed Must Be Defined. Without a clear definition of what a “standard” in the draft legislation entails, it becomes difficult to assess what kinds of standards the government is seeking to implement and whether it is adopting them safely. The legislation should be amended such that it is clear what kinds of standards are within and outside of the scope of the legislation. The evidence and analysis in Finding You underscore that urgent action is needed to establish mandatory security and privacy standards for telecommunications providers to require security postures that address the vulnerabilities in signalling protocols that enable mobile geolocation surveillance threats.It should also be made explicit that an order or regulation compelling the adoption of particular standards cannot be used to deliberately or incidentally compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a telecommunications facility, telecommunications service, or transmission facility. The intent of this recommendation is to prevent the government from ordering or demanding that telecommunications service providers deploy or enable lawful access-related capabilities or powers in the service of “securing” infrastructure by way of adopting a standard.

II. Secrecy and Absence of Transparency or Accountability Provisions

30. As noted above, Bill C-26 has “extensive and overly onerous secrecy and confidentiality requirements.” Laws that impose meaningful limits on the freedom of expression must be balanced and reasonably justified. While some confidentiality will be appropriate to ensure that unresolved security vulnerabilities are effectively brought into control, certain powers in Bill C-26 go further than what is required to accomplish cybersecurity and national security objectives. Furthermore, certain powers proposed are unaccompanied by reasonably available measures to protect the public’s interest in access to information concerning an important area of government action. In light of identified deficits concerning excessive secrecy or the absence of accountability provisions, we reiterate the following recommendations from Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness:

a. Recommendation 6: Orders Should Appear in The Canadian Gazette. In Bill C-26, orders are required to be published in the Canadian Gazette, but the Minister has the authority to “direct otherwise in the order.” As such, “the result is that the government might issue orders that never appear in the Canadian Gazette, and there is no requirement for the order to ever be published in a complete and non-redacted format.” The potential effect could unjustifiably restrict meaningful public debate on a matter of public importance and, as a consequence, the freedom of expression. The legislation should be amended such that orders must be published within 180 days of issuing them or within 90 days of an order being implemented, based on whichever condition is met first. The legislation should also expressly define circumstances that justify secrecy.

b. Recommendation 7: The Minister Should Be Compelled To Table Reports Pertaining to Orders and Regulations. To better safeguard the public interest, privacy, and the freedom of expression, the legislation should further be amended such that the Minister of Industry is required to annually table a listing of:

the number of orders and regulations that have been issued

the kinds of orders or regulations that have been issued

the number of telecommunications providers that have received the orders

the number of telecommunications providers that have partially complied with the orders

the number of telecommunications providers that have completely complied with the orders

a narrative discussion of the necessity, proportionality, reasonableness, and utility of the order-making power

c. Recommendation 8: Non-Disclosure Orders Should Be Time Limited. Bill C-26 also proposes gag provisions with respect to Orders in Council or Ministerial Orders, which are not limited either temporally (i.e., how long is secrecy necessary?) or substantively (i.e., what circumstances justify secrecy?). As noted at paragraph 15, non-disclosure orders affect not only the recipient of the gag order, but, also, the public's right to information that informs democratic debate. The legislation should be amended to include time constraints surrounding non-disclosure orders.

d. Recommendation 8A: The Circumstances Purporting to Justify Confidentiality in a Non-Disclosure Order Should Be Defined In The Legislation.

e. Recommendation 9: The CRTC Should Indicate When Orders Override Parts of CRTC Decisions. The legislation should be amended to, at a minimum, require that the CRTC post a public notice attached to any of its decisions where there is a contradiction between its decision and an Order in Council or Ministerial Order or regulation that has prevailed over part of a CRTC decision.

f. Recommendation 10: An Annual Report Should Include the Number of Times Government Orders or Regulations Prevail Over CRTC Decisions. The legislation should be amended to require the government to annually disclose the number of times it has issued orders or regulations that prevailed in the case of an inconsistency between a given order or regulation and a CRTC decision, as well as denote which CRTC decision(s) were affected.

g. Recommendation 11: All Regulations Under the Telecommunications Act Should Be Accessible to The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. The legislation should be amended such that the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is able to obtain, assess, and render a public verdict on any regulations that are promulgated under the proposed draft reforms to the Telecommunications Act, as well as on regulations pertaining to the Telecommunications Act and that are modified pursuant to s. 18 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

III. Deficient Judicial Review Process

31. Bill C-26 contemplates that telecommunication providers may initiate judicial review proceedings in respect of orders or regulations issued under the proposed legislation. In pages 22-24 of his report, Dr. Parson identified problems that would arise if Bill C-26 is passed without amending section 15.9. As drafted, section 15.9 would permit a series of mandatory limits on open court principles, which would prevent judges from exercising judicial discretion in balancing the need for secrecy or confidentiality with the public's interest in disclosure. As noted at paragraph 15 in this submission, the Charter protects open court principles that apply in the context of judicial review, including Charter protections for the freedom of expression.

32. Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness recommends (Recommendation 12) that Bill C-26 should explicitly enable appointment of amicus curiae or a special advocate during judicial review. The legislation should be amended such that, at the Court's pleasure, amicus curiae or a special advocate can be appointed to contest and respond to information provided by the government in support of an Order in Council, Ministerial Order, or regulation under s. 15.8 in when evidence is sufficiently sensitive to bar a telecommunications provider's counsel from hearing it.

33. We also recommend:

a. Recommendation 12A: Section 15.9 Should Be Amended To Ensure The Judge Retains Authority To Balance The Public Interest In Disclosure Against The Interest In Confidentiality: In general, mandatory limits on open courts (which prevent the judge from balancing the public interests at stake), are generally viewed as excessive infringements on section 2(b) rights. For example, even in analogous provisions of the Canada Evidence Act (permitting secrecy in judicial proceedings for matters injurious to international relations, national defence or national security or endanger the safety of any person), the judge retains the authority to determine that “the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance the public interest in non-disclosure”. The same safety valve should be incorporated into section 15.9 of Bill C-26, in order to ensure that any limits to openness minimally impair freedom of expression.

b. Recommendation 12B: Where Summaries Are Provided Of Evidence And Information Received By The Court, Pursuant To Section 15.9(1)(C), These Summaries Must Also Be Available To The “Applicant and the Public”. As noted at paragraph 15, the open court principle protects the public’s and the media’s interest in the openness of court proceedings. Practically speaking, the public’s right of access to judicial summaries of this nature is typically accomplished by marking such summaries as an exhibit to the proceedings. The public’s right of access to exhibits is a corollary of the open court principle.

c. Recommendation 12C: The Triggering Threshold Justifying Limits On The Openness Of The Proceedings Should Not Be Higher Than That Which Is Already Contained Under Analogous Provisions Of The Canada Evidence Act. In that regard, we recommend mirroring the language from the Canada Evidence Act through the following amendment:

Section 15.9(1)(a) “…if, in the judge’s opinion, the disclosure of the evidence or other information would [changed from “could”] be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security or endanger the safety of any person”.

IV. Extensive Information Sharing Within and Beyond Canadian Agencies

34. Bill C-26 proposes to create broad information sharing powers within and beyond Canadian government agencies, without accompanying those powers with necessary limits, oversight, or accountability mechanisms. As noted at paragraph 24, the absence of reasonable procedural safeguards to review government powers that infringe upon privacy interests can render legislation invalid under section 8 of the Charter. To impose more appropriate guardrails on the proposed powers to share information within and beyond Canadian agencies, Recommendations 13-20 of Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness are the following:

a. Recommendations 13 and 14: Relief Should Be Available If Government Mishandles Confidential, Personal, or De-Identified Information. The legislation should be amended to enable individuals and telecommunications providers to seek relief should the government or a party to whom the government has disclosed confidential, personal, or de-identified information loses control of that information, where that loss of control has material consequences for the individual, or for a telecommunication provider's business or technical operations.

b. Recommendation 15: Government Should Notify Telecommunications Providers How It Will Use Collected Information, and Which Domestic Agencies Information Will Receive The Information.

c. Recommendation 16: Information Obtained from Telecommunications Providers Should Only be Used by Government Agencies for Cybersecurity and Information Assurance Activities. Information should not be used for the purposes of signal intelligence and foreign intelligence activities, cross-department assistance unrelated to cyber-security, or active or defensive cyber operations. These restrictions should apply to all agencies.

d. Recommendations 17 and 18: Data Retention Periods Should Be Attached to Telecommunications Providers’ Data and to Foreign Disclosures of Information. The legislation should be amended to highlight that confidential information will be retained only for as long as necessary to make, amend, or revoke an order under section 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation under paragraph 15.8(1)(a), or to verify the compliance or prevent non-compliance with such an order or regulation. Similarly, an amendment should also require that the government attach data retention and deletion clauses in agreements or memoranda of understanding that are entered into with foreign agencies. Retention periods should be communicated to the affected telecommunications providers.

e. Recommendation 19: Telecommunications Providers Should Be Explicitly Informed Which Foreign Parties Receive Their Information. Given that foreign parties can use information to launch investigations and bring non-penal charges against providers, the government should provide some notice when telecommunications providers’ information is being, or has been, shared for cybersecurity purposes.

f. Recommendation 20: Legislation Should Delimit the Conditions Wherein a Private Organization’s Information Can Be Disclosed. As drafted, section 15.7(1) appears to set an excessively low threshold for disclosing information, and could enable significant sharing of private, if not confidential, information, to address unspecified threats that are not set out in the legislation. Proposed textual amendments are found on page 30 of Cybersecurity Cannot Thrive in the Darkness (Appendix A to this brief).

