Debates of Sept. 29th, 2020

Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the government has shown us throughout this that it was willing to listen to members. Look at how some of the original programs were designed and how they have changed.

The member opposite said that with CERB there needs to be employment incentives, and there are. There is the encouragement to go back to work. There is other programming that is not directly related to COVID–19. We can look at how the government expanded the funding for the regional development agencies across the country to be able to assist businesses to create jobs. It used the RRRF in place of the CEBA for those businesses in the rural areas that were not really dealing with the big chartered banks. The government has shown that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to try to get in one more short question.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that has always been a concern in my riding, which is one of the many rural and remote ridings in this country, is Internet access. If anything has been very clear during this time it has been what that means when everybody has had to move to a more virtual reality. I think of all the small businesses in my riding that are trying to be innovative, but the lack of accessible Internet is the biggest concern.

That is something I do not think the government has taken into consideration in a way that means action. I wonder if the member could talk about his government and the lack of action it has taken.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very legitimate concern about broadband Internet across the country. One thing we have learned from the pandemic with people working from home, etc., is that they need good Internet access. The minister, in response to a question in question period today, answered some of what the member just asked about.

There has been greater funding put into obtaining better broadband across the country, which is starting to roll out. I will admit it may be a little too slow, but at least the government has taken the initiative to get it out there so that Canada can be more connected and rural Canadians can have the same service as urban Canadians across this country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right at the beginning that I am sharing my time with the really effective and remarkably hard-working member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

There is no secret that we will be supporting the bill because of the NDP amendments. Historically, for the first time since Confederation, we now have provisions for most Canadian workers to have sick leave. The NDP amendments also force the government back on what it was trying to do, which was to cut back on the amount of money that will go to families who are desperately trying to keep food on their tables and a roof over their heads.

For those reasons we will be supportive, but we deplore how the government took it to the precipice, the very edge of the cliff. At a time when so many Canadian families are struggling, they left over a million Canadian families not knowing on Sunday night, as the emergency benefits expired, whether they would actually have the wherewithal to feed their families. That is what I deplore, that the government did not think about what the impacts of its actions and its lack of action would be for the many, many families across the country impacted by its decisions over the last few weeks. The Prime Minister wanted to avoid the controversy of the many scandals that we have seen erupt around COVID funding, but the government did not think about the impact on regular Canadian families. We deplore that.

I would like to devote most of my brief few minutes today to another deplorable fact, which is the government's treatment of people with disabilities.

We will recall that, as the pandemic hit, the government took about four days to put in place an aid package, not for people with disabilities or seniors, or anyone else, but for Canada's big banks. It was for $750 billion, an unbelievable amount. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars in liquidity supports was provided to Canada's immensely profitable banking sector. There were no conditions attached to that. It was just a massive handout of largesse and support for the banking sector. Since then, of course, we have seen banks in Canada racking up, during a pandemic when people are struggling and businesses closing, over $50 billion in profits so far. That is just in the last six months.

We see how the government can act with alacrity when it wants to. When banking lobbyists come, there are no holds barred. It just provides the hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity supports that the banking sector asks for. We have seen the massive increase in inequality across the length and breadth of this country because of that alacrity to always respond to the rich and the well-connected.

There are 20 billionaires in Canada who have increased their wealth over the course of this pandemic in the last six months. While so many families are struggling and so many small businesses in my riding and ridings across the country are struggling to avoid that tragic moment when they close the door, turn the key for the last time and walk away from what is often a lifetime's investment, 20 billionaires have increased their wealth by $37 billion.

Let us contrast that with the situation of people with disabilities in this country. As colleagues may be aware, I worked with people with disabilities in British Columbia. I helped to found the disability employment network. What we found was that there are so many obstacles put into place for Canadians with disabilities across this country. If we could prioritize accessibility in this country, we would be seeing a country that is vastly different from what it is now.

Right now, half of the people who have to go to food banks to make ends meet are people with disabilities. More than half of the homeless, the people who are sleeping in street corners and parks across this country, are people with disabilities. That should be a source of shame to every single one of us in the House and every single Canadian across this country.

We believed that things needed to change, so we moved immediately. In April, as colleagues will recall, we brought forward a motion. The motion was for the government to proceed without delay to provide emergency supports to people with disabilities. It passed on April 29, unanimously. Every single member of Parliament in the House said it had to be a priority.

Then nothing happened for weeks and weeks, as the pandemic increased, as people struggled, as people with disabilities who were seeing increased expenses were trying to figure how they could make ends meet for another month. The government sat for about a month and a half before it endeavoured to bring forward legislation that missed the vast majority of people with disabilities. We said this is not good enough, and in July the member for Elmwood—Transcona provided very important guidance to the minister and to the government on how to set up a system.

