Debates of July 20th, 2020

An Act Respecting Further COVID-19 Measures

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we of course believe that government should compensate the businesses and workers who it has banned from working. When we ban people from earning an income, we have to replace that income somehow, and that is what governments across the world have had to do.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has created the highest unemployment in the G7. Why? Because the programs it created were designed to punish people for working and businesses for operating, even those that had approval from lower levels of government to reopen safely in the COVID-19 period. It punished people for earning more than $1,000. It punished businesses for recovering more than 70% of their pre-COVID revenue. Therefore, it is no surprise that our unemployment is the highest in the G7. The government designed programs expressly to make it so. It was as though it was setting out to suppress the economy, to punish entrepreneurs and workers, and it succeeded in all those objectives.

We had different objectives over here, which is to unleash the power of our workers and entrepreneurs to go back and bring our economy back to life. That is what we will continue to champion on this side of the House until we get to that side of the House and start implementing it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Carleton, for really laying this out in a simple way so Canadians can understand.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said at one point that the problem with socialism was that eventually they would run out of other people's money, and the member spoke about his concern with respect to money.

Over the weekend, we heard about a scheme that was being developed, which is being studied and supported by CMHC, presumably in support of the government, on a home equity tax on Canadians. Could my hon. colleague speak to that, to the concerns that Canadians should have with that and to the impact that it will have financially on Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a political party that has tried to convince Canadians again and again that it can spend limitlessly without ever having anyone pay for it, and now we see that again. The Liberals claim that they can just create the money out of thin air and spend that instead of paying bills, like is mathematically required in every society everywhere in the world. We know that is not true, and they do too. That is why they are starting to concoct schemes to raise money.

We learned over the weekend from some intrepid journalists over at Blacklock's that the government was now studying. through CMHC, the prospect of a new tax on home equity. That would be a way for the government to take the wealth that Canadians have legitimately stored in their homes, the wealth upon which the retirement of millions of Canadians depend, in order to pay for permanent expansions of government spending; in other words, enrich the governmental cabal that the Liberals control at the expense of home-owning Canadians.

I want those Canadians to be assured that the Conservatives will do as we have always done, which is to fight tooth and nail against this new home tax the Liberals are planning.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, who concluded his remarks by saying that he was ready to work with all parliamentarians to improve these government programs.

Regarding the CERB, I have to admit that I was a little surprised. As far back as late March, we proposed introducing incentives, and we got nothing but radio silence from our Conservative friends. They did not get fired up about this until the end of June.

I am therefore wondering how my colleague's thought process evolved between March and June.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I think the two parties remember things differently. From my understanding, it was the Bloc leader who was inspired by a Conservative Party idea to allow people to earn more and be compensated accordingly. I therefore must congratulate the leader and members of the Bloc for taking inspiration from their Conservative friends. We are always happy to inspire them.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in the House with all the chuckles I hear today. Quite frankly, I get a chuckle any time I hear Liberals called socialists, when we have a corporatist party that continues to provide tax loopholes for the ultra wealthy. We hear the Conservatives lamenting about the upcoming looming debt, the confusion around who creates value and who hoards wealth in the country.

If the Conservatives are so worried about debt, will they support the New Democrats' call for a wealth tax on the super, super rich, which would raise nearly $6 billion a year, and crack down on the estimated $25 billion in corporate taxes that we lose to tax havens each and every year?

If Conservatives are a law and order party, will they support law and order within our tax regime?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course we support law and order within our tax regime. Every person should pay what he or she owes and every business should pay what it owes.

However, there is some confusion in the premise of the member's question. He speaks as though socialism and corporatism are at odds. In fact, they are the ugly twin brothers of economic ideology.

The corporatist agenda of the Liberal Party is perfectly compatible with the socialist agenda of the NDP. Both rely on big government to take away the product of workers' work, and to take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned and give it to those who have political connections.

In big government socialist economies, we always know that the rich do well, because they have the most political power and they convert that political power into riches for themselves.

We believe in the free enterprise system that rewards merit and hard work, a bottom-up economy. That is the economy for which we fight in the Conservative Party.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have corporate constituents in Thornhill who would bitterly agree with my hon. colleague about the delay of the remedial legislation before the House and the cobweb of complexity that they are learning about today as they read this legislation.

These corporate constituents, who employ thousands of workers, with a payroll totalling millions of dollars, with partnerships and a corporate structure that have been in place for a quarter century, have been, until now, denied by the Canada Revenue Agency.

