Debates of July 20th, 2020

Further COVID-19 Measures Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's speech. I understand that she deeply cares about the living conditions of people with disabilities and thinks that this is an important issue.

It would have been nice if the bill could have been passed in early July. Perhaps people living with disabilities would now have access to that money to help them deal with the challenges they are facing.

Now that I see that the minister cares about the situation of the most vulnerable members of our society and those who are struggling, I will ask her this question.

The bill that I am sponsoring seeks to increase the number of weeks of employment insurance from 15 to 50 for those who are grappling with a serious illness and should not have the added worry of struggling to pay their rent and make ends meet.

If I were to ask her to support my bill on EI sickness benefits tomorrow, will the minister extend her concern for people with disabilities to others who are struggling?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely assure you that we have decided to up benefits from 15 to 26 weeks for people receiving employment insurance because of illness. That is really important. As we saw with the CERB, we have to support people who are sick so they can make the right decisions for their health and their families as well as for the health of our communities.

I am absolutely determined to change the act and increase the number of weeks from 15 to 26. I am committed to making that happen.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

I sometimes have a hard time understanding the Liberal government's ability to respond. When it is time to breathe some life into the big banks so they can issue more loans, that gets done instantaneously. When they say they are going to stop giving public funds to companies that send their money to tax havens, it takes 24 hours and then they backtrack, because that is untouchable. When it is time to award a billon-dollar contract, they do so untendered and then award it to an organization run by the Prime Minister's buddies—not to mention that his mother and brother are on the payroll. However, when it comes to providing assistance to people living with disabilities, they waited until July 20.

Why is it that they are incapable of turning around and helping people living with disabilities but they can turn on a dime when it comes to helping the richest, most fortunate Canadians, the banks and the friends of the Liberal Party?

That is strange, is it not?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been supporting persons with disabilities since the beginning of this pandemic.

Families receiving the Canada child benefit get it for their children with disabilities. Students receiving the Canada emergency student benefit get an extra $750 a month if they have a disability. We know that it is harder for persons with disabilities to find a job and that they have more expenses. Seniors with a disability are entitled to the disability tax credit. We wanted to be sure to reach the group of people who had not received these other benefits. We wanted to be sure to help the most vulnerable who were not included in the other measures.

Even though the system is difficult, I also wanted to make sure that we were not paying some people twice and others not at all. We wanted to be sure to give money to the people who need it most in the reality of the federal government.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, first of all, how much I appreciate the work of the minister in digging down into the weeds of what is a patchwork, if not a minefield, of how benefits and services are delivered to disabled people in this country.

In my riding, this is one of the big surprises that people have any time I speak to them. I am a former financial educator. I used to talk about the disability tax credit often with people, and it was a great surprise to many of them that this was something that could actually apply to people who have mobility restrictions, as well as, on the other side, people who have cognitive deficiencies. Of course, the families and the patients were in the throes of that and finding it very difficult to get the DTC. It has been expanded so that occupational therapists and physiotherapists can sign the certificate, and now also nurse practitioners.

Can the minister tell this House how members of Parliament can further help in this very important work?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity over the next 60 days, or I guess 60 days from when this bill receives royal assent, to really dig in as members of Parliament and help as many of our constituents as possible, and the organizations that help them, access the disability tax credit.

We will be providing support to members of Parliament. We will be providing support to disability organizations to help their members access this tax credit. This will immediately help people, in the form of a $600 payment, but it will also provide people access to a myriad of other services that the federal government offers for people with disabilities who require the DTC.

I will give an example. The Canada child benefit provides an additional amount each month if the child has a disability. In order to get that additional amount, the child has to be eligible for the DTC. This is completely silly, with all due respect, because there could be parents who perhaps have a child who was just born with a significant disability, and they have to navigate the tax system in order to allow their child to get a benefit the child is entitled to.

It is far from perfect, but having the 60-day window will allow us to get as many people as possible through the door while we fix the bigger problems.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber. I am very pleased, as are my colleagues in the official opposition, that the finance minister has finally, in Bill C-20, announced these long-awaited measures, but it is worth noting that they have come at a very convenient time for the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

The ethics committee was about to meet and begin a deeper dive into the third ethical scandal facing the Prime Minister and his government. In classic fashion, the finance minister, also under investigation, and also having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, has tried to distract Canadians with a big money bill and help for people that the government delayed helping when it had the chance.