We achieved, in July, a bill that provided supports to most people with disabilities. To our chagrin, we found out that a vast number of people with disabilities are not even coded into the federal system. One would think that would mean cabinet and the government would act immediately. If we are missing a third of people with disabilities, let us code them into the system so that we can provide supports for all, but no, that never happened.

We still passed the legislation through the House in July. The member for Elmwood—Transcona said, if we code it now, at least the people who are registered in the federal system will get their supports at the end of August. That was good direction. That was good advice and we put the legislation through. This is phase two now. We have been waiting since April and now we are one day away from the month of October. The banking sector received $750 billion in liquidity supports in four days, and Canadians with disabilities struggling just to keep a roof over their heads, struggling to put food on their tables, have not received one cent.

This is not something that is partisan. Every single one of us in here, every single one of the members of Parliament who are listening right now on Zoom, should be ashamed of what the results have been. The most disadvantaged people in our country have not received one cent of support in the greatest pandemic that we have seen in over a century. That should shock all of us. That should make all of us ashamed, yet nothing has happened. We raised this issue continuously. We have negotiated three agreements now where the government has agreed to provide the supports. Parliament as a whole said in April, without delay, let us get this support out to people with disabilities across the country, yet nothing has happened.

I am ashamed and members of the NDP caucus are ready right now to go across the street, to go to the CRA, and start licking stamps. If there are not enough stamps on the cheques, we will send them out. If the cheques have not been printed, we will help any way we can. We want to make sure that money gets in the hands of people with disabilities immediately. There can be no excuse for any further delay. This has been the biggest shame of the pandemic: The government for six months has done nothing to support the ones who are most in need.

I will say that I am optimistic for the long term. I see disability activists stepping forward and speaking out with powerful voices like never before. I am thinking of people like Penelope, Maddie, Nunya, Mondee, Patrick and Sarah. These are disability activists who are making people, through social media, aware of what their daily lives and struggles are like. I am optimistic, despite what is a source of national shame, that eventually we will get to the point where people with disabilities will have the same rights in Canada that they have in other countries, the same accessibility. We will end the practice of ramps that end with two stairs, or deaf events with American sign language interpreters but nobody from the deaf community invited, or big signs in Braille at the entrance of colleges and universities but inside no accessibility.

We will build the kind of inclusive society where Canadians with disabilities can fully contribute, as they want to do and as they can if we eliminate the obstacles, to the growth and the betterment of our country. However, it starts with providing those supports now. The government has no excuse for delay. Let us get that support into the hands of people with disabilities immediately, so that they have the wherewithal to get through the next period of this pandemic.

[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 think in July or it might have been in August, the minister brought forward legislation dealing with the issue of disabilities. I was quite inspired by her comments in regard to the lack of infrastructure in terms of identification, which limited the ability to be able to make payments. My friend from the New Democrats has made reference to that indirectly if not, quite frankly, directly.

All of us would like to see the payments go out. I believe back then, the commitment was to building the infrastructure and getting payments out hopefully in early fall. I would have loved to see it earlier, and it is still a work in progress, but I wonder if my friend could provide some comment in regard to the many different organizations that are out there that indirectly support Canadians with disabilities. Many of those organizations have received some support. Again, it does not go anywhere near far enough, but we would not want to give the impression that there has been no support. Whether it is directly or indirectly, I believe there has been some, but obviously, there could have been a lot more.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the member's comments. I feel, as many members in the NDP caucus do, the incredible frustration of people with disabilities who have not received one cent.

Instead of the government standing up and saying, “We are sorry. We screwed up”, which we understand has already happened, it would be good for the government to say to Canadians with disabilities that “We screwed up and we will fix it”. That would be the only appropriate response to what has happened here. That is the only way that the government can respond.

Yes, some money went to disability organizations. What difference does that make for somebody who is going to lose their one room because they no longer have the wherewithal, due to the increase in expenses because of the pandemic, to keep that roof over their head? What does that mean to somebody on the streets? What does that mean to somebody who has to go to a food bank because that is the only way they are going to be able to feed themselves and feed their family?

The fact that some disability organizations got some money is insignificant to what they are living through now. The government must respond to what they are living through now, and those cheques have to go out now.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby who is very outspoken about how disappointed he is in the Liberal government because the money still has not been transferred since the spring.

The thing that bothers the Bloc Québécois is that every MP from Quebec is calling for an increase in health transfers. We are in a pandemic. That is a health issue, is it not?

We have needs. Testing facilities are open, hospital staff are working overtime, a lot of money is being spent and this federal government has yet to commit to meeting this demand.

The government has enjoyed special powers since the spring. What have they done? They made sure to help their friends in the WE movement, they forced investigations—four committees were looking into this issue—they prorogued Parliament to turn our attention away from it, and when we tell them we want money for health they say no.