V. Costs Associated with Security Compliance

35. As noted above, imposing substantial costs of compliance on telecommunications providers may have the potential to impact upon the accessibility of telecommunication services, the digital divide, and Charter-protected rights or interests. To address concerns surrounding the costs associated with security compliance, Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness makes the following recommendations:

a. Recommendation 21: Compensation Should Be Included for Smaller Organizations. There should be a mechanism whereby smaller telecommunications providers (e.g., those with fewer than 250,000 or 500,000 subscribers or customers) that have historically been conscientious in their security arrangements can seek at least some temporary relief if they are required to undertake new, modify existing, or cease ongoing business or organizational practices as a result of a government demand or order or regulation. Such relief may be for only a portion of the costs incurred and, thus, constitute a “cost-minus” expense formula.

b. Recommendation 22: Proportionality and Equity Assessments Should Be Included in Orders or Regulations. The results of these assessments should be taken into consideration by the government prior to issuing an order or regulation, should be provided to telecommunications providers alongside associated orders or regulations, and should be included in any evidentiary packages that may be used should a telecommunications provider seek a judicial review of any given order or regulation.

c. Recommendation 23: Government Should Encourage Cybersecurity Training. The government should commit to enhancing scholarships, grants, or other incentives to encourage individuals in Canada to pursue professional cybersecurity training.

VI. Vague Drafting Language

36. The last set of recommendations pertain to ambiguities in Bill C-26. Notably, Bill C-26 does not specify the kinds of security threats that might be addressed by orders or regulations; fails to define key concepts like “interference”, “manipulation”, and “disruption”; provides the Minister with unnecessarily open-ended powers; and lacks clear guidelines as to how personally identifiable information that is obtained from telecommunications providers is to be treated. As a result, Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness makes the following recommendations:

a. Recommendation 24: Clarity Should Exist Across Legislation. The government should clarify how the envisioned threats under the draft legislation (“including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption”) compare to the specific acts denoted in s. 27(2) of the CSE Act (“mischief, unauthorized use or disruption”), with the goal of explaining whether the reformed Telecommunications Act would expand, contract, or address the same classes of acts as considered in the CSE Act.

b. Recommendation 25: Explicit Definitions for “Interference,” “Manipulation,” and “Disruption” Should Be Included in the Legislation or Else Publicly Promulgated.

c. Recommendations 26 and 27: Ministerial Flexibility Should Be Delimited (i.e., remove open-ended language around powers such as “among other things”). In the event that a corresponding amendment is needed for Ministerial powers constrained to emergency circumstances, those powers should be subject to judicial review in Federal Court, including assessment for necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality. Decisions emergent from review should be published by the Federal Court.

d. Recommendation 28: The Legislation Should Make Clear That Personal Information and De-identified Information is Classified as Confidential Information. As noted above, the federal government's Charter statement appears to conclude that it is not the intent of Bill C-26 to authorize the collection and sharing of personal information. If that is the case, the legislation should expressly say so. Alternatively, personal and de-identified information should be treated as confidential.

e. Recommendation 28A: Individuals Should Be Explicitly Informed If Their Information Has Been Collected Or Shared. If the federal government does not expressly state that personal and de-identified information should not be included in collection and sharing powers, it should ensure that notice obligations are extended to individuals whose information is impacted by the collection and sharing powers under Bill C-26.

f. Recommendation 29: Prior Judicial Approval Should Be Required for the Government to Obtain Personal or De-identified Information from a Telecommunications Provider. The information is further to be used exclusively for the purposes of making, amending, or revoking an order under s. 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation under paragraph 15.8(1)(a), or of verifying compliance or preventing noncompliance with such an order or regulation.

g. Recommendation 30: The Government Cannot Disclose Personal or De-identified Information to Foreign Organizations.

Part 4. Concluding Remarks

37. We urge this Committee to take seriously the recommendations that were identified in Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive In Darkness. We note that most of these recommendations have been either reiterated or expanded upon by the Joint Submission to this committee submitted by civil society organizations and individuals. In detailing these recommendations for this Committee's study, we also urge the Committee to consider the additional Charter interests that are engaged by Bill C-26, including equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, and privacy, as described in Part 2 of this Brief. We echo Dr. Parsons' view that “cybersecurity efforts through Bill C-26 should seek to build trust between the government and non-government entities, including the general public,” and that independent bodies (including the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or National Security and Intelligence Review Agency) should be integrated into the government's assessments of the necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness of Orders in Council, Ministerial Orders, or regulations.

38. Citizen Lab's recent report, Finding You (enclosed as Appendix C), documents continuing vulnerabilities at the heart of the world's mobile communications networks. The report's findings underscore that cybersecurity has not thrived in darkness. Historical and continuing deficiencies in oversight, transparency, and accountability of network security have led to serious geolocation-related threats associated with contemporary networks. The report notes that the “failure of effective regulation, accountability, and transparency has been a boon for network-based geolocation surveillance.”

39. While Canada needs to move forward in combating threats to its telecommunications and critical infrastructure, it should not do so at the expense of democratic norms and safeguards, public transparency and accountability, or respect for the Charter and human rights. Rather, a human security and human rights approach to cybersecurity requires the recognition of the importance of accessible and inclusive cybersecurity, public accountability, and public transparency when regulating telecommunications and cybersecurity.