My colleague has addressed the issue of the costly cobweb of complexities, but I wonder if he can tell the House, having read this legislation, whether there is provision for retroactivity of the claims unfairly denied?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand there is some retroactivity for some of the administrative eligibility, but there is no retroactivity for the new thresholds and formula to determine the eligibility and amounts that would be paid under the wage subsidy. A technical briefing may give the member and his constituents better information than I can offer.

The new rates that are being brought in, the removal of the 30% cliff, all of that is prospective. Some of the administrative eligibility rules are retroactive.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask for the consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for La Prairie.

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

The hon. member does have the consent of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, were it not for our considerable ideological, and sometimes tactical, differences, I would take immense pleasure in listening to my esteemed colleague. However, those major differences cannot be ignored.

Our conviction that the Canadian emergency response benefit needs to be adjusted does not come from the Bloc Québécois, but from Quebeckers themselves. It comes from Quebec's economic circles. It comes from Quebec's businesses, which have expressed concern that this measure, in its current form, disincentivizes going back to work. The return to work is essential for the economic recovery. The people—and the government—of Quebec deserve all the credit for these insights. We humbly salute them.

Bill C-20 does have its good points. There is nothing bad about Bill C-20 per se. There is not very much in it, and not everything we would have liked to see, but there are reasonably good things in it. This got me thinking.

It would be nice if at times we did not confuse constituents with voters. A constituent is not just a voter. A constituent is not just someone we hope will mark an X next to the right person's name and the right party, once every x number of years. A constituent is much more than that. In that sense, it would be good, independent of other issues we debate in the House, if we always worked with a view to providing people the best, including the best parties and the best candidates, and not just the least bad.

We have the least bad legislative measure in the circumstances, but it is missing a few pieces. Let's remain positive though.

First, there is just one criterion for the Bloc Québécois: Is Bill C-20 good for Quebec? Does it serve the interests of Quebec? Honestly, the answer is yes, in many ways.

There was a bit of an imbroglio having to do with the parliamentary manoeuvring around the initial tabling of a bill that included help for persons with disabilities. That situation did not end well. That was a number of weeks ago and this has caused a delay. Today, we can end the delay and ensure that—

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

Order. I would ask those outside the chamber to stop talking because that makes it difficult to hear. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I would like it to be quiet outside the chamber.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

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

Madam Speaker, it is the Liberals' lobby; we know what they are like. I believe it is the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain who caused the problem. Let us be serious as the construction holiday begins.

For people living with a disability, there is an improvement from what was offered before. We are therefore in favour of it. There are measures concerning legal time limits; no one is against that. We support that.

There is an improvement in the wage subsidy program that makes it accessible. As I stated this morning at a scrum, that is good news. The program can be accessed by many seasonal businesses which, until now, had no support. That is important, especially in Quebec's regions and in eastern Quebec. That is good news.

We all understand that these programs will have to be phased out sooner or later. The debt accumulated as a result of the pandemic and the federal government's decisions is enormous. There are useful elements, and others that are less so. There seems to be something interesting in this measure. Adjusting the amounts that can be accessed according to the real losses incurred is in itself an improvement.

However, political parties—and above all the Liberal Party of Canada—continue to claim they have the right to receive the wage subsidy.

My understanding was that, on the short list of parties that can be considered serious—and there is one other one—the Conservatives are considering forgoing the wage subsidy. That will depend on who wins the leadership race. I firmly believe that political parties should not be contributing to Canada's national deficit at a time like this. That does not make any sense to me. This would have been a good opportunity to put things right.

I suspect that if the Liberal government had had the wisdom to drop the wage subsidy as a simple gesture, perhaps some of its party members would have donated a little more. I bet the average Liberal donor has good judgment, just like the average Conservative donor or the average Bloc donor. If I were in the Liberals' shoes, I would have thought about that.

As was mentioned earlier, the CERB was created as an emergency program. This measure could have taken several forms. In its current form, the measure was good and positive. As everyone knows, any program created in an emergency might include some temporarily uncertain aspects. That is okay; we can live with that.

Now, months later, we need to improve it. There is still a big problem with work incentives. The Government of Quebec and the economic community, among others, have raised this issue a number of times. This program is detrimental to workers' return to work. We heard a lot about this issue with respect to students, but we should not kid ourselves. There are not many weeks left.

Something needs to be done about the Canada emergency benefit. Do we need to change the program? Should we replace it with something else? Should it be integrated into the EI program? All of these are possible options, and we are open to any constructive suggestions that will serve the greater good, the economy and the interests of Quebec.

