Debates of Sept. 28th, 2020

Situation in China

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the shutdown of Parliament, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights conducted two days of hearings into the human rights situation of Uighur Muslims in China. Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, has granted emergency debates in the past in response to similar acts of unfolding mass violence, especially when those acts of violence may cross the threshold into genocide.

Three years ago, we had an emergency debate in this place on the Rohingya genocide, which eventually led to an official declaration by Parliament that those events constituted genocide according to the legal definition. The unfolding crisis invites you, Mr. Speaker, to follow that precedent and help us move forward, because the lives and security of an entire people are at stake.

The situation facing Uighurs is similar to that facing the Rohingya, although it is in certain respects even more terrifying. We see a clear and intentional effort by a permanent member of the UN Security Council to eradicate a people and a culture from the face of the earth, using the most sophisticated technology on offer and in the meantime enslaving those same people and selling us the products of their labour.

Experts at the subcommittee called this the largest mass detention of a minority community since the Holocaust. The world has seen the evidence: the photos of people loaded onto trains and the scars of the victims. The subcommittee heard from victims, women who were witness to the systematic sexual violence, forced abortion, forced sterilization and forced insertion of IUDs as part of an orchestrated strategy to prevent the continuing existence of the Uighur people. This is happening as we speak. New reports today in the New York Times show the intentional destruction of mosques and many other important religious sites.

For the moment, I will leave the final word to the great former parliamentarian, former justice minister, Irwin Cotler, who told the subcommittee:

When I was minister of justice back in 2005, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the responsibility to protect doctrine. That doctrine says, simply put, that if in any country we are witnessing war crimes, crimes against humanity and, God forbid, the unthinkable, namely genocide, and the government in that country is unwilling or unable to act or, worse, is the author of those crimes against humanity, if not genocide, then there is a responsibility on behalf of the international community to intervene and act to prevent, to punish and to sanction those war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. What we have here with respect to the Uighurs is a classic case study of such war crimes, crimes against humanity and, as I and others have mentioned, acts that are constitutive of genocide. That warrants our involvement, under the responsibility to protect doctrine, to initiate, undertake and implement the panoply of remedies that were heretofore recommended before your committee, some of which I recommended in my testimony, this being part of the responsibility to protect doctrine.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his intervention. However, I am not satisfied that his request meets the exigencies of the Standing Orders at this time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Government Business No. 1

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola has five minutes of questions remaining.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[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, what we have witnessed over the the last six or so months is a great spirit among all different stakeholders, whether they are government agencies, non-profit organizations or individual outstanding Canadians, coming together to work and appreciate the challenges that were being brought forward as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As such, there is an obligation, and the national government has been a leader at providing the types of supports that are absolutely critical in a time of need. The bill we are trying to suggest to all members of the House, which needs to be passed rather quickly, is to continue that monetary support, in particular for those Canadians who truly need it.

Would the member not agree that we should continue to work together to see quick passage of the legislation?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question by the member for Winnipeg North, the oracle for Winnipeg some might say.

In regard to my speech, I do not think the member actually heard the substance of the speech. I said that we as the Conservative Party want to ensure people have the benefits to help them through an emergency time during this pandemic. However, it is the way the government has conducted itself. It prorogued Parliament and then two days later announced these new benefits. We could have had an accountability week here where we could have begun debate and this deliberative party, this Parliament, could have ensured that we would have a substantive response to the ending of the CERB. However, that did not happen. The Liberals want to play a game where if we do not pass it, they will say that it is we as the opposition who are holding it up and that we do not want to support Canadians, which is wrong. That is a wrong way to run this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is my neighbour. In fact, he used to be my MP before the boundaries were redrawn in 2015. I listened carefully to his speech, but I am getting a bit confused about where the Conservatives stand on a number of issues around the COVID response.

I was happy to hear the member talk about the emergency payments that were supposed to be made to people with disabilities. I do not remember the Conservatives calling for any supports for people with disabilities through the summer. It was the NDP that pushed for that.

I want to ask about sick days. The NDP has put forward a much-needed proposal to give workers sick leave for 10 days, so that they do not go to work sick. The costs that would save, for people's health and for the economy, are immense.

What does the member think of that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, another viewpoint from British Columbia is always welcome, that being from my neighbour, the hon. member.

