Debates of Sept. 28th, 2020

Proceedings on the Bill Entitled an Act Relating to Certain Measures in Response to COVID-19

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

COVID-19 has indeed created a climate that has exacerbated many problems and raised questions about all federal and provincial programs. Thinking about Quebec and all the problems we have in the area of health care, anything that was hidden before has now been exposed to the light of day.

Does EI need to be reformed? I think so. Were changes made in the past? Yes, but the situation was different. Of course we can rehash what happened in the past compared to today. However, given what is going on now, it would be better to think about what has happened and change things for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the rare times I have heard one of the Conservatives actually agree with us on a couple of things.

The first is the government's timing when it prorogued Parliament. This debate to decide what we are going to do about benefits should have happened a month ago.

Second, the member touched on small businesses. We saw the rollout of the commercial rent assistance program, a boondoggle where only 15% of businesses have had help because of the creation of a landlord-driven application process that excluded many people who needed help with their small and medium-sized businesses.

We agree about the importance of the wage subsidy. Last week we learned from the CRA that businesses with 25 or fewer employees received 28% of the wage subsidy, which is very important. It shows just how important it is when 86% of businesses are small businesses that did not get support through the commercial rent assistance program.

The minister has said to stay tuned. We are waiting. We are still waiting. She said she is listening, but we have not seen any changes to this very important program, which she did not speak about.

Can the member speak about the businesses in his riding that did not get help because of the way this program was designed?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I have a very specific example involving a well-known company in Quebec, Nautilus Plus. This corporation has 37 gyms across Quebec, and its business model is to run everything from headquarters. The franchisees were therefore not entitled to the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program. That created a problem. Practically speaking, a gym or a space in any given shopping mall is subject to the same conditions as any other independent gym. However, the overall structure of Nautilus Plus means that does not work.

These are the things that were raised. By working as a team and collaborating with the government, we suggested improvements from the start. However, the government was very slow to react. It is often quick to send money all over the place, but not so quick when it comes to being practical and effective.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to engage in this debate. What we are really debating is a bill that will rush through between 50 billion and 60 billion dollars' worth of spending, with virtually no oversight and no accountability.

The bill that this addresses is actually one that creates three benefits that we, as Conservatives, support. One is a benefit for workers who are unable to resume work or whose income has been reduced by 50% or more due to the COVID-19 crisis and are self-employed or otherwise ineligible for EI. That is one benefit.

There is a second benefit for workers who are ill or who must self-isolate due to COVID-19 and do not have paid leave or paid sickness benefits.

Then there is a third benefit for people who are unable to work because they are caring for a family member due to a school or day care closure resulting from COVID-19.

These are things that we can support, but when we are talking about the spending of close to $60 billion, and we have a government that only wants to debate this for four hours, without any committee investigation or oversight, that is a failure in respect for this Parliament.

We cannot begin to understand it and evaluate the performance of the government on COVID unless we understand the context in which this is all taking place. Members know that Canada was already overloaded with debt before the pandemic hit us, largely thanks to four years of reckless spending by the Liberal government. Members may recall back in 2015 when the Prime Minister won an election promising to balance the federal budget. Members may remember Stephen Harper warning us about the Prime Minister's promise to run tiny deficits. Do members remember that?

Four years later, all the Prime Minister has to show for his broken promise is a string of massive deficits, which are piling more and more onto our national debt. Who is going to pay for that? The millennials are going to have to pay. I hope millennials are watching this. They are the ones who will be paying for the $400 billion of new debt that has been piled on just this year alone. They and other future generations will have to pay this back.

Canada entered the pandemic with our budgetary and fiscal situation severely weakened. Now we are facing an even graver crisis, a global pandemic for which our country was not prepared, financially or otherwise, and which has seen our national debt increase by a whopping 50% over the last six months. It is going to get worse before it gets better.

How did it come to this? Sadly, with a global pandemic looming, a situation where timing would be of utmost importance and leadership would be called for, the Liberals failed us on both counts. Over the last five years, the Prime Minister and his health minister allowed Canada's global public health intelligence network, which is our early pandemic warning system, to lapse. In fact, I was just reviewing the Globe and Mail article on it and it says that the government actually diverted resources away from global pandemic warning, analysis and intelligence to other functions. It is no surprise, then, that the Minister of Health did not act in a timely manner.