The rest of it is just a bit of a biography of the individuals who were involved in putting that together.

I think I've given you a fairly comprehensive.... It's a lot for the committee to think about when we want to go back to clause 124, which deals specifically with Bill C-26.

I certainly recognize that there are some who didn't want to have this conversation, but I think this provision, with Bill C-26 being such a key part of this clause.... We need to consider whether or not we should support a clause that contains linkage to a bill that clearly has so many glaring errors. So many critical civil society organizations have come forward and said this is something we need to amend. We need to make changes, because there are significant concerns about the impact on privacy, data sharing and government reporting when they collect information from individuals or other entities. I believe we should give strong consideration to voting against this particular clause. The information I provided should formulate part of that discussion, but I know other members have some concerns they want to share with the committee.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I will turn the floor over to the next speaker. However, while I still have the floor, I would indicate that I would like you to put me at the end of the speaker list, as well. I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say, and then have the opportunity to follow up. Could you add me to the list and perhaps give us all a reminder, as I turn the floor over, what that list looks like, to make sure I have a place at the end of it?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rachel Heft]

The threshold found in the proposed ministerial order power is really one of imminent harm. There has to be imminent harm to the subject matters you've listed: national security, national economic security or competition. That is a relatively high threshold, all things considered. It's not just in the interest of these subject matters, but there has to be, in fact, “imminent harm” caused by the circumstances to national security, national economic security or competition. It also has to constitute a “threat to the safety and security of persons, goods, ships or port facilities or the security of supply chains”.

There is already a relatively high threshold in the proposed provision in Bill C-33 that the minister would have to believe would be established or met by the circumstances—that is, the facts and the law—before any order could be issued.

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying a big thanks to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Electoral reform is an important issue in Canada and it is important we keep it an issue on Parliament Hill. By choosing to move ahead with this motion, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has caused us to be talking about it on the floor of the House and brought it to the attention of all members.

That is something the Prime Minister was hoping would not happen after he crassly broke his promise after throwing out a great set of recommendations by a special committee on parliamentary reform that was set up, notwithstanding the fact it was a majority government at that time, on a proportional basis. Opposition parties at that time came together in a way the government frankly did not expect and did find a path forward for electoral reform, one the government quickly threw in the bin.

I do not want to repeat all the arguments I have made elsewhere on the record and the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith eloquently made today about the nature of representation in Parliament, which is surely a very important argument. She presented some facts and figures about the ways that Canadians are not adequately represented, whether it is women or different racial minorities in Canada. People living with disabilities are not adequately represented in the chamber. She also talked about some of the disillusionment with politics that is occurring and a sense by people that their vote does not really count, or that they have to vote against what they do not want instead of voting for what they do want.

Those are all themes that, as people who knock on doors and talk to people about political engagement, we are very aware of. It is not a limited phenomenon in Canada. It is one of the reasons voter engagement is going down in Canada instead of up, as people feel more alienated from the system. Surely, the Prime Minister breaking what was a very clear promise in the 2015 election was an important moment for many Canadians, and unfortunately, not a positive one. It was not one that drew people to politics. It was not one that caused people to feel that when politicians make promises and rally behind them there is the promised outcome on the other end of that.

That is why it is important now to put the emphasis on a citizens' assembly, because there is a fair amount of broken trust, a trust the Prime Minister himself is responsible for having broken. It was not just once, though. It was not just after the 2015 election and the subsequent report by the special committee and the crass kind of dismissal of that report. He did it again recently after Liberal Party members passed a resolution at their own convention calling for an examination of the electoral process and a move away from the first-past-the-post system.

The Prime Minister came out the very next day to talk about this. The convention was not even over and he was already talking about how that would not proceed and there was no consensus. It is very easy to stand up and say there is no consensus when one is the person who is getting in the way of there being a consensus.

Opposition parties, in the 42nd Parliament, showed that even between parties as disparate and which disagree even on the matter of electoral reform to the extent Conservatives, the Bloc, New Democrats and Greens sometimes do disagree on these matters, and if we each were able to pick our ideal system it probably would not be the same system, we nevertheless worked together to form a majority consensus on that committee.

Opposition parties in Canada showed very clearly where there is a will there is a way. The person who has been standing in the way of that consensus, and the only reason there is not a consensus on how to move forward, is the Prime Minister. He has refused to accept the consensus other parties have shown that they are able to come to in order to move forward on this most important issue.

Why is it that the Prime Minister says there should be no consensus? Why is it he does not agree? It is because he says that proportional representation is divisive. Let us take a look at what the first-past-the-post system has created in this place. Is it a place of unity? Is it a place of respectful discourse? No, it is a place of incredible division, where we are routinely saturated with misrepresentations like, for instance, that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition.