To the substance of the question, first of all, if the previous critic for this file did not make it clear that the Conservatives support seeing people with disabilities get help during the COVID-19 crisis that clearly falls on me, because I served in that role. I take that upon myself and the criticism is probably warranted.

By the same token, the problem we have with this is the process that the Liberal government has chosen to try and ram this through in one day. The particular element of the sick leave called for, I believe, is necessary during this emergency time, but in the legislation itself there will be a lot of red tape and a lot of unanswered questions. Unfortunately, due to the format that the member's leader and the Prime Minister have agreed to, we will not have a full debate.

I worry that there will be questions raised that will lead to complications, meaning people will be without the support they need because we rushed the process. We are in favour of these benefits during an emergency, but we are not in favour of the process that this member, his party and the Prime Minister have pushed on Canadians and their representatives.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

I am pleased to rise today to participate in debate on the motion, but before I begin, I want to acknowledge that we are gathered on traditional unceded Algonquin territory.

When the pandemic first shattered our economy last spring, our government was there to support workers and their families. We created the Canada emergency response benefit during a time in the pandemic when we were telling people to stay home in order to flatten the curve and to keep Canadians safe. We swiftly followed the CERB with the Canada emergency student benefit as we saw students struggling when their summer jobs and training opportunities dried up. We created thousands of jobs and training opportunities for youth, and ensured that the not-for-profit sector received support so that these organizations could continue to help their communities. To provide certainty and continuity, we recently extended the CERB by an additional four weeks, from 24 to 28 weeks. In addition to this extension, we made changes to the EI program so that more people could access benefits.

We are here today discussing measures that would create new benefits: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. Before diving into these new benefits, I would like to say a few words about the employment insurance program and the recent measures that were put in place to help Canadians.

On August 20, our government announced temporary changes to the EI program that would help millions of Canadians meet the eligibility requirements in three ways. First, people can qualify for EI with as few as 120 hours of work. To do this, we are providing all EI claimants with a one-time credit of insurable hours, that is, 300 hours for regular benefit claimants and 480 hours for special benefit claimants. Second, we are helping to meet EI eligibility requirements by setting a national unemployment rate of 13.1% across all regions of the country. This is providing a uniform requirement for 420 hours for people to qualify for EI. I also want to assure Canadians in EI regions with a rate higher than 13.1% that they would keep the higher rate. The third measure we are undertaking with the EI system is to freeze the EI premium for two years, which would help both employees and employers.

Our changes are allowing more Canadians to access employment insurance and its associated tools and resources. That being said, we understand that many workers still may not be eligible for EI, even with these changes. That is why our government is proposing to introduce a suite of three new benefits via the legislation before us now. The Canada recovery benefit would help those who are looking for work, but do not qualify for EI. It would provide eligible Canadians with $500 per week for up to 26 weeks, and the eligibility period would run from September 27, 2020 to September 25, 2021. This benefit would be for the workers who have had to stop working due to COVID-19 or have had their income reduced by at least 50% relative to their pre-COVID-19 income. Additionally, as with EI, they must be actively looking for work. Just like the EI system, this new benefit would also allow people to earn an income from employment and/or self-employment while still receiving the benefit.

The new Canada recovery sickness benefit would prevent workers from having to choose between their health and paying their bills. It would provide $500 per week for up to two weeks if workers were ill or had to self-isolate for reasons related to COVID-19.

Finally, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit would provide $500 per week per household for up to 26 weeks for a worker who needs to take unpaid leave to care for a loved one due to a school, day care or day program closure.

The benefit would also be available to workers if someone needed supervised care and needed to stay home because they were deemed high risk by a health professional or if their regular caregiver was not available because of COVID-19.

The benefit would also support workers who could not make at least 50% of their income because their child or family member was sick, in quarantine or at high risk of serious health implications due to COVID-19.

In order to ensure that federally regulated employees have access to job protected leave, our government is moving forward with amendments to the Canada Labour Code so employees can access the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

As laid out in the throne speech, we have an opportunity not just to support Canadians but to grow their potential. That means making historic investments in training, and working with provinces and territories to ensure that Canadians across the country have access to the tools and the skills training they need to succeed.

As a first step, this bill would continue with an investment of $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories to support on-the-ground training services for Canadians.

We are making sure we continue to support the people who need it most because we are still in a crisis. I encourage hon. members to support these benefits and to help provide that much-needed solid foundation for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for working with us to make sure people get the benefits they need right now. We are disappointed that it took until midnight last night, when benefits ended. The government should have done this and worked with all of us in Parliament in August instead of proroguing. We can agree with the opposition side on that.