This morning I woke up to a screaming headline in The Hill Times: “Lapse in early pandemic warning system ‘a colossal failure,’ says former federal Liberal health minister Dosanjh”. A former Liberal health minister, the predecessor to the current one, claims this is a “a colossal failure” to plan and to warn Canadians. He says that it made him “angry” and it was “a near fatal mistake”. Those are his words.

What was the current health minister's response? She proceeded to throw Canada's Public Health Agency under the bus.

By the way, this is the Public Health Agency that the health minister is responsible for. Its website talks about the health minister's responsibility and accountability for the Public Health Agency. All she can do, if the members can imagine it, is throw the agency under the bus.

If one wants an assessment of the government's performance during the COVID pandemic, it is a “colossal failure”. It should come as no surprise that, as the health minister sat idly by, the virus spread around the world and across Canada. Day after day, week after week, the minister would stand in this House, and there is the seat she occupied at the time, and scold us for fearmongering. She repeatedly assured us that the risk to Canadians was low, day after day after day.

Those of us who were challenging her were saying that there were reports coming in from other parts of the world saying that this was serious. Her reply was that we were fearmongering. Flights from infection hot spots, such as China and Europe, Italy for example, continued to land at our Canadian airports and no one was checking passengers for infection. Our land borders remained wide open.

There is only one word that can adequately describe the minister's delay in acting, and that word is “reckless”. Now the government is compelled to borrow and print hundreds of billions of dollars to support Canadians during this incredibly difficult time. We want to be supportive of that, and we are, but what has led to this is a series of spectacular flip-flops on the part of the Liberal government.

As I noted, the Liberals originally told Canadians that the risk of human-to-human transmission was low. In fact, as late as March 10, the minister said that the risk of spreading COVID was low and that she was “well-equipped to contain cases coming from abroad”. One day later, she inexplicably proclaimed that COVID-19 could infect up to 70% of Canadians and that it was now a “national emergency and crisis”. How can one move from it being a low risk one day and suddenly it is an emergency and a national crisis?

There was more flip-flopping. Our Liberal friends implied that anyone who dared suggest that the borders should be closed was somehow racist. I guess that is what Liberals do when they are caught up in a colossal failure. They do what comes naturally and call those who are asking important questions racist.

Liberals also flip-flopped on mask wearing. They originally said that wearing a mask was ineffective. That was certainly convenient, because we now know there were not enough masks to go around. This was because the government had thrown out millions of masks and hundreds of thousands of gloves from Canada's national emergency stockpile. They even sent 16 tonnes of PPE to the Chinese communist regime in Beijing, of all places.

As we all know, when the pandemic really hit, Canada had depleted its PPE. Ill-prepared and facing a critical shortage, Liberals did what they do well. They misled Canadians by downplaying the risk and pretending masks did not help. Fast forward to today, and suddenly Liberals are the great proponents of wearing masks, as if they had always been in favour of wearing them. Again, it is convenient.

It was also the Prime Minister who had the idea, of course, to partner with China on a COVID-19 vaccine development. How did that work out? The moment China had our research, it said that it was not interested and that it was blocking Canada from being part of the rollout of the very vaccine.

The reality is that when Canadians needed leadership, our government failed us. It shut down our pandemic warning system, failed to shut down our borders and flights, misled us on the seriousness of the pandemic, discarded and sent our stockpiles to hostile countries, flipped and flopped on masks, was thoroughly hoodwinked by the Chinese, and then, to add insult to injury, shut down Parliament over the summer to escape the fallout from the WE Charity scandal.

I will not get into it, because I know I am running out of time, but this motion and bill are about spending $50 billion to $60 billion of taxpayer money and the Liberals want to avoid debating it. They want to avoid scrutiny. They want to avoid accountability.

I, for one, am not going to take this lying down. I am going to speak out about it. I am going to demand that the Prime Minister get out of the way and let us as MPs do our job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt my dear friend from Abbotsford in full flight of oratory, but he may have come very close to, if not actually, breaking the rules by waving The Hill Times in a fashion that amounted to being a prop. I wonder if the Speaker has any thoughts on whether we have relaxed those rules.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her intervention. I did see the hon. member for Abbotsford rising. I do not know if he has a further comment on the point of order. I will allow a brief response on that and we will see where we go from there.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are entitled to have speaking notes in the House, and I read directly from The Hill Times, which says, “Lapse in early pandemic warning system 'a colossal failure,' says former federal Liberal health minister.” Surely that cannot be against the rules of the House, that we actually use this to make our speech not unlike any other notes we would have before us.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank both hon. members for addressing the points on this.