The Prime Minister has long promised openness, accountability and transparency, telling us that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and he made a commitment to do politics differently, but here we are for a third time as our Prime Minister is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner for his part in the scandal involving the WE organization. The two times he was found guilty of breaking the ethics laws tell us that we do not need to wait for a report, but need the Prime Minister to come clean.

It is clear that ethical considerations are often thrown to the wayside in the PMO and under the Prime Minister. Truly, it has been a theme since he came to office. First, it was his illegal trip to billionaire island, where the Prime Minister was found to have violated sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. He accepted gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island, which were seen as gifts that could have influenced the Prime Minister. Further, the Prime Minister was found to have contravened the act when he did not recuse himself from the discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further a private interest.

Then, of course, it was the SNC-Lavalin scandal, in which the Prime Minister was found to have contravened section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act. Section 9 prohibits public office holders from using their position to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further their own private interests or those of their relatives or friends or to improperly further another person's private interests. This will not be the only time I mention the Prime Minister's friends and relatives, as it deals with conflicts of interest and his dealings. In this case, it was a clear violation by the Prime Minister when he undertook a campaign to influence the then attorney general into letting his friends at SNC-Lavalin off the hook by interfering in a criminal prosecution.

Now the Prime Minister is being investigated for his role in awarding a nearly $1-billion sole-sourced deal to an organization that has deep ties to the Liberal Party of Canada and deep and direct ties to the Prime Minister's family and him. The awarding of this contract is now being investigated by multiple committees of the House of Commons and has spawned two probes by the Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner has announced that he is examining the actions of the Prime Minister in awarding this contract and whether he broke the law again by not recusing himself from the decision despite his close ties.

The Ethics Commissioner has also announced that he is investigating the finance minister for his role in awarding the contract and not recusing himself despite his own close ties to this organization.

As I mentioned before, the finance minister is no stranger to the Ethics Commissioner, having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws already because, as I am sure most Canadians can relate, he forgot he had a French villa and a corporation in France. It happens to the best of us I am sure, but despite the fact that one of the finance minister's—

[An hon. member]

A common man's problem.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

A common man's problem indeed.

Despite the fact that one of the finance minister's daughters worked for WE and his family took a WE-sponsored trip in Ecuador, he did not recuse himself.

Now all of these ethical breaches by the Prime Minister and the finance minister follow the same pattern. The Prime Minister will deny he did anything wrong; then he will try to pass the buck; then he will say that he is sorry and then he will get the rest of the Liberals to cover it up.

He said he is sorry, but we know he is only sorry he got caught. If he were sorry, he would have accepted the invitation to appear at committee. If he were sorry, he would waive cabinet confidence. Really, if he were sorry, could he not have just written a letter to the chair of these committees and said that in light of very public revelations about his failure to recuse himself from deliberations and discussions concerning a nearly $1-billion sole-sourced agreement with a firm he has direct ties to, he would like to appear at their committees? Would that not have been the transparency the Prime Minister called for?

We know when the Prime Minister says he is sorry that, he is “sorry, not sorry”. That is why he blocked the investigation into the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We know from the “Trudeau II Report” it was the second time the Prime Minister had broken the law, the second time he had the distinction of being the first prime minister in Canada to to be found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We know from that report that there were nine people who wanted to provide testimony to the commissioner during his investigation, but were not able to. Why? Their response was uniform: it was because it would reveal a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council.

What does that mean? It means that the witnesses were muzzled by cabinet confidence. It means they were not allowed to testify. They were not allowed to listen to their conscience. How can that be? We heard in this very place that the Liberals fully co-operate with the work of officers of Parliament and the Ethics Commissioner every time.

The then government House leader talked about the historic waiving of cabinet confidences. That is not the case. It is not what happened.

He got away with it. He got away with obstructing that investigation. The Prime Minister was not properly incentivized to follow the rules.

We follow that pattern and we find the Prime Minister yet again facing an investigation.

With the WE Charity scandal unfolding before us and despite the Prime Minister's best efforts to the contrary, it is important to establish the facts as we know them. We know this did not begin with the government picking the WE organization at random in June to administer a program for youth. In fact, we found out that the WE organization was pitching the government in mid-April before the government even announced the program. We know that the organization circulated a proposal to several ministers in mid-April.