There is a supply and confidence agreement. It is published online. Anyone who wants the details of that can go online; it is a fully transparent document. We have shown time and time again, whether it is on a public inquiry on foreign interference or just recently on the Conservatives' own carbon tax motion, we are prepared to disagree with the government and not support it on important issues of the day. Why? It is because we are not the government. We are not a part of that government.

We are willing to work with the government on issues like dental care and increasing funding for housing, and a number of other things that are in the supply and confidence agreement, which Canadians right now who are watching can google and read online. That much is true.

Do the Conservatives say in French that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition? Not any more, because it does not suit their political interests. Instead, they say that there is a Liberal-Bloc coalition.

When members are speaking English, they often call it an NDP-Liberal coalition. When they are speaking French, they call it a Bloc-Liberal coalition. Which is it? It has to be one or the other if we are talking about a government made up of two political parties.

However, the truth is that it is neither. The Bloc is not in a coalition with the government, and we are not in a coalition with the government. We just voted with the Conservatives again on an important issue of the day: expanding the pause on the carbon tax to avoid regional division within the carbon pricing system. Is that a Conservative-NDP coalition? It is not, but I suppose we could call it that.

Thus, there is a Liberal-NDP coalition and there is a Conservative-NDP coalition. There is a Bloc-Liberal coalition, and I have seen the Bloc vote with the Conservatives; surely that is a coalition, so I guess there is a Conservative-Bloc coalition. I watched, on an important matter of democracy that had to do with abuses of confidences and prorogation in the House, the Liberals and Conservatives stand up together to maintain the power of the Prime Minister to shut this place down. That was a Liberal-Conservative coalition, I guess. We just call it a coalition any time parties happen to agree on any issue. When I voted in Parliament with the Conservatives on Bill C-2 to disallow the wage subsidy to companies that were paying dividends, perhaps that was a coalition. When I worked with the member for Sarnia—Lambton on important pension reform, and the Bloc was part of that, I suppose that was a coalition. Who is running the country? It depends I guess what vote one decides to use to evaluate who is running the country.

My point in all of this is that the first-past-the-post system sure as heck has not created a more unified body politic. It has not stopped division; in fact, it has encouraged it, because of what motivates the dishonest portrayal of the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and Liberals, or sometimes the Bloc and the Liberals, as I said, if one is speaking in French. It depends on the day. The Conservative leader, of course, is not who he says he is. He is one guy in French and another guy in English. Never mind; there are other examples but I will not go on, because I want to bring it back to the motion.

The fact of the matter is that Conservatives are misrepresenting the truth on any day of the week, because they are chasing 40% of the vote. It is because we have an electoral system in this country where one can fight tooth and nail, and not to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Canadians, but just to get 40% or even 39% of the vote of Canadians. These are Canadians who, despite being disgusted with the state of political discourse, still show up to vote. However, if one can get 39% of those votes, and if one can use dishonesty and other misrepresentation to drive well-meaning Canadians away from polling stations, then one can get 100% of the power with just 39% of the votes.

The culprit in all of this is the Prime Minister, who refuses to accept that our voting system encourages division. It is simply untrue to say that a proportional system would sow more division and discontent than we see in our current system. We could not pack more into an electoral system in terms of division and nasty politics than we are seeing in Canadian politics today. Yes, the Conservative leader is responsible for his fair share of that, but the motion before us is one of the things that we could do structurally in order to encourage better behaviour and more collaboration between parties despite the fact that they disagree. I am proud of the fact that New Democrats have been modelling collaboration with both the Liberals and the Conservatives, depending on the issue. We want a system that encourages that, rather than one that encourages the opposite.

I think we have a lot of evidence to say that preserving the current voting system is not standing up against divisive, nasty politics. In Canada today, it is precisely the opposite, which is why we should support the motion from the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, who was also a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. I remember when we were debating Bill C‑2.

I would like to have a bit of clarity on something. Clause 510 officially recognizes Charles III as King of Canada. One of the Conservative Party's motions calls for this clause to be deleted.

Has the Conservative Party been seized with a sudden fit of good faith and common sense and become anti-monarchist?

[Karen Hogan]

If you go back to, I think, Sheila Fraser's mandate, that was about the volume that the office used to issue. Not all audits are created equal. Some are smaller and some are larger, but it was around that ballpark figure in a given year.

Then there was a call to reduce budgets across the whole government, and the office voluntarily did that. Then new mandates were added that were not funded, and we saw the number of performance audits fall to about 14 in a given year. When I requested additional funding, as Michael Ferguson had started to do back in 2017, it was with the intention of bringing our volume back up to about 25 performance audits per year.

I would just caution about counting the reports. As I say, Bill C-2 was one, but it was very large. A report can be quite small. I think it's just a benchmark and a target. As long as it ebbs around that, it is probably a good volume. Then it's about what parliamentary committees can study. The capacity you have to study all of that work has to be considered as well.

[Karen Hogan]

I think we've done 23 audits, but we need to factor in the audit for Bill C‑2.

[Karen Hogan]

The audit on specific COVID‑19 benefits was included in Bill C‑2. In accordance with the bill, we had one year to complete the work. We have ensured that we have the resources to complete the work. We are filing a report today, a few weeks before the deadline in the bill.