Indeed, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is correct in noting that the use of props and other things that add to the message or commentary of hon. members when they have been recognized are in fact prohibited as part of these presentations.

However, also the member for Abbotsford makes the point that when members are using notes or documents in the course of their speeches, they routinely will switch from one to the other to make reference, to keep points that they wish to add in their remarks. I did note that the hon. member for Abbotsford waved his copy of The Hill Times for a few seconds or so, but I do not think, in this case, it would be construed as being a prop but rather a document that was used in support of his remarks.

If that is acceptable to the House and to hon. members, we will leave it at that and consider the matter closed.

Question and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my colleague and friend was espousing with respect to his disappointment in the government. I suspect that his disappointment in this government would carry over to other levels of government. They did the same thing, in part, that our government did. They looked at the science and listened to what the health experts were saying at the time. It is interesting that whether it is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health or provincial ministers, often the advice and discussions that take place are rooted in what the health experts and science are saying.

Does the member opposite not believe that as politicians, at times, and this is one of those times, we need to listen to what the health care experts are saying? Many of the comments that the member opposite made reference to were based on listening to those experts.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague suggested that other levels of government listened to science, and that is what the federal government should do. Except what happened in this case was that the intelligence network, which is supposed to provide the early warning system, was effectively emasculated because the minister allowed resources to be diverted to other functions of her ministry. Therefore, we did not have the same capacity to get an early warning about a pandemic, and now we have paid a huge price because of it. That is, as the Hill Times states, a “colossal failure” of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, like me, my colleague is from B.C. He talked about the irresponsible decision of the government to prorogue Parliament. Not only did it suspend Parliament from doing important things like fixing CERB, which ended last night, waiting to rush through this legislation as we are having to do right now, but it also suspended committees.

We sit on the fisheries and oceans committee, which is studying the fate of wild salmon right now. Therefore, we have another crisis going on right now. We had the lowest return last year of the Fraser River sockeye and this year we have had half of the lowest return last year.

Today, the government announced it would not follow through with recommendation 19 of the Cohen Commission report to remove fish farms that are impacting wild migrating salmon from the Broughton Archipelago. Nor has it followed through with recommendation 3, that DFO should not be promoting salmon farming or be an agent for the salmon farming industry period. The Cohen commission report cost $26 million.

Maybe the member could speak about how this parliamentary decision has hurt not only committees, the House and people needing benefits, but also wild Pacific salmon that need us now the most?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the iconic west coast Pacific salmon is on a precipitous decline right now. We were doing a comprehensive study at committee and in the middle of it, as we were trying to come up with some answers as to how to reverse the decline and preserve our iconic salmon for generations to come, what did the Prime Minister do? He ran away from the WE Charity scandal, a very significant scandal of malfeasance on the part of the Prime Minister, his former finance minister and the WE Charity, and shut down Parliament. Therefore, every committee of Parliament was shut down and we could not get to the bottom of this problem. It is sad.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the member brought it up, let us talk about WE Charity.

I would like to talk about the recovery benefit from a parent's perspective. My colleagues and I spent several weeks looking into the WE Charity situation. Just as we were getting to the bottom of it, the government slapped the lid on the pressure cooker, and now here we are with a bill that needed to be passed quickly. Since we need to pass it quickly, I would like to talk about one aspect that troubles me as a parent. Parents with children aged zero to 11 can access this benefit whether their child is healthy or sick.

What does my colleague think about a recovery benefit that applies only for children aged eight to 11, even though a sick child aged 12 to 16 will need their mother or father?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives will always look at proposals to support Canadians through this very difficult pandemic.

The member mentioned the WE Charity. This is a scandal that Canadians should have taken notice of, because it was a situation where the Prime Minister and his finance minister used the COVID crisis as a premise to try to introduce a volunteer program that they were going to fund. Folks should think about that: a volunteer program for which the Prime Minister was going to pay $1 billion. He was going to pay volunteers to do volunteer work. He was trying to shovel that money over to his friends, the Kielburgers, at the WE Charity. What a sordid affair that is. That is now reflected across government, and Canadians no longer trust the Liberal government.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Davenport.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on measures that we have been putting in place relating to the economic recovery in response to COVID-19. This legislation is vital to the government's ongoing economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are now more than six months into the worst health and economic crisis of our lifetime.

We talk about many of the programs that have been put in place, whether it is the CEWS, the CERB or the CECRA. Behind those acronyms are faces, names, individuals and families. There is one such individual's story I want to share because it brings home the importance of what we do here today and what it means to Canadians at home from coast to coast to coast.