The last time we spoke about the Canada emergency benefit in the House, fraud seemed to be a very serious issue. All of a sudden, it is no big deal and it is no longer being mentioned, even though this was a good opportunity. I think all reasonable members of the House, which I suppose is almost everyone, are in favour of combatting fraud.

The Canada emergency response benefit, in its current form, does nothing for artists. It was great that big events were protected, but they would have no soul without the artists and artisans sharing their work. These people have not received any assistance from the Canadian government. Something needed to be done.

If there is one thing on which we agree with the Liberal government, it is that we must be generous in welcoming others. In Quebec, we want to welcome the guardian angels. We want their cases to be prioritized because they helped Quebec during a very difficult period.

I cannot imagine the Liberal Party not being in favour of that idea. We would have to talk about it with our Conservative Party colleagues. We are very comfortable with it, and it is something we have been advocating for for some time. This was a great opportunity squandered.

Just a few minutes ago, I got a message from Louis Sansfaçon, the father of Émilie Sansfaçon. Why is the government not doing something to address the demand, the need, for 50 weeks of employment insurance benefits for the seriously ill, who are currently entitled to just 15 weeks? The government said it would be 26 weeks, but that has not changed yet; it is still 15 weeks. Why is the government not taking this opportunity to address the issue and demonstrate some good judgment and compassion?

Those are the things that should have been done differently. Those are the things that we feel are necessary. The government should have seized the opportunity to help more Quebeckers, and more Canadians too, for what it is worth. That is the kind of progress we can get behind. Let's all get behind that and make some more progress.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the leader's comments. I want to pick up a bit on the wage subsidy program. It has been of huge benefit for workers not only in the province of Quebec but indeed throughout Canada. I understand that well over two million jobs have been saved because of this program.

I wonder if the member would concur on how important it was that we got a program out there as quickly as possible at that point in time, recognizing that there would be some need for modifications. When we introduce a new program from virtually nothing, there is going to be a need to make changes. Working with opposition members, such as the leader of the Bloc, and Canadians as a whole, is really what in essence is captured in this bill with respect to the wage program. Could he provide his further thoughts on the issue?

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

Madam Speaker, I heard my esteemed colleague ask a number of questions, and I assume he wants me to repeat what he said, preferably in French. That might be a bit of wishful thinking on his part.

Yes, some of the measures were quite relevant. Then again, not everything could be described as well balanced in the original version, what with the government offering both the wage subsidy and the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB.

The reason the wage subsidy was such a dismal failure initially is that the CERB did not include any incentive to go back to work. That kept thousands, if not tens or even hundreds of thousands, of people out of the labour market.

Some employers preferred to have their employees apply for the CERB rather than use the wage subsidy. There is still time to improve this and save the Canadian government a few billion dollars.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to make two comments.

I find it somewhat ironic that the Bloc Québécois is saying that the CERB encourages people not to return to work. People are getting the equivalent of about $13 or $14 an hour by staying home and collecting the CERB. I thought that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of a $15-an-hour minimum wage. If people earn more money by staying home and collecting the CERB, maybe it is because the job in question is not that great, so perhaps what we really need to do is consider the working conditions.

Again with regard to the CERB, the leader of the Bloc Québécois talked about arts and culture, an area that he clearly knows a lot about. Help was given to major festivals, but what will happen to artists and artisans at the end of August when the CERB expires? These people may find themselves with empty pockets, facing a lot of uncertainty.

I would like to know what the Bloc leader thinks about that. How should we continue to support our artists and artisans in Quebec and across Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a wrench, a pain, a struggle. I have very little desire to answer questions from anyone calling themselves a member of the NDP. Out of respect for the institution, however, I will answer the question.

First, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of a higher minimum wage established using guidelines that are not just a simple figure that comes across more as a slogan than a calculation.

Second, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie did a fine job summarizing the Bloc Québécois's position on the assistance provided to artists. He has certainly learned well, since we have been advocating for it for a long time now.

I do indeed know a thing or two about the reality for people in the arts and culture sector, with whom we are in very regular contact. Whether we are talking about the CERB, a new program, an adjustment or an aspect of employment insurance, we are open to everything. However, we simply cannot accept that tens of thousands of artists and artisans in Quebec and Canada are not receiving any targeted aid at a time when they are extremely vulnerable. These people may end up having no choice but to give up their art and take a normal job. We would then have to rebuild this vessel of our soul and our culture.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois welcomed the bill tabled today in the House of Commons. We were the first party to express our support for this bill.