My question for my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby is this: Is there no one in New Westminster—Burnaby who needs money for health services?

I think this is an extremely urgent matter and I would like to see this indignation manifested in the vote on the throne speech. For the time being, the NDP are venting their anger, but they have announced that they will vote with the Liberals on the throne speech.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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

This is the problem. For years, before the Bloc came or returned to the House, the NDP always defended health budgets. Conservatives made cuts and we attacked the government of the day for making those cuts.

The Liberals came to power saying they would make changes. They did nothing. The NDP will continue to champion and advance health management issues.

The issue raised by the member is very important. It is about the importance of having adequate funding for health care. We will not stop there. We have always been consistent on this issue and we will continue to push for a health care system that is adequately funded.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to acknowledge my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby and the passion he brought to the House on behalf of the disabled community. For my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I will repeat those basic points.

The fact is that the House came together and made a commitment so many months ago for persons with disabilities, but we still have yet to see any money flow, and here we are almost in October. We have essentially left the most disadvantaged and marginalized members of our society to the very last. I agree with my colleague that it is very shameful, and I want to thank him sincerely for the passion he brought to the House to illustrate that point.

I have been listening to this debate throughout the day and it has been very interesting to hear various members of Parliament from all parties relate the stories from their ridings. That has served to establish a kind of bond among us. Yes, we have our political differences, but the stories from our individual ridings are largely the same. There have been the same struggles and uncertainty and I want to convey that in the House. For the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, it has been a very rough number of months. The very least we can do as parliamentarians is recognize the acute phase of the crisis and the tremendous amount of uncertainty. We owe it to our constituents to rise to the occasion, to meet the needs out there with programs and services that will ensure Canadians know we have their backs.

I have to also outline my incredible disappointment in the way today's debate is happening. Yes, of course, I am going to be supporting the legislation. After all, it is a result of a compromise, where the NDP proposed some very important measures. Those measures being incorporated in the legislation are going to make things fundamentally better for Canadians. However, I have to decry the fact that this debate now has to be rushed at the eleventh hour. I believe my colleague used the word “precipice”. We are now at the precipice, because this debate is happening under the looming end of the Canada emergency response benefit, and this was totally unnecessary.

We had an agreement with the government to have several sittings over the summer months. We demonstrated an ability among oppositions members and the government to bring back the full House of Commons when emergencies warranted it. We were expecting business to go along as usual under that same rubric. Unfortunately, when August 18 rolled around, many of us learned, with extreme shock and surprise, that the Prime Minister had taken it upon himself to prorogue Parliament until Wednesday last week. It thereby shut down all the work that was being done at committee. It shut down any ability of the House to come back and deal with emergency legislation. It forced us into the situation we find ourselves today, where, because of the constraints of time, we are having to rush this legislation through.

I am very sympathetic to the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I was here in the last Parliament and know what it is like to face so-called guillotine motions and operate under the constraints of time allocation. In the previous Parliament, that was employed many times. However, I find myself having to go along because of the simple constraints. So many Canadians families operated through August and into early September with that uncertainty, uncertainty of what would happen when the emergency response benefit ran out, because during that time there was no follow-up program.

Yes, there was some vague announcement from the Government of Canada about using the employment insurance system and so on, but we as parliamentarians, on the opposition benches at least, knew there would need to be a legislative change to implement that. A press release is one thing, but bringing back the House to go through the legislation to ensure it will do what it purports to do is another.

I have to decry the fact that prorogation was employed in such a way. The going narrative was that it was for a parliamentary reset. Give me a break. The throne speech we witnessed last week was not a reset; it was a rehash. It was a trip down memory lane of failed Liberal promises. There was nothing new or inspiring in it. We have promises that go all the way back to 1997 that are still ongoing. I am sorry, I do not buy the argument that it was a parliamentary reset.

I also have to express some disappointment in my Conservative colleagues. I am sympathetic to their arguments of wanting to have more time, but what did I witness this morning? I witnessed a concurrence motion being brought forward on the floor of the House of Commons to discuss the conduct of a Liberal MP who is no longer a member in the House.

We wasted an entire morning debating a completely useless motion, in my view. None of my constituents care about a former Liberal MP and his ethics violations. We can do that any other time, but to do it at the eleventh hour when so many Canadian families are living under this uncertainty is unforgivable. We wasted an entire morning when we could have had more members of Parliament expressing their views on this.

That being said, we have an opportunity here to finally under these constraints come together and bring forward some program changes that will make lives better. They are going to give that certainty finally.