A mother of two boys, who I met with during the campaign, said she would be losing her job because of COVID-19. She worked at a restaurant in another riding, the riding of Newmarket—Aurora, and the restaurant had shut down. This was her primary income. She pays rent every month for her housing. She asked me what she should do. I told her that our government was coming up with a response to help Canadians like herself from coast to coast to coast, and we came up with the CERB. That $2,000 a month allowed her and her two boys to stay in their house. When she went to bed at night, she would not have to worry about what would happen when the end of the month came and she had to pay her rent.

When we debate the measures that are put in place for our economic recovery, members of Parliament need to take a step back to ensure that what we are doing is helping Canadians, like this individual in my riding, ensuring they have a roof over their heads, that they can pay their electricity bills at the end of the month, that they can get themselves going, that we can get them through this and get them back to work when it is safe to do so.

Businesses were closed, food supply chains were disrupted, the country's health care system was under a lot of stress, and continues to be under enormous strain. Children were let out of school and many families and individuals were coping with the reduction of their income. People have been hit hard. The last few months have been difficult for many people and businesses across the country. From day one, the government has taken extraordinary actions to protect Canadians and now our economy.

The COVID-19 economic response plan is one of the most comprehensive in the world. It represents 15.8% of our GDP. Our plan for helping Canadians is to continue helping them. The plan promises to protect millions of jobs in our country and to provide support for families. It also promises to keep businesses afloat across the country.

There are now encouraging signs. Our children, and my children thankfully, and grandchildren are in school, again having structure, and many Canadians are back to work. We are seeing a gradual reopening of the economy, but the recovery from the pandemic will take time. We are living with COVID and have not beat it yet. In fact, we should all heed the advice from public health officials, with the number of cases during this second wave increasing.

It is still a threat to our health and our economy. This is why Canadians must continue to be careful and listen to the advice of our public health experts. This is also why the government must continue to support Canadians and businesses, and I ask all members of Parliament to join in that effort. This is exactly what we intend to do.

Back in March, Parliament adopted the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act, which expires on September 30.

The Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act is an important part of Canada's response to COVID-19. It authorizes the government to make payments to Canadians and businesses affected by the pandemic. It allowed us to implement several of our assistance programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit. The CERB, as it is commonly known, helped eligible workers who had to stop working and those whose hours were reduced. Millions of Canadians received this taxable $2,000 benefit every four weeks in response to COVID-19.

The Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act also allowed us to give $2.5 billion to help seniors struggling because of the pandemic. It was a one-time tax repayment of $300 for those eligible for the old age security pension and an additional $200 tax-free for those eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, for a total of $500. As well, I was happy to see in the throne speech that we will be following through on the commitment to raise the old age security, when seniors hit 75, by 10%.

That legislation also paved the way for support for businesses across this country, especially our small businesses. As many members who have heard me debate and speak in the House know, the city of Vaughan, the city I reside in, and there are three MPs that represent this area, is home to over 13,000 small and medium-sized enterprise businesses, from Canadian Pacific and Saputo to Vision Plastics, Martinrea and our local corner coffee shops, pastry shops and grocery stores. Many of these businesses have utilized the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account to remain open, keep their employees employed and maintain that attachment between an employer and an employee, which we know is so important. So many experts commented on why we needed to do that 75% CEWS.

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

It is largely thanks to the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act that we are able to give Canadians a hand, help businesses and support our economy. It is also why we are able to protect Canadians' health and safety.

Take the safe restart agreement, for example, which will help protect Canadians from future waves of COVID-19. The agreement is implemented in part through provisions in the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act, such as federal PPE purchases. The act also enabled us to fund medical research on COVID-19 and vaccine development.

As I said, the legislation was enacted in March, at the beginning of the pandemic. Six months later, we know more about the virus and its impact on our economy and on our daily lives. Millions of Canadians remain impacted and we need to be there to assist them. As our government has said, we have their backs. We have their backs through the programs and measures we have put in place, and we have their backs through the legislation that was put forward today.

We have taken extraordinary action to protect both the economy and Canadians' quality of life, but there is so much more to do. It is important for Canadians that we extend the application of the act. The extension would help the government to support Canadians and businesses through the next phase of the recovery from the pandemic. It would allow us to continue to support provinces and territories, and improve the capacity of our health system. It would allow us to keep buying personal protective equipment to help essential workers. It would allow us to continue measures to ensure that the most vulnerable Canadians have access to the supports they need. It would continue to provide support for the public health, social and economic response in our indigenous communities. It would prevent any disruption to final payments under existing programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit, as well as the purchase of personal protective equipment supplies. It would ensure, frankly, ongoing support to those who need it the most.