I received an email from Claire. Her son Sam in Vancouver is 32, lives with autism and receives disability benefits. He gets about $1,183 a month and barely gets by. The poverty rate in B.C. is $1,666 a month. He experienced a renoviction and ended up having to leave his place in the middle of the pandemic. He receives a bus pass too, which he cannot use right now, so he had to buy a bike. He is now paying $750 a month for accommodation, which means he has $443 to pay for food, clothing and personal supplies. Anyone who has been to Vancouver knows that is not enough.

The $600 that was promised to people with disabilities still has not happened. Here we are at midnight helping people with CERB and the other benefits, but where are the benefits for people living with disabilities who have been waiting for them?

Will this member advocate for the government to fix this immediately to help people like Sam?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my wife and I deliver food for the food bank once a month and encounter circumstances as have been outlined by the member. It's heartbreaking to see the tragic circumstances individuals face from time to time.

This government is genuinely committed and will be moving forward to provide the support we need to. I have heard many times in the House today that we will do whatever it takes, and we will move forward to make sure no Canadian is left behind.

We need to firm up our safety net and we need to make sure we do this as quickly as possible.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many members of the opposition have expressed outrage about the prorogation of Parliament and the shutdown of committees. Earlier, the member's colleague said that while members of the opposition focus on prorogation, the government will focus on getting Canadians the support they need. That sounds nice, except it is almost as if the Liberals forgot that government is a function of Parliament. Nothing happens in government without the consent of Parliament.

I would simply ask my hon. colleague if he believes that Parliament should play an essential part in making sure that Canadians do in fact get the help they need.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the debate and discussions we have had today, we have heard that this government, this Parliament, does play an important role in the steps that we take to move forward in responding to the needs of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be back in the House.

There is something that has been bothering me. I was thinking about it yesterday when I left Lac-Saint-Jean. The government wants to pass Bill C-2 very quickly, but it shut down Parliament for over a month. The government told us that it was because a new throne speech was needed, but it could have prorogued Parliament for 24 hours.

Why does the government want to pass Bill C-2 so quickly when it could have just closed Parliament for 24 hours? Then we could have debated the bill properly.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in developing what was in the throne speech, we consulted extensively with stakeholders. We consulted extensively with people who were facing the circumstances. I do not think anyone will deny today that the circumstances we were faced with and looking forward to in the first throne speech were entirely different. We are facing an entirely new world now and are in the middle of a crisis. It was important for this government to reset its priorities and it has done exactly that. The Liberals engaged their constituents. They have talked to people facing the difficulties that this unprecedented pandemic has put upon them.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the pandemic, Canadians have come together, made sacrifices and done their part to help limit the spread of the virus. As we safely restart our economy, the Government of Canada remains committed to providing Canadians the support they need to continue to make ends meet while staying safe and healthy.

Throughout the pandemic, I received feedback from citizens in my riding of Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne on the various measures put in place by our government to support them. I heard first-hand how the Canada emergency response benefit was there for them when their offices closed and they found themselves without income because of COVID. They were able to put food on the table and keep the lights on. Businesses in my riding were able to keep their employees thanks to the Canada emergency wage benefit. However, while some businesses have reopened and many Canadians have returned to work, some Canadians are still unable to return to work or find employment. We will not leave them behind.

I am therefore happy to support the three new recovery benefits to be administered by the Canada Revenue Agency: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

First and foremost, we have to recognize that the Canada Revenue Agency has worked quickly over the past few months to administer several important COVID-19 economic measures, namely the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, for individual Canadians; the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the 10% temporary wage subsidy for employers, both for Canadian businesses; and, finally, the Canada emergency student benefit for students. I can assure members that the CRA stands ready to meet this challenge again.

Committed to serving Canadians, according to its people first philosophy, the CRA would continue to provide a simple and efficient application process, similar to what millions of Canadians have relied on to access the previous benefits. Eligible individuals will be able to apply for recovery benefits online through the CRA's My Account portal or by phone through the CRA's automated phone line.

The CRA has sought to continuously improve delivery of these emergency benefits to Canadians in a way that is both safe and efficient. The Canada Revenue Agency's employees have demonstrated a commitment to leveraging the CRA's systems while in real time quickly delivering emergency payments to those most in need. To achieve this, the CRA has witnessed an unprecedented immobilization of their resources to build on past successes.