[Karen Hogan]

I believe the audit you're referring to is the one in Bill C-2, which was to look at post-payment work for six different COVID relief programs.

We are at the tail end of that audit and expect to release it in early December, before the deadline, which was supposed to be December 19.

The Economy

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I invite members of the opposition and that member in particular to vote with us the next time we have a piece of legislation in the House that is designed to improve the lives of Canadians and make their lives more affordable. The Conservatives have voted against every single measure we put on the floor of the House to make life more affordable, including Bill C-2, the Canada child benefit and making sure that OAS payments are indexed.

They are all talk, no action. On this side, we are focused on affordability for Canadians.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have known where that rhetoric was in support of Canadians when we were in the House trying to pass Bill C-2, Bill C-8 and the budget implementation act, which include billions of dollars to go into the hands of Canadians. Instead, we took the reins to make sure we could get legislation passed, so we could get $8.9 billion into the hands of Canadians.

For child care, which the people on the other side just want to shred, in Toronto alone, a family will save $19,790 a year. That will help families afford groceries and gas. We are doing this across the country because this government puts Canada first.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak during third reading of Bill C-19, which of course is the budget implementation act. I thought I might treat it as a bit of a case study, because in the debate about our electoral system we often hear that Canada needs strong majority governments in order to have decisive decision-making and action and to not end up with a hung Parliament. This is one of the main motivations for some to oppose electoral reform, and particularly forms of proportional representation, which tend to lead to more instances of minority Parliaments and minority governments.

My view is that the process around this budget bill, without being a perfect process and without the bill being a perfect bill, was actually a decent process, so I want to talk a bit about some of the improvements that were made to the bill during the course of it and some of the ways that it suggests we can make progress on other issues in this Parliament through members of various parties working together, and not only members of the same party working together. I think this process, in fact, showed that members can be nimble in terms of whom they are working with on particular issues and still get outcomes that make sense for Canadians and that benefit a lot of Canadians. We do not need one party having 100% of the power here in Parliament in order to make substantial progress for Canadians.

The first example I would point to is related to changes to the disability tax credit. We heard a fair bit of testimony at committee on this point. A Conservative colleague of mine on the committee brought forward an amendment, and the way this happens, as I am sure members will know but folks listening at home may not, is that parties will typically submit their amendments independently. Sometimes there are pleasant surprises when we receive the package. In this case, it was an identical amendment.

I was happy to work with Conservative colleagues and my Bloc colleague on the committee to pass an amendment that would change the disability tax credit requirements. A person has to show that they spend 14 hours a week tending to their condition, as somebody with type 1 diabetes does, whether that is injecting themselves with insulin, going to the pharmacy to get insulin, monitoring their blood sugar or doing other things that folks living with type 1 diabetes have to do. Then they often have to prove this every year, despite the fact that type 1 diabetes is not a condition that simply goes away and despite the fact that the requirements of the condition do not simply go away. Nevertheless, people have had to constantly show they have it, again and again.

This is reminiscent of some of the stories we have heard over the years out of Veterans Affairs Canada about veteran amputees who have to demonstrate every so often that, in fact, their leg is still missing and they are still an amputee and continue to require the same help. Folks with type 1 diabetes were having to continually show this.

We were able to bring forward an amendment, pass it at committee and even overcome some procedural wrangling, after the amendment was initially ruled out of order. We were happy to overrule the chair at committee on that point and very pleased that the Speaker saw fit to uphold the will of the committee in respect of that amendment when it came back to the House.

What that means concretely for people who are living with type 1 diabetes is that they will no longer have to do all of the paperwork, with the bother and expense that comes with it, in order to qualify for the disability tax credit. Once they have qualified as having type 1 diabetes, that will be sufficient to qualify them in the future.

I think that was a really hopeful exercise, and not just hopeful for Parliament in general, but also hopeful because we know that when it comes to Canadians living with disabilities, there has not been enough meaningful action on the part of the current government to serve that community. We saw that last June, when the government presented a bill for a Canada disability benefit that had absolutely no details about what the benefit would be, how much it would be, what the eligibility criteria would be and how it might impact other benefits that people living with a disability already receive. There was a lot more work to do, and since the new Parliament was elected in the fall, an ongoing priority of the NDP has been to call on the government to present new legislation and better legislation that would actually tell Canadians living with disabilities what the government has in mind and would provide far better ongoing income support for people living with disabilities.

Why is that important? It is because under the current federal programs and under provincial programs across the country, people living with disabilities have been consistently legislated into poverty to the extent that someone with a disability has to rely on existing disability pensions of various kinds across the country, none of which provide an income that brings them to the poverty line. This means that as soon as they have to rely on those things, people know they are going to be living a life of poverty with all of the challenges that come with that. Those are challenges of poverty over and above the challenges people living with disabilities already face.