This bill will set the stage for recovery. It will take time for the economy to get back up to speed. Over the coming weeks and months, we will have to adapt our assistance programs in response to the pandemic. We will have to create more flexible programs that will help Canadians find work while at the same time enabling us to adapt to the latest wave of the pandemic. Step one is making sure payments under existing programs are not delayed.

I invite all members of the House to support this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to make a brief statement before moving on to questions and comments.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Fisheries.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader mentioned in his speech today specifically that Canadians are counting on us, and it was brought up by my hon. colleague from British Columbia that Canadians need leadership.

My question would be concerning prorogation and, as my hon. NDP colleague from British Columbia said, that committees were cancelled. We have the B.C. wild salmon in jeopardy right now. I have my private member's bill, Bill C-204, to stop the export of plastic waste for final disposal. All these things are being held up. We have a Liberal government that promised the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund $40 million over a year ago, and we are still waiting for it in my riding of York—Simcoe, which is close to the member's riding as well.

We prorogued Parliament and committees were cancelled. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. People are depending on politicians now to earn their paycheques. We offered to sit on the weekend. If we have to work 24 hours a day to work together to get things done, that is what we have to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I hate to interrupt, but we have to leave enough time to get a few more questions in. I know the hon. member for York—Simcoe was getting to his question.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my colleague from York—Simcoe very well since he was elected. It is nice to see that member of Parliament.

My focus, as I alluded to in my speech, is to make sure we assist those Canadians who remain impacted by COVID-19, like the individual I spoke about who was in an insecure housing situation and lost their job. We need to continue to support our most vulnerable Canadians. That is the focus that I am here for today. That is the focus this Parliament is about. Let us get this done and assist those Canadians who remain impacted by COVID-19.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was a film technician in another life. I worked on film sets, including everything from big American blockbusters to small Quebec television shows. I was often unemployed between contracts.

When the CERB was announced back in April, I knew right away it would be problematic because there was no incentive to work. The Bloc Québécois proposed a very simple measure, specifically, to use the same mechanism for the CERB that is used for EI. Now this has been included in Bill C-2. The then finance minister told us that it would be impossible to implement, that it was too complicated. He told us that back in April.

My question for the member is very simple.

Why did we have to waste so much time and hurt so many businesses by failing to include incentives to work in the CERB?

Can the government explain why implementing them was impossible back in April but possible now, in September?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the party opposite has put forward constructive ideas, and that those ideas have made it into the legislation. That is great. This is how we can all work together to make sure we best serve our constituents back home and those sectors of the economy, which the member opposite is very familiar with, where the flow of income and revenue to people is very choppy and where it may not be an eight to four, Monday to Friday job. I have a great deal of respect for those individuals in the film and cinema sector who take on those initiatives. With their creativity, they bring vibrancy to the cultural life here in our beautiful country.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the parliamentary secretary mentioned the real people behind these supports that we have been providing through the spring and summer.

Also, through the spring and summer, I have been wondering what this would look like if this had been a Liberal majority government. All along, it has been the NDP that has been dragging the Liberals. Their initial proposals have always been so timid and ineffective that we have had to create CERB, make the wage subsidy better and now look at fixing the sick leave benefits.

I wonder if the member could comment on why the Liberals have come out so ineffective and timid, and why it has been the NDP that has been doing the real work.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay that for the last six months I have been very hard at work in my riding, sometimes 10 or 12 hours a day, meeting with stakeholders and individuals, and passing on the ideas from Canadians, not politicians, to the ministers. I know my colleagues have done the same thing. All members of the House have gathered ideas from Canadians all around.

It is not a political game. It is providing services to Canadians and ensuring that the programs we have are robust and meet Canadians' needs during this unique and very extraordinary time in our country's and the world's history. That is what this is about: helping Canadians out. That is why we are all here.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour for me to stand here in this venerable House on behalf of my constituents, the residents of Davenport, to speak on behalf of this very important bill, an act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19.

This key piece of legislation is vital to the government's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic and will help ensure that Canadians continue to have the supports that they need to weather the COVID-19 storm.

Since the start of the pandemic, our government has quickly responded to the challenges posed by COVID-19 to Canadians and the Canadian businesses they rely on. The current rise in the number of COVID-19 cases and the start of the second wave shows that we are still grappling with the pandemic.