On April 19, at a meeting with officials from the finance department and ESDC, a Finance official told another senior official, who testified at the finance committee, Ms. Wernick, the senior assistant deputy minister at Employment and Social Development Canada, that in fact it was she who contacted the WE organization.

It is interesting that a mid-level public servant picked up the phone, got the founder of this organization, which we know has tens of millions of dollars in real estate holdings in downtown Toronto among all of its laundry list of other things it engages in, and said, “It is me calling. Is that WE? It is,” and it was the founder on the phone ready to take her call. I am not sure how surprised they were at the WE organization to find out that they were going to be on the receiving end of administering nearly a billion dollars in taxpayer funds.

We also found out at that meeting that this organization was going to benefit by about $43 million dollars in administrative fees. We heard today one of the ministers say that it was just $43 million. What is $43 million between friends?

On April 22, interestingly, the Prime Minister announced that the government would be moving ahead with plans to help young people economically during the crisis and that details would follow later, but while the Prime Minister was making that announcement, the WE organization was submitting a new proposal to the government by email to that same public servant who placed the call only a few days before.

We know that a few days later Volunteer Canada, a national coordinating body for the volunteer sector, reached out to the government to offer support in building a volunteer program aimed at youth. In response, little information was made available while program approval was pending. The government was not interested in Volunteer Canada's expertise or help, and what happened next is most interesting.

The WE organization, which had not been awarded anything at that point in time, contacted Volunteer Canada, which was told that the government did not need its help, and asked for help administering a really big program that was worth about $912 million. That is interesting. I thought that Volunteer Canada was not needed by the government. That is very interesting, and it is interesting, indeed, that the WE organization was already calling people, knowing that they had this in the bag.

Meetings were held between May 25 and June 5 between those groups, and on June 5 Volunteer Canada told the WE organization that it would not be participating, citing several problems with the program, including that the program was going to pay students below minimum wage in any province they participated. That does not sound like help for students.

That is very strange, because the official opposition, the Conservative Party, called for funding for the Canada summer jobs program to be increased beyond what the government had committed this year. I can tell you that in my riding, there were employers approved by the government and who had advised my office that they had students who had applied to work, but that the fund ran out of money.

There were lots of employment opportunities. There was a structure already set up. The Government of Canada was prepared to administer that, but suddenly this new program, plucked out of thin air almost inexplicably, to the benefit of $43 million for these administrators, at a cost of $912 million to the taxpayer and paying less than minimum wage to all program participants, was invented by the government.

I think Volunteer Canada's concerns were right on the money. That kind of consulting, which the government got for free, was for a program with all kinds of problems, but the government bashed on, and on June 25 the Prime Minister announced the program, and later that day his minister said that the WE organization would be administering it.

The current government dismisses questions of conflicts of interest in the awarding of the contract, and the PMO and the WE organization have told several media outlets that the Prime Minister's family was not paid to speak at WE events. Later, on July 3, the WE organization announced that it would not be administering this program. On that same day, the Ethics Commissioner, in response to my letter, announced he would be launching an investigation of the Prime Minister.

On July 9, we learned that the Prime Minister's family was paid by the WE organization.

On July 15, the WE organization issued a statement that it was returning to its roots and would conduct a review of its structure and activities. When a cheque is about to be cut for $912 million, due diligence by the government would have meant that it would have taken a look at what WE's structure and activities were: a board in shambles and a bank covenant not met.

A review of structure and activities should have been done by the Government of Canada before it offered its friends at WE Charity $43 million in a bailout. It is an unusual pattern, to say the least, but these ethical breaches by the Prime Minister certainly followed the same pattern I mentioned before.

Members will remember from the SNC-Lavalin scandal that the Prime Minister's first response was that the allegations in The Globe and Mail were false. We know that this was demonstrably false now. That was proven when it was deemed that he broke the law. The Liberal Prime Minister broke the law. His statements were false.

The Prime Minister's ties to this organization, the finance minister's ties to this organization and the Liberal Party's ties to this organization are deep and there are many.

It is hard to believe that there was no one in the cabinet room and no one on the line who saw this conflict, this problem on the horizon. Is it that everyone knows what happens when someone stands up to the Prime Minister? We saw that with the member for Vancouver Granville, the former attorney general. We saw that with Dr. Jane Philpott, the former president of the treasury board. She stood up to the Prime Minister. What happened to Dr. Philpott? What happened to Canada's first female indigenous attorney general? The Prime Minister fired them, and those Liberals sat silently when that happened. They were complicit in that cover-up and they are complicit in this one.