This bill is not perfect and does not meet all of our expectations. However, we believe that it is truly a step forward in the right direction.

As we said about a month ago, we think that the delays in the justice system need to be addressed in order to mitigate the impact of the pandemic and ensure that the justice system can continue to function properly.

We have been in favour of providing assistance to persons with disabilities all along. We even put pressure on the other parties to speed up the process, knowing that these people were waiting for assistance. However, I must admit that the Liberal Party's proposal to support those living with a disability even looks like an improvement. We commend the Liberal Party for this proposal.

Lastly, I would not go so far as to say that this is a new idea, but we were not expecting a scalable wage subsidy. Much to the dismay of the Conservatives, who change their tune rather hastily, the Bloc has been insisting for three months that the CERB should be scalable, in order to be able to adjust to the recovery and ensure that it is not a barrier. The Bloc leader rightfully stated that we were the voice of Quebeckers and of the Quebec government, who started sounding the alarm quite a long time ago.

The fact that the wage subsidy will be scalable is good news. I will repeat that we were also hoping for something similar with the CERB. With respect to the wage subsidy, the good news is that it will be adjusted according to the situation of the businesses, which did not initially have access to this subsidy. Access will therefore be expanded, allowing new businesses to benefit, which will obviously affect seasonal jobs. The Bloc has long stood up for seasonal jobs. Therefore, we are pleased to see these adjustments and the extension, which will provide some reassurance to those in financial distress. We are pleased with this position.

Moreover, we do not know whether there will be a second wave. This adjustment and extension will enable us to face up to a possible second wave with slightly less financial stress. We think this tool has some value, especially considering the uncertain future ahead of us.

Obviously, those who have analyzed this bill, including myself, think it is complicated. It is not always easy to understand it all. I have spoken to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and shared our comments with him.

Faced with this bureaucratic nightmare, will small businesses be able to identify the opportunities available to them?

The government leader assured me that the government will be using a simplified, easy-to-understand approach to facilitate access for small businesses. That is very important to Quebeckers. The bill does not have everything we wanted, of course. For instance, the Bloc Québécois's traditional demands regarding wage subsidies were not all met.

I am sure that it will come as no surprise if I repeat that when the Liberal government builds a program to assist struggling businesses and uses it for electioneering purposes, we cannot allow that abuse to continue. This is an ethics problem, and when we see the Liberal Party tabling this bill, we have to wonder what its intentions are.

Does the Liberal Party support the measure because it benefits all Canadians or because it benefits the Liberal Party?

The Conservatives deserve an asterisk in the Guinness Book of Records, just like Roger Maris. They backed down and finally said that they would check that because, yes, they had collected the emergency wage subsidy and that perhaps it was not a good idea to do so. We are therefore going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I am talking here about the two largest parties in the House, alongside the Bloc Québécois, obviously.

If other parties collected the wage subsidy, that needs to be looked at. Because of this bill, the other parties that are benefiting from the emergency wage subsidy will be putting more money in their pockets, which will help fund their election campaigns. Are these people in favour of this bill because it improves the lives of Quebeckers and Canadians or because it benefits their party? There are lingering doubts in that regard.

I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois did not collect the emergency wage subsidy and will not do so. Are we rich? No, because money does not grow on trees. We will not collect the subsidy as a matter of principle.

We can honestly say that we are supporting a bill like this one because we believe it is good for Quebeckers. We are here in the House for one reason: to work in the interests of Quebeckers. We are demonstrating that once again by supporting this bill.

There is something else we have been talking about for a long time: tax havens. Why would the government want to use taxpayer dollars to help companies when some of them do not pay a penny in taxes? Why is the government not cleaning house and forcing companies that have money to pay their taxes? Why should those companies benefit from support paid for by taxpayer dollars?

Once again, all we are hearing from the government benches are crickets. There was a little progress a few months ago when the government said it might happen. I guess the Liberals got a call from some of their friends on Bay Street asking if it was a joke and telling them to back off pretty quick. Those companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They also want the flour, the baker and the bakery itself. That is probably why there is nothing in this bill denying assistance to companies that have not paid a penny in taxes.

To get back to the CERB, everyone knows that the Liberals were quick to start spending. Yes, the situation required it. Yes, we are in a pandemic. Yes, we were building the plane as we were flying it. I understand all that.