I came to Ottawa to make Parliament work. That has always been my goal during the five years I have had the honour and privilege of serving as a member of Parliament. This Parliament is certainly a lot more different than the previous one. We were operating under a majority government at that time. This time, the Canadian people sent us a message in 2019 that they wanted to see us work together. By and large, I have been pretty proud with how that has worked out during the time of the pandemic, today notwithstanding, and the circumstances we operate under.

When we look at this legislation, as New Democrats, and we are a small but mighty caucus, we were able to use our leverage. We are not here to prop up the Liberals. We are here to do our jobs. At times over the last number of weeks, I have seen both the Liberals and the Conservatives unhappy with us. Any time New Democrats make the Liberals and Conservatives uncomfortable, it tells me we are doing our job properly.

The very fact that we managed to bump up the benefit from the Liberals' proposed $1,600 a month to $2,000 is a significant thing, and we should be proud of that. Four hundred dollars in a month's time is a lot of money. It is the difference between getting groceries or being able to fill up one's car. We felt, because we are now about to enter a second wave, that we needed to give people financial certainty, especially those people who have not yet been able to see their businesses reopen or do not have jobs yet to go back to. We needed to give them the certainty the government was still there to provide that important backstop.

As well, there is paid sick leave. This is a huge victory. It does not go as far as we would like, but at least it is an acknowledgement that it is important to have. We do not want to have a system where workers are having to make that choice between their health and their source of income. We do not want workers who are sick or think they may feel they have COVID going to work, potentially shutting that business down and spreading it around to the population. This is a time when we have to remain vigilant and be on our guard against that.

I wish I had more time to talk about this. My final message for the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is that this is a demonstration of us coming together. Yes, it is under the eleventh hour, but we have come together and we have secured some benefits that are going to measurably make their lives better and hopefully give them a little peace of mind in the weeks and months ahead.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite and I have done some great work together on the agriculture committee. I always enjoy his interventions.

I have never been to the community he represents, but I understand it is blessed with a lot of tourism. I would be curious as to what the member opposite has been hearing in his community and if there are tourism-related jobs in his riding for which these types of benefits would be extremely important, given the fact that tourism has been one of the hardest hit industries. What is his perspective and what are his constituents saying about how important this legislation is to support them in the days ahead?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do like to brag quite a bit about how beautiful Vancouver Island is, and I thank the member for giving me this opportunity to do so again.

It has been tough. We are used to having visitors from all around the world come to our beautiful island. Where I live, it is Canada's only Mediterranean-style climate. We are blessed with incredible scenery, the beauty of British Columbia, the beautiful mountains coming down to the ocean. The best salmon fishing in the world happens in my riding, although my other Vancouver Island colleagues might dispute that.

The fact is that tourism has been hit hard. Efforts are under way where we are trying to ensure that locals are rediscovering their region. We are hopeful, through those strategies and the benefits that are on offer, that we can make some success come back to our hard-hit region.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned in his speech was the lack of time we had to debate these things. I want to ask him about the fact that the House of Commons was prorogued over six weeks ago. What does he think about that and the amount of time that was wasted because of the prorogation?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the thing. Prorogation can be used as a tool with a legitimate use, but if done properly. Every now and then a government may find itself in need of a reset. I argue, though, with the timing of when this tool was used. This prorogation tactic could have been used, with great legitimacy, the week before our scheduled return, not as far back as August 18.

As to my friend's question about the timing, the fact that it happened the day after there was a dump of 5,000 pages of documents with a standing committee shows me that the Liberals were quite worried about what was in those documents and wanted to shut down the committees so they could not investigate the content.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

The NDP is not being clear, and I would like my colleague to enlighten me. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion that called for health transfers, among other things. Some members voted in favour of the motion, while others voted against.

What is the NDP's position on the billions of dollars in health transfers Quebec is calling for?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I am not from Quebec. It is a beautiful province and it is a very valued member of the Canadian confederation. I can only speak from British Columbia's experience.

I acknowledge, of course, that the provinces have jurisdiction over health care, but I will always argue that there is a strong role for strong federal leadership in ensuring a Canadian, no matter what province he or she lives in, has the same rights and access of any other Canadian no matter what province or territory people reside in.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am extremely disappointed in the lack of funds going out to people with disabilities. In my community, in the block behind my office, I have a homeless camp and some people there are living with disabilities.

Has the hon. member seen the same situation in his riding, where vulnerable people are living on the streets and should not be there?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith is my northern neighbour. We have very much the same problems in the Cowichan Valley. We are also buckling under the weight of an opioids crisis, which has not gotten enough recognition from the federal government. Our communities need help. We need help with the homelessness issue. We need help with the rampant drug abuse that is going on and the incredible number of people we are losing to this epidemic.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to participate. I just want to start by thanking all of the incredible people who work in the House, the administrative and technical staff, for making this possible. I have to be at home right now, but the fact that I can still participate virtually is a great service, not just for me, but for the people I