The Liberals filibustered at the ethics committee on Friday and waited until they talked out the clock. They spoke virtually uninterrupted for hours about all things unrelated and demonstrated misunderstanding in some cases and hypocrisy in others. I took to the floor to encourage them to have the courage of their convictions to vote. If they were going to vote against, they should let the chips fall where they may. Votes are won and lost all the time. However, they moved to adjourn the meeting. They did not have the courage of their convictions. They wanted to further the cover-up.

Therefore, we had the announcement for this bill. The Prime Minister has said it is all about helping people. When the WE Charity scandal first broke, he said that it was all about helping the children. I think it is all about helping the friends, family and donors of the Prime Minister. Canadians deserve better. The Prime Minister must allow the Ethics Commissioner to do his work unobstructed, with transparency, that disinfectant value that sunlight brings. He should waive cabinet confidence. What does he have to hide?

I call on all Liberals to have the courage of their convictions, to appeal to their better angels and to let the Prime Minister know that what he represents is not what Canadians deserve.

Canadians deserve better. They have elected 338 members. They have elected a Liberal caucus that can let their leader know that his behaviour is unacceptable. If they will not ask him to resign, why do they not at least tell him that he must appear at committee, must waive cabinet confidence and must own this scandal?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite encapsulates what the Conservative approach to being in the official opposition has really been about over the last number of years, It has been the character assassination of the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance or others. It has been fairly clear. All one needs to do is review what has happened over the last number of years. While the Conservatives are so determined to continue that character assassination, we as a government will continue to work day in and day out to serve Canadians in all regions of our country.

The very issue we are debating today is Bill C-20. It is about supporting people with disabilities. It is about making changes to the wage subsidy program. Canadians want and expect the House to deal with these things. Could the member provide any comments whatsoever with respect to Bill C-20, something Canadians want to see passed?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to start after the member's outburst. He said that we were all about character assassination, yet one has to have a character to assassinate, and that is not what we see here.

If we look at the measures that have been put in front of us today, we have been asking for these things to happen for months. However, the Liberals wanted to talk about anything but this. Now they want to talk about it because of another one of the Prime Minister's scandals. He has embarrassed our country on the world stage. This this is being reported in media around the world. This is his hallmark. When he says that Canada is back, Canada is back on the front pages in a really negative way under the Prime Minister, under the member's Prime Minister.

It is a shame that the Liberals filibustered that committee last week. It is a shame that the Liberals waited so long to bring measures to the House to help Canadians.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his very thoughtful comments on the scandal that is taking place now in our country. It is a common practice when one enters into a contract to do due diligence. In this case, no such thing took place except that the Prime Minister handed over a big fat contract of $912 million to a friend's organization.

How much due diligence does the hon. member believe happened and if proper due diligence had happened, what could have been the result compared to what we have right now?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, we heard the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth say that she believed public servants had done their due diligence. Our professional public service is known for just that, being professional. However, it is around the cabinet table where it looks like that due diligence fell short. It did not look at the potential conflicts, of which there are many. It did not look at the publicly available information that the board of this organization was in a shambles. While rumours abound and close ties persist, there was no comment or concern about the financial jeopardy this company was in.

Therefore, due diligence could have certainly saved the country a lot of embarrassment, but it also could have saved the government a lot of embarrassment. Financial prudence is not the government's hallmark. For once, we would like self-awareness for brand Canada from the Liberals.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting in on the ethics committee and I know the hon. member heard long stories. We heard stories in Latin. We heard biographies. We heard everything and anything from the Liberal side except holding the government to account. There was an understanding that a deal was struck that the Prime Minister would indeed be invited to this committee to be held accountable in that regard.

Given the hon. member's experience on the ethics committee, what does he have to say about the long-standing tradition of prime ministers simply shirking their responsibility to be accountable at committee? Does he believe the Prime Minister has a duty to report to the ethics committee to allow that committee to seek out its mandate in holding the government to account?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I mentioned that if the Prime Minister were sorry, he would not be waiting for invitations, or waiting to get dragged to committee or waiting further embarrassment by order of the House. He would offer to attend. Knowing that the ethics committee is undertaking this work, the Prime Minister should be writing to the chair and offering to come to committee. We saw that before with a member who had great integrity, the member for Vancouver Granville. She offered to appear before the justice committee. She said that she was available, at the chair's call, to attend. That is integrity. That is what we expect.