However, there were discrepancies, mistakes and abuses. A month ago, we proposed creating a system to prevent fraud and fix these mistakes by finding the people who took advantage of the situation to line their pockets, but it is not in the bill. That was glossed over during the financial analysis by the government, which spent considerable amounts during the pandemic.

I have to end my speech. I would simply like to say that the Bloc Québécois never collected and will never collect the emergency wage subsidy. We are very proud of that fact. Let any members who pledge to do the same stand and show their respect for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, and we will applaud them.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and for his analysis of the bill before us today. I really appreciated what he said. We are on the same page regarding the wage subsidy and what we can do to provide even greater assistance to Canadians and Quebeckers.

He said he was not on the same page as our Conservative colleagues. I would like to give him an opportunity to explain some of the differences between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party with respect to the changes we are proposing here today. I wonder if he could explain how the Conservative Party is not on the same page as Quebeckers and Canadians who are represented by Canada's other political parties.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on what the Conservatives believe to be fair or unfair when it comes to the wage subsidy. When they have good ideas, it is because the Bloc is rubbing off on them. They have seen the light a few times. It took time, but we applaud them. We have faith in human nature.

When I read the bill, I admit that I was a bit surprised, because I was not expecting the adjustment. I think it is a good idea.

The role of the opposition is not always to oppose. It is not a matter of constantly repeating that what the government says and does is wrong. On many occasions, the government made sensible proposals, which we supported. In our analysis, we think about Quebeckers, and I think that the government made the right move. We can only applaud them.

Could it have done better? Yes, it could have done better. If the government had listened to us, its bill could have been virtually perfect. However, we are not discouraged, we continue to lobby to improve the situation in the community we represent.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party is always a supporter of small and medium-sized businesses, all businesses, as they are the economic engines of our economy and country. The bill in front of us, Bill C-20, is very complicated and I believe the Bloc supports it.

I would like to give the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois a chance to shed some light on one scenario in the bill. For example, if a business suffers a 60% average loss, then what would it get back in return to help it continue to operate?

Again, if a business loses 60% of its revenues, what will it be get back in wage subsidy support from this bill?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the adjustment is something new. Before, when the decline in revenue was less than 30%, everyone was treated the same way. As soon as revenues declined by less than 30%, businesses were not entitled to any assistance at all for those months.

Thanks to this adjustment, people who experience a drop in revenue of less than 30% will get a wage subsidy that will be adjusted based on their slightly lower loss of revenue. On the other hand, if their revenue decline is more than 30%, the new scalable subsidy will be adjusted accordingly.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by framing the response to COVID-19. In the response by the Liberal government so far, what we have seen is that at every step of the way is that it has tried to do the minimum possible. The Liberals have tried to do the least possible, and at every step of the way we have pushed and fought and demanded more for people. That has been our experience throughout COVID-19. We have been demanding, fighting and pushing the government to deliver more for people.

When we look at every step, whether initially when the government proposed EI as being good enough to help Canadians, we said no, it was not going to cover all Canadians who needed help and so we fought and pushed to get the CERB. Initially, the Liberals were going to give $1,000 to Canadians, and we had to fight them on that. We had to demand, we had to negotiate and push hard to get $2,000 for Canadians. The Liberals were just not going to do it, but only the minimum possible, and we had to fight every step of the way.

The Liberals were willing to cut off people in July. They were going to cut off people from CERB without any help in place for the millions of Canadians who could not go back to work. We were willing to go to the brink to make sure that CERB was extended for Canadians in need.

Now, we have a bill in front of us that outlines some supports. Again, these are supports that we had to fight for throughout the pandemic.

From the beginning of the pandemic, Canadians living with disabilities were completely ignored. Some of the most desperate people living in some of the direst conditions were completely ignored by the Liberal government. We had to fight and to say that Canadians living with disabilities needed help and needed it now. We forced the government to promise to deliver that help. Two months later, there was still no help. Finally, today, we are seeing some legislation that would bring in some help for Canadians living with disabilities, but it is not going to cover everyone. That is a problem, and we are going to continue to fight to make sure there is help for everyone, for all Canadians living with disabilities.

We also fought to improve the wage subsidy. We knew that businesses needed some help and that we needed to connect workers to those businesses, and so we fought for some improvements to the wage subsidy program that would help workers and get people back to work. We are proud of that work.

Every step of the way, the Liberal government wanted to do the minimum possible to help people. That is why we pushed the government to increase the assistance it was offering to Canadians.

As for the bill tabled by the government, we were the ones who pushed it to support people with disabilities. We are proud to have achieved this result.