It is clear that we must not let our guard down when Canadians need us the most. By supporting Canadians who cannot work due to COVID-19, we are making it possible for our country to continue to practise physical distancing and to do the right thing to protect Canadians' health and safety. That is why we are asking all members of Parliament to also do the right thing and pass the bill before us so that the government can continue to finance emergency measures to support Canadians and businesses. As well, in passing the bill, we would ensure that three key measures are introduced that will help many Canadians who are still having a hard time finding a job and making ends meet, who are taking care of loved ones who are affected by COVID or who might potentially be sick and need some coverage in that area.

We can all agree that this pandemic is the most serious public health crisis Canada has ever faced. The job losses are perhaps the most obvious consequence of the global economic disruption that has affected Canadians and people around the world.

Given the job losses among Canadians, it quickly became evident that many workers would need support until they could once again find work. However, existing income support programs were not designed to deal with such an unprecedented situation.

That is why the government quickly created the Canada emergency response benefit, a temporary program to help millions of Canadians get through a very difficult period. Since the CERB was implemented at the start of the pandemic, when we asked Canadians to stay home, almost nine million Canadians have received this benefit, which helps them pay their bills and support their families.

With the economic recovery now well under way, CERB recipients will move over to the EI system. For those who do not qualify for EI in normal times, the government, through this bill, will temporarily create the Canada recovery benefit.

The bill would also create two new recovery benefits to help Canadians who are unable to work because of COVID-19. The government is proposing the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, which both aim to support Canadians as we work towards building a stronger and more resilient economy.

The bill would introduce three key measures that I think will be very helpful. I know many residents in my riding of Davenport will find them very helpful. We will be introducing the Canada recovery benefit of up to $500 per week for up to 26 weeks to workers who are self-employed, who are not typically eligible for EI and still require income support. This benefit will support Canadians who have not returned to work due to COVID-19 or whose income has dropped by at least 50%. We are also introducing the Canada recovery sickness benefit of $500 per week for up to two weeks for workers who are sick or must self-isolate for reasons related to COVID-19. We are also introducing the Canada recovery caregiving benefit of $500 per week for up to 26 weeks for households of eligible Canadians unable to work because they have to care for someone who is suffering from COVID-19.

I am proud of the immediate and impactful measures that the government has implemented to date. Passing the bill would enable our government to continue this important work. With the bill, our government is also seeking to extend the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act, set to expire on September 30, until the end of the year. This act was instrumental at the beginning of the pandemic in allowing the government to quickly put in place and finance many of the emergency measures through Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan that have supported Canadians and businesses through these difficult times. Failing to extend this act could cause a disruption to these critical payments. This includes measures to support Canadian employers, big and small, which are the backbone of our economy and have helped us weather the storm.

Programs like the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program have provided more than $1.6 billion to help over 121,000 small businesses, which employ more than 1.1 million employees, pay their rent. By extending the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act through the end of the year, we will ensure that everyone eligible for this assistance will be able to access it.

This is just one example of the many emergency measures that will enable the government to protect the health and safety of Canadians, particularly those who are most vulnerable, and enable the support that Canadian businesses rely on.

There is funding for important measures in our fight against COVID-19, including the purchase of personal protective equipment to help keep our essential workers safe and safely restart our economy, and the funding of medical research, to increase our knowledge of the virus and inform our response and the future purchase of vaccines and other treatments.

Now is not the time for austerity. Now is not the time for us not to be doing everything we can to support Canadians and workers, to support our small, medium and large businesses as we continue to grapple with the impacts of this pandemic.

Our government is determined to do what it takes to protect Canadians and businesses from the economic impact of COVID-19.

As a first step, we must ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to ensure that there is no delay in delivering the benefits to Canadians through existing programs and that Canadians receive the assistance and support they need when they need it most.

By supporting this bill, all parties can make sure that happens as we work together to build a stronger, more resilient Canada for the health and safety of Canadians, for their income security and livelihoods, and for families and businesses that continue to need support through this difficult and unprecedented time.

I urge all members of Parliament to join me in supporting passage of this bill.

Bill C-4—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, to have the question on Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19 divided for the purposes of voting at second reading.

Standing Order 69.1(1) reads:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

Standing Order 69.1(2) exempts budget implementation bills, but Bill C-4 is not a budget implementation bill so we may disregard this portion of the rule.

My argument is that part 3 of Bill C-4, that is to say clauses 10 to 14 and the schedule, is sufficiently different from the remainder of the bill so as to warrant—