We have seen the Prime Minister use cabinet confidence to shield answers from being released. In this case, the Prime Minister has said that he is sorry. He needs to make a public declaration that this is not what we will see in the commissioner's report, that there was no obstruction. We cannot have confidence in our public institutions when we have a prime minister who obstructs every investigation, and multiple investigations, into his ethical violations and when he breaks the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for walking Canadians through this scenario. I will remind him as well that it is not just the Ethics Commissioner that is launching an investigation. There is the potential for the Commissioner of Lobbying on breaking lobbying rules on the part of WE, as well as the potential of an RCMP investigation. This is a multipronged, multifaceted situation.

I really want to focus on the dates that the member spoke of, April 19 to the 22, when all of this was going on: the phone calls and emails leading up to the Prime Minister's announcement on June 25 about the Canada summer student grants program and that WE was going to be the group or the partner that was going to deal with this program. Curiously, on July 11, after this scandal broke, 450 people who had been hired to administer this program were laid off by WE. Clearly, the fix was in that WE was going to get this long before the Prime Minister's announcement because of the fact that it had hired.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment further on that and his thoughts about the fix being in on this program.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling when we look at that timeline, and there were too many dates to plot on the timeline in the 20 minutes I had to tell Canadians and the House of the sequence of events that we had seen.

We know that many times throughout the process the WE organization demonstrated certainty that it would be administering this program. Where did that assurance come from? Why was the Prime Minister announcing a program only days after this organization had first been contacted and ultimately submitted the accepted proposal to him at the same time he was announcing the program?

There are many questions, but there is no question that the fix was in from the beginning.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak about integrity and ethics. My father often told me that charity begins at home.

I am wondering if my colleague thinks it is ethical for a political party to apply for the emergency wage subsidy. Would it not be justified to ask the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to study whether a political party can legitimately apply to a program such as the emergency wage subsidy?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that when we look at the scandal we have in front of us, we do not get distracted by shiny objects. I am sure that the softballs the Bloc Québécois like to throw to the Liberals are much appreciated. The Prime Minister appreciates them, but the member is confusing apples and oranges here, or des pommes et des oranges.

This program was about a charity administering funds for a volunteer program, but that is not what it was. It was paying students less than minimum wage in a program that was designed only as a $43 million bailout for friends of the Prime Minister and those Liberals. Let us not get confused or distracted. This is about the Prime Minister rewarding his friends, punishing his enemies and always letting Canadians down.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton.

I am very pleased to be speaking today. This bill that was tabled in the House shows the importance of the Canada emergency wage subsidy and of the adjustments proposed by the government. These changes will provide better support for Canadian workers and employers.

I think that most if not all of the members in the House will agree that the COVID-19 pandemic is the worst crisis our generation has ever encountered. It has caused the largest and most sudden economic contraction since the Great Depression 90 years ago. Fortunately, the Canadian government was quick to show leadership and to help protect jobs and stabilize the economy.

Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan represents nearly 14% of the country’s gross domestic product. This includes $230 billion in direct measures to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to deliver support to Canadians, businesses and other employers. It also includes $85 billion in tax and customs duty payment deferrals to meet liquidity needs of Canadian businesses and families. We implemented this plan to assist Canadians, protect jobs, support employers and make sure that Canada is in a better position to rebound in the post-pandemic recovery.

Since the beginning of this crisis, we have not hesitated to take action and improve assistance programs when necessary. That is precisely what the Minister of Finance did last Friday when he announced the proposed adjustments to the Canada emergency wage subsidy. I will get back to that in a minute, but first a reminder.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy is an important part of our COVID-19 economic response plan. It covers 75% of wages paid to workers by eligible employers up to $847 a week. The CEWS came into effect on March 15 and is available to eligible employers that have experienced a revenue decline of 30% or more, except for the month of March, when the threshold was 15%.

Last May, the government announced that it would be extending the CEWS for 12 weeks, until August 29. We also extended eligibility for the CEWS to several types of employers, including indigenous government-owned corporations that carry on a business, registered Canadian amateur athletic associations and private schools and colleges.