Again, however, the Liberal government is not helping everyone who has a disability. We will continue to fight for them and stick up for them, to ensure there is help for every person living with a disability.

We also pushed the government to make sure the wage subsidy would cover more businesses. We wanted to ensure that more people had access to this program and that everyone had access to work.

However, this is not enough. There is still so much more that needs to be done. We have seen again and again a theme emerging from the Liberal government, one in which there are lots of empty words and a lack of concrete action. Therefore, again Canadians are faced with the reality that at the end of August, CERB will be discontinued. For millions of Canadians who have no work to return to, this is a scary situation. They are worried and afraid.

That is why we are calling on the government to put in place a permanent change to EI. EI does not serve all Canadians; it only helps about 40% of Canadians. We need to make sure that EI is modified so that everyone who needs help gets that help. That is what we are going to fight for.

CERB will be discontinued at the end of August. When that happens, many people will be in a precarious position. They have no idea what lies ahead. That is why we need to improve EI to make sure that everyone who needs it can access that support.

In addition, if we look at the impact of COVID-19, it has been felt most by women. Women have borne the brunt of COVID-19. We see that in some really shocking numbers. Right now the participation of women in the work force is the lowest it has been in 30 years. This is a chilling statistic and something that creates great worry and fear for all of us.

What we need to do is to make sure that if COVID-19 has disproportionately affected women, we have a solution that recognizes that women have been the most impacted. That is why we are saying there can be no recovery from COVID-19 without child care. There can be no recovery without addressing the inequalities impacting women.

Not only do we need child care in place, but we are also seeing the impact of COVID-19 on schools. Education has to be considered a human right. Of course, there are jurisdictional issues, but the federal government has to step up and bring dollars to the table, funding to the table, to ensure there is adequate, affordable child care, as well as access to schools and education for everyone in this country.

It is not enough to say that the Liberal government is a feminist government or that the Prime Minister is a feminist prime minister, if women have been impacted most by COVID-19 and there is not a specific response to address that. If not, then those words are empty. We need a clear plan to address the lack of child care and the difficulties faced by schools. The federal government has to step up with funding to support both of those things.

It is obvious that COVID-19 has disproportionately affected women. We need a response that addresses the fact that women have borne the brunt of this pandemic. What we have seen so far is that the participation of women in the workforce is the lowest it has been in 30 years. That is unacceptable. That is why we need to provide funding and support to the provinces to ensure that everyone has access to child care. Child care is vital for getting through this crisis. It is absolutely essential. That is exactly what we are going to do. We are going to force this government to keep its promises so that everyone has access to child care.

Now I want to turn our attention to the current scandal that we are facing. In the middle of COVID-19, the government is mired in another scandal, this time involving WE.

I want to make one thing really clear. The government claims that it was trying to help students. I want to set that aside and make it really clear that this was never about helping students. This was about bailing out close friends of the Liberal government and close friends of the Prime Minister. If the government really wants to help out students, there are many existing programs it could immediately improve. It could immediately use existing programs like the Canada summer jobs program. It could immediately help students' access to universities by reducing their tuition or increasing grants or by reducing their debt.

There are so many things that the government could do if it really wanted to help students right now. It is a farce for the government to claim it is about helping students. It is clearly a billion-dollar bailout of close friends of the Liberal government and close friends of the Prime Minister. That is what the scandal is about; it is not about helping students.

I challenge the government: If it really wants to help students, it has a billion dollars it could put toward students right now. Put it toward reducing debt; put it toward reducing tuition fees; put it toward student programs or the summer jobs program. Do that.

The reality is that the government is not about helping students. The government did not want to help students; it wanted to bail out its friends.

The WE Charity scandal was not about the Liberals helping students. It was about the Liberals trying to help the close friends of the government and the Prime Minister.

We talked about empty gestures and a lack of action on COVID-19. In this crisis, we have talked about some of the help that Canadians need right now. We talked about the fact that the government made a choice to give a $1 billion bailout to close friends, but chose to make Canadians living with disabilities wait. The government made a choice to make Canadians who rely on the CERB to wait until the last moment before we forced them to extend it, but the government jumped so quickly to help its friends out with a $1 billion bailout.

These are the choices the government has made. It continues to choose again and again to quickly help out its friends, but to make people wait for help. That is the reality of this crisis. In the beginning of the crisis, the government jumped to help banks with billions of dollars, but again—

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

I am sorry. The hon. member will have nine minutes to conclude his speech after question period.

I now have to give the floor for Statements by Members and to the hon. member for Nepean.