Early in April 2020, the CRA worked with Payments Canada, the Department of Finance, the Receiver General and financial institutions to on board banks and credit unions to a streamlined direct-deposit update capability to facilitate the issuance of COVID-19 relief payments to individuals. To date, there have been nearly 2.9 million direct-deposit enrolments through financial institutions. Overall, 85% of individuals are receiving benefit payments through direct deposit.

The CRA also collaborated with financial industry stakeholders to implement direct deposits for businesses to facilitate the issuance of Canada emergency wage subsidy payments. On April 27, the first bank successfully transmitted direct-deposit information for businesses to the CRA. To date, over 102,000 business payroll accounts have provided direct-deposit information through their financial institutions. Overall, 58% of businesses are receiving their Canada emergency wage subsidy payment through direct deposit.

Members of the House will recall that Bill C-20 received royal assent on July 27, 2020, and revised the eligibility criteria for the Canada emergency wage subsidy in order to support the employers hardest hit by COVID-19. The bill extended the program to November 21, 2020, with the ability to extend the wage subsidy, by regulation, to no later than December 31, 2020.

Canadians can have confidence in the CRA's ability to support the delivery of these proposed new benefits. By way of example, I would like to draw members' attention to the following successes.

Since April 6, almost 22.1 million CERB requests have been received and processed by the CRA, supporting nearly 5.3 million Canadian individuals. For the Canada emergency wage subsidy, as of September 20, the CRA has approved more than 1.14 million requests, for a total of nearly $37.5 billion paid to support more than 317,000 unique applicants from Canadian businesses. With regard to the Canada emergency student benefit, as of September 24, more than 2.13 million applications have been approved by the CRA, supporting more than 706,300 Canadian students.

I have to underscore another important fact. This work was accomplished while carefully adhering to compliance and security protocols. The CRA is committed to preserving the integrity of the Canadian tax system, and I can assure the House that the CRA would use the same level of rigour in the administration of the three Canada recovery benefits that it did to implement the CERB, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the temporary wage subsidy and the Canada emergency student benefit.

To ensure compliance with emergency benefits, since the start of this pandemic the CRA has designed electronic and manual verification measures with regard to the eligibility of applicants and the terms of reimbursement. On the one hand, and under guidance of its people first philosophy, the CRA has provided information regarding eligibility and support for Canadians who are endeavouring to comply with the benefit administration process.

The agency recognizes that applicants may make an honest mistake in applying for an emergency benefit period for which they later become ineligible. To support honest Canadian citizens who wish to comply, the CRA has published information on its website to explain how individuals in these situations can easily repay the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada emergency student benefit.

On May 11, the CRA introduced a tool in the My Account portal to allow individuals to make repayments with a few simple clicks. To date, nearly 70,000 repayments have been made through this repayment service. Rest assured: The CRA enforces measures for those who do not comply.

Allow me to detail the measures the CRA has put in place for increasing eligibility verification, curbing identity theft, preventing fraud and enhancing cybersecurity.

First, the CRA has robust systems and tools in place to monitor, detect, investigate and quickly neutralize potential threats. The monitoring of accounts for suspicious activity to detect fraud is performed routinely. Second, the CRA combines data analytics with business intelligence gathered from many sources, including law enforcement agencies, financial institutions and tips from Canadians, to support these efforts. During the administration of the emergency response benefit, the CRA also took steps to implement additional verification and security measures up front to help ensure they delivered benefit payments to the individuals who were entitled to receive them.

The proposed new recovery benefits outlined in the bill, if passed, will help ensure that Canadians continue to have access to the income support they need as they re-enter the workforce and regain their income. We have confidence in the CRA's ability to administer these proposed new measures.

The CRA has a strong capacity and a commitment to Canadians, and its dedicated and highly skilled workforce is committed to serving Canadians during their time of need. As we gradually and safely restart our economy, the CRA will continue to put Canadians first.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, several times over the last seven months the government has left to the very last minute the introduction of legislation to provide supports for people. Does it seem appropriate to leave everything until the last minute and then in essence hold Parliament hostage to get the results it is looking for?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, when the pandemic hit in March we were building the plane at the same time that we were flying it. It was very important that we addressed the immediate needs of Canadians across the country. Based on the feedback we were receiving from Canadians and from fellow MPs about what was working and where we needed to make tweaks, we delivered. We continued to support Canadians across the country, and when things changed and shifted we addressed them accordingly.