Since its inception, the Canada emergency wage subsidy has supported approximately three million jobs. Some three million Canadians were able to keep or return to their job despite the pandemic. This also means that millions of children, spouses and parents benefited from these jobs breadwinners were able to keep or return to.

Now let us take a look at the changes announced by the Minister of Finance last week and that we will be debating this week.

First, the government is proposing a further extension of the Canada emergency wage subsidy and has provided program details until November 21, 2020. It intends to offer more support until December 19, 2020.

Second, we are proposing to make the CEWS available to employers who have experienced a revenue drop of less than 30%.

Third, the new wage subsidy will be made up of two components, specifically a base subsidy available to all eligible employers that have experienced a decline in revenues, and a top-up subsidy for employers that have been most adversely affected by the COVID-19 crisis. These changes will make the CEWS more effective, and ensure that it better meets employers’ needs. Employers with a larger revenue decline could obtain a larger subsidy. Employers that get back on their feet sooner will be entitled to a gradually declining subsidy as their business picks up.

It is important to point out that a different structure will apply to employees who are temporarily laid off. In their case, the amount of wage subsidy will stay the same until August 29, at 75% of the employee’s wages or remuneration. Our intention is to adjust the wage subsidy over time for employees who are temporarily laid off in order to align with the level of support provided by the CERB or EI. This will make for fairer treatment and make it easier for temporarily laid-off employees to transition from the CERB to the Canada emergency wage subsidy so that they can reconnect with their employer. The changes we have proposed, which we will be discussing this week, are based on consultations with business and union representatives concerning adjustments that could be made to continue to protect jobs while stimulating economic growth.

We got a lot of feedback, but three things stood out. First, the 30% revenue decline threshold is too stringent and could discourage growth. Second, the hardest-hit sectors need more support. Third, extending the program until August 29, as planned until now, is not enough for some employers that need to get back on their feet.

In conclusion, the changes we are proposing address certain concerns. The adjustments will help employers create and maintain good jobs. They will also increase the number of workers rehired in all sectors, by more employers. That being said, we understand that the situation continues to evolve rapidly. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and make additional changes as needed. The current version of the program will be in effect until November 21, and we intend to continue to provide support until December 19.

The opposition parties have read the bill, so they know what our intentions are. I am eager to hear the debates this week, and I hope that every member in the House will support the government’s efforts to help Canadian businesses in these difficult times.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks.

I have a few questions I would like to ask him.

How many angry phone calls has the member received in his constituency office regarding complaints about delays in the corrections to fill the gaps in the emergency wage subsidy? How many angry phone calls has my colleague received from constituents about the delay in the one-time payment to persons with disabilities? This question is probably the most relevant: How many angry phone calls has my colleague received from constituents upset about the billion-dollar WE boondoggle?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had some calls, but not many about the issues my colleague just mentioned.

In my riding of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, we have answered well over 1,500 individual emails and 2,000 or 2,100 phone calls. I can say that people are very polite and very conscious of the fact that we would not be in this position if the federal government had not been there to support workers and people in need.

Tomorrow and Wednesday, we will have time to go over all of this with all of my colleagues. I hope they will ask themselves what they would have done in the current government's place.

The best answer would be that they would have done the same thing we did.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Bloc Québécois members were all prepared to leap to the defence of our constituents' interests.

In fact, the wage subsidy was the Bloc Québécois's idea, because we believe in the importance of maintaining the employment relationship between employers and employees. We even got the government to increase it from 10% to 75% by modelling our approach on what is being done elsewhere.

In my riding, the wage subsidy was used by 62% of businesses. That means 62% of businesses in Granby's industrial area used the wage subsidy because they were struggling.

I would like to thank my dear colleague for his speech and ask him whether he believes that the Liberal Party of Canada faced the same difficulties as the businesses in my riding of Shefford that urgently applied for the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I can confirm that that is the case, just like everywhere else in Canada. It is not so bad if we come up with solutions.

My colleague knows what those solutions are as well as I do. I hope all members of the House will have a chance to speak on this tomorrow or the next day. We will be voting, and I hope our colleagues will support us.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask him a question.

Why does he think the Liberal government awarded a nearly $1-billion sole-source contract to administer a government student assistance program to a charity that had no prior experience?

Does he think that not trusting the public service, not putting out a tender, and giving a contract to friends of the Prime Minister's family is a good use of public money?