With the great work from my colleague, the NDP disability critic in this Parliament, to press the government to bring legislation forward, we finally got wind on the Notice Paper that legislation was coming. It was an exciting moment. We had hoped to get more detail, just as we had hoped that certain changes to the disability tax credit in this legislation might have meant that finally the government would act on the long-standing call by people living with type 1 diabetes to make their lives easier and make their access to the disability tax credit available.

That was a disappointment, initially. However, by working together across party lines, we were able to remedy that, similar to the tabling of the Canada disability legislation. I almost said the “new” legislation, but I think I would have misspoken because it is pretty much the same legislation and has the same problems, therefore. It does not spell out what the program is supposed to look like. It does not let Canadians living with disabilities know what kind of financial help there is and the extent of financial support they could hope to receive from the federal government.

I would go further and say that part of the problem with legislation like this, and there are a couple, is it essentially just empowers cabinet to design a program and fund that program by statute, without having to return to Parliament. There is a procedural question, which I think may be less interesting to a lot of Canadians, but that procedural question is important to the extent that Parliament is a place that is meant to provide oversight on government spending. This bill would empower the government to create a program without having any idea what the price tag is, when it should be quite clear with Parliament on how the program is going to be designed. Parliamentarians should be able to authorize a new program like that knowing those things. That is a problem.

The other problem with setting up that program in legislation without actually legislating it is that a future government and a future cabinet that does not agree with the program or that wants to change it would not have to come back to this place. There would be no legislative process. This would also mean that the time it normally takes for a bill to go through the House of Commons and through the Senate would not be there. That is the time civil society often uses to mobilize in order to influence the content of legislation and government policy. It is an opportunity lost. It would make it very easy for a future government to undo whatever the current government does. If it finally gets around to creating a program for the Canada disability benefit, it would be far too easy for it to be undone.

Our experience at committee with the initial disappointment around the disability tax credit shows that a minority Parliament can come together and can have a positive influence on government policy and legislation. It can get things done for people that a majority government clearly would not have done because it was not in the Liberals' proposal.

I would also point to the example of employment insurance reform, something the government promised in its election campaign in 2015. We have had two elections since. The government has been in power now for coming on seven years, yet we have not seen any meaningful EI reform. We have to bracket a lot of what happened in the pandemic, because there were substantial changes to the EI program during the pandemic, but the speed with which those reforms occurred shows that it is possible to make meaningful reform quickly. Also, the nature of many of those reforms shows that what workers have been asking for in their EI program is in fact possible. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of what they have been asking for are things the government did through the EI program during the pandemic.

As the pandemic recedes somewhat, at least for the moment, certainly the Liberals are of that view when they are talking about their financial support programs, less so when they are talking about public health restrictions. As the pandemic recedes somewhat, the government is going back to its regular inaction on the employment insurance file.

The Liberals finally did try to do something important but relatively minor in the grand scheme of systemic employment insurance reform: They presented a proposal to change the EI appeal board and undo some of the damage that was done by the Harper government to the EI appeal board. They fell flat on their face. It was not well received, even by the very people the Liberals sought to please with those reforms. They were lambasted for it, and they themselves sought to remove that part of the budget bill.

New Democrats were pleased to support that removal, for two reasons. One was that we agreed that those reforms were misguided and did not represent what I would dare to call a consensus among EI stakeholders about how the system, and particularly the appeal board, has to change. However, we were glad to support the reforms on a condition, which was satisfied, which was that the minister declare publicly that they would bring legislation back in the fall in order to make better changes to the EI appeal board system that people would actually welcome. Having secured that commitment, we were happy to support the removal of those appeal board changes that were quite ill-conceived.

However, it does raise a question of trust in the government. After being in government for well over six and a half years and having not really made any major reforms to EI except those that were forced by pandemic circumstances, when they finally came out of the gate to do something, how could they get it so terribly wrong? I take some solace in the fact that we have a minority Parliament, that Canadians did not entrust the Liberals with a majority of seats here in the House of Commons, that they do not have 100% of the power in this place and that negotiation is possible, because I think it is leading to better outcomes.

There is another example that is a little outside the scope of this bill, but it is an important one when we are talking about the pandemic. Early on in this Parliament, one of the first things that the finance committee did was to deal with Bill C-2, which established the new pandemic benefit regime that has now expired. It was instituted in December and was effectively the pandemic support regime that saw us through the omicron wave, with some notable changes by order in council right after the legislation passed, because as New Democrats said at the time, the reason we voted against that legislation was that we thought it would be inadequate to the task. I want to zero in on an important change that was made to those programs, particularly the wage subsidy program that was conceived in that bill.

Working with members of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, we were able to pass an amendment that said that companies that were receiving wage subsidy money under the authority of Bill C-2 would not be allowed to pay dividends to shareholders while accepting money from the government that presumably they needed because they did not have enough revenue to stay afloat. Clearly, if they were making big dividend payments to their shareholders, they did have the money, so that was an appropriate reform. It was the kind of thing that New Democrats had called for at the inception of the wage subsidy program that the government would not agree to initially, but we finally found a way, again working across party lines. That is not always an easy thing to do, but it is always a worthwhile thing to try to do. This was again an example of Parliament being able to correct course for a government that had got off on the wrong foot.