I hope my colleague will support the bill to make sure that constituents in his riding receive the supports they need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard what the Canada Revenue Agency wants to do to help alleviate what we are going through right now.

I am very concerned about those who received the CERB in error, and those who were supposed to receive it but did not. I am also very concerned about the thousands of individuals who have been victims of fraud and will suffer the consequences by the end of this fiscal year. Some are not aware of it yet.

How can the Canada Revenue Agency be effective under this bill when we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of CERB fraud?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

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

We know that there have been cases of fraud in Canada, and we have even seen more cases of telephone fraud during the pandemic. It is important to point out that we have made huge investments in fraud prevention and that we have also conducted investigations in collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners and police forces.

As soon as an individual becomes aware of potential fraud, it is important that they contact the Canada Revenue Agency to find out what they can do. We also ran a public awareness campaign about this. It is important that our colleagues in the House share this information with their constituents so that, together, we can prevent these kinds of fraud.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that New Democrats fought for with the student benefit was an acknowledgement from the government that students with dependents and students living with disabilities have increased costs. After some fighting, we were able to get the government to acknowledge that and increase the benefits on their behalf. However, I found it very frustrating that at the time, the government would not recognize that students, as parents, have the same kinds of costs, whether the child is 12 or 13.

The Canada recovery caregiving benefit only applies to children who are under the age of 12. Does the member believe that the government should be leaving out all the parents with children over the age of 12?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who spent my career in the education system, I know first-hand what it is like to go back to school while juggling a family. I did that myself when I decided to go back to school a few years ago. It is really important. I want to salute my colleague across the way. She highlighted a really good point, that by working together we were able to come to the decision to increase the amount for students who had dependents.

It is important that we continue to have this dialogue and that is why we are having this conversation today. It is important that we identify gaps, that we adjust and that we make sure we are supporting all Canadians in this difficult time.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abbotsford.

I am here today to speak to Bill C-2.

Since this morning, we have heard a lot of talk about the part of the bill that concerns the changes to the CERB, now known as the Canada recovery benefit, which provides assistance for self-employed workers and for those who are not eligible for employment insurance and, importantly, who cannot go back to work. There is also the Canada recovery sickness benefit for workers who are sick or who have to self-isolate as a result of COVID-19. Finally, there is the Canada recovery caregiving benefit for people who have to stay at home to take care of children or a sick person because of COVID-19.

Everyone agrees that someone who gets COVID-19 needs help. We do not need to hear the Liberals' fake crying to understand that. Some of my family and friends needed the CERB because they were no longer working. That is okay. It helped them to get by.

However, we would need more time to talk about other aspects of Bill C-2, aspects and details that we never seem to hear about. The bill introduces financial measures worth up to $17 billion out of a total of $50 billion or $60 billion.

There will be no debate, even though we suggested meeting this past weekend. Last week, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent proposed that we meet on Sunday in committee of the whole to have a debate, put questions to the ministers and look closely at this bill. We know we need to act quickly, and we could have met over the weekend. People often say that this is like being in wartime. In wartime, the work goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without stopping. This is urgent, but not urgent enough to work on a Sunday. It was even more urgent this morning, and the government decided to limit the debate.

When I walk around Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Quebec, or elsewhere in Canada, people ask me if the government is going to control its spending.

This is not about helping Canadians who are in need because of COVID-19. It is about having controls in place, ways of making sure that the money is not being handed out willy-nilly on things that should have been examined more closely.

The Prime Minister shut down Parliament for six weeks. As everyone knows, he did this because he did not want any more talk about WE Charity. He locked the doors so that he would not have to hear about it. I have to say that he seems to have succeeded, since it is no longer getting covered in the media. The problem is still there, but that is a matter for another debate.

The members are back now, and the House of Commons is back to normal. We can now ask questions, and committees will resume soon. We need answers, because the money that the government is spending belongs to Canadian taxpayers.

The important thing is to keep things in perspective. Indeed, it is important to know the difference between what is given out to help with COVID-19 and money that is shamelessly sent out left and right to make friends happy.

I would like to talk about what happened last week. At the last second, the government shut down the vaccine committee. Some of the people who were on the committee have ties with private companies. Once again, we saw cronyism in action for financial gain. The most important thing now is to defeat COVID-19 and come out of it at the lowest possible cost.