It really matters and it serves Canadians well that we are in a Parliament that does not have a majority government. I do hope that is something Canadians will consider in the next election. I also hope that they will consider electoral reform when organizations like Fair Vote approach them to talk about it. I will remind some of my Conservative colleagues—and we have gone into it a little over the budget debate—that reform is the want of folks around here, and it is not a bad thing. Conservatives will know that they had more share of the popular vote than the Liberals, who are in power, but they got far fewer seats.

We just saw, in the Ontario election, the New Democrats get about 30 seats to the Liberals' eight, approximately, despite having roughly an equal share of the popular vote. We saw the Ford government form a majority with a very small amount of support when we consider how low turnout was and how the way we vote under the first-past-the-post system can generate very distorted electoral outcomes.

I raise all these things to contribute to the debate on this bill, but I also hope to contribute to a larger debate about how we elect Parliaments that select governments here in Canada and show that we have been doing good work in this Parliament. We have been correcting course for the government when it got it wrong on the first go, and that has been made possible by virtue of having a minority Parliament. It is exactly because we do not have a majority government that these corrections and some of the good things that came out of the committee process have been possible.

One of the things I hope we may yet make progress on, which I will be looking to colleagues in other parties for support on, is the call for a low-income CERB repayment amnesty. This is something that has come up at the finance committee. It heard compelling testimony, and there is an important moral dimension to this issue. We are talking about people whose incomes are already below the poverty line. CTV did a piece on this last week, but it is not new. It has been a running story and has had various permutations through the pandemic, with the CRA sending letters to Canadians already in very difficult financial straits even before the current round of inflation hit us. It is all the more so now that people are struggling with the cost of groceries. The cost of housing has been an issue—let us not kid ourselves—for a long time. The rate of acceleration of the problem got worse during the pandemic, but the problem was getting worse even before the pandemic.

People who applied in good faith for help and were told to apply, in some cases, by their very own Liberal MP are now getting letters saying that they have to pay the money back, that they did not qualify and were not eligible. In some cases, they are people who applied for employment insurance and would have preferred just to get EI, but were told no, they could only get CERB. Then they got the CERB cheque and figured that was what they were entitled to. They applied for EI, were told no, and got the CERB. CERB sent them the cheque; they did not ask for it, so they thought it must be okay. They spent the money because they had lost their jobs and were trying to get through a global pandemic, which I think we can all agree was not an easy thing to do no matter what people's incomes were, let alone if they had just lost their jobs, and now the government is asking them for that money back. They do not have the money, and the efforts to collect that money, particularly from people who are already below the poverty line, are not going to bear fruit.

There is the moral dimension in terms of the anxiety and the financial harm that it is causing, but there is also a very real financial dimension. We heard a bit about that at committee. The government is planning to spend around $260 million chasing after a CERB debt that is a function of how it publicized its own program and encouraged people, and in some cases forced people, into the CERB system as opposed to the employment insurance system. For the $260 million that the government is going to spend over the next three or four years chasing that debt, how much is it actually going to get back? I think it is unlikely that it is going to get back $260 million.

I would love to know. I would love to have the government tell us how much it thinks it is actually going to get back. I have asked the question. I asked it at committee and I asked in a number of different fora and I cannot get an answer. It is shocking to me that the government would decide to invest $260 million to collect a debt that it does not know the value of, let alone the likelihood of succeeding. When we talk about investing over a quarter of a billion dollars in collecting a debt, we would want to be darn sure we are actually going to get that money back. Even if it makes its money back and calls it a wash—spend $260 million and get $260 million, which I think is very unlikely—it would not be worth it. It would not be worth it because the time and expense that it is spending chasing after low-income Canadians who are already in dire straits, particularly in this context of inflation, is time and expense that it could spend chasing tax evaders who are hiding their money out of the country and using other means to not pay their fair share. It would get a better return.

There is a good financial argument for a low-income CERB repayment amnesty, and I hope that in the context of this Parliament that I have been talking about, we will find support among enough other parties to convince the government to do the right thing, which is to not chase that debt and try to wring it out of low-income Canadians but instead divert the CRA's resources to chasing the people who are really getting away with something, people who are not paying their fair share and who have the resources to pay it back.

Opposition Motion—Measures for Immediate Financial Relief

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking on behalf of the finance team, but I am always happy to talk about our fabulous tourism sector.

Just this morning, I was with the Frontier Duty Free Association. I understand it will be meeting with the member shortly. This afternoon, I have a fabulous round table with British Columbian stakeholders in the tourism industry.

What is unfortunate is that the Conservative Party voted against Bill C-2, which provided support directly to the tourism industry. Last week, I made a number of announcements to tourism operators for funding. In some cases, non-refundable funding is going straight into the pockets of our small businesses in the tourism sector and supporting them through this difficult time.