It is the opposition members' job to ask questions, but we are being muzzled.

We do not want a repeat of what happened with the Canada emergency student benefits. The Prime Minister said that we needed to help young people. Most young people received more money staying at home doing nothing or playing on their Xbox than working at Tim Hortons, at a restaurant or at a local business and yet there is a severe labour shortage. The number of complaints I received about that this summer is crazy. People asked me what was up with this awful CESB. Instead of helping in the time of COVID-19, the government hurt economic development. That was the exact opposite of what to do.

The Conservatives even said so this summer before the CESB came into effect. We said that it would cause problems. The government did not want to listen to us and said that we just wanted to prevent people from getting money. That is not our style. That was their narrative, their bleeding hearts. We want to help, we have compassion, but we know how to count. We want to provide measured help. That is the difference.

I remind members that there was a lot of fraud. This was mentioned by people who spoke before me. A lot of people are taking advantage of the system. We knew that this would happen, since the government did not create any safeguards.

I got a call from a police officer in Longueuil this summer. He could not give me his name, but he told me that there were 45 envelopes with CERB cheques addressed to residents of a building that is home to people on welfare who were technically not supposed to have applied. These people had not stopped working because of COVID-19 but they had still applied. The officer asked me what he should do with these envelopes. This is just an example, but there are plenty more if anyone wants them. Some screening measures were needed.

I would like to come back to the part of Bill C-2 that talks only about the different benefit programs, and not about any safeguards. I will highlight a few examples from the bill that raise some questions.

First, there is the issue of PPE procurement. There is some $2.7 billion allocated for PPE, but it is not clear who it is for or how it works. These are the kinds of questions people want answers to.

The bill also states that $116 million will be allocated to “Virtual Care and Mental Health Tools for Canadians”. What does that mean? Can someone tell us?

The bill also mentions “Personal Support Worker Training and Other Measures to Address Labour Shortages in Long-Term...Care”. Does that not fall under provincial jurisdiction? Is it not being taken care of by Quebec's CHSLDs and other facilities? We are talking about $13 million. What does that mean? Compared to $353 billion, $13 million does not seem like very much. I am trying to understand but millions add up to billions.

A total of $262 million is allocated to “Youth Employment and Skills Development Programs”. That is a quarter of a billion dollars. Where is that money going?

The bill also refers to “Additional Support for Canadians Experiencing Homelessness”. We certainly want to help the homeless, but can we know what that $237 million is for and where it is going?

Vancouverites are familiar with Granville Island. A total of $6 million is allocated to a “Granville Island Emergency Relief Fund”. What is happening on Granville Island that it needs $6 million under Bill C-2? We do not know.

As a final example, I will bring up “Support for The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited”. What does help with COVID-19 have to do with granting $1 million to the Federal Bridge Corporation?

I can provide many more examples like these. I have two full pages. There are $7 billion worth. Amounts are allocated, and we do not really know why. These are major budget items, but we are not allowed to talk about them. The Liberals are forcing us to talk only about benefits and about helping people. As I said earlier, we understand that. However, we are talking about billions of dollars for things that deserve an answer, and we will not get those answers because time is of the essence.

The reason time is of the essence is that Parliament was shut down for a month and a half because the Prime Minister would rather not hear about his problems. Now we have several billion dollars in spending before us. This is what Canadians are fed up with, not the government's COVID-19 assistance for Canadians in need or for entrepreneurs. They are fed up with us not really knowing where all this money is going.

When this is all over, when all is said and done and we have spent, say $500 billion or more, it will be hard to figure out how many hundreds of billions of dollars were spent willy-nilly in ways that could have been pared down or avoided because they had nothing to do with protecting people during the COVID-19 pandemic. That is the big question. We do not have an answer, and we will not be getting one anytime soon because everything is urgent and the government is being sloppy.

[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, over the summer the government sat in the House of Commons on several occasions. During these sittings, members of the opposition had the opportunity to ask, and did ask, literally hundreds of questions. Members could always review the questions, if they choose to do so, which provided many opportunities for opposition members to have direct input on a wide spectrum of programs. Today's bill is important because it continues supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

As the opposition was afforded the opportunity during the summer and, as the minister's door and phones have been open to all members of the House, I am wondering why the member opposite believes the opposition has not had the opportunity to provide any input. We have done things the former government never did. Could the member tell me the last time the House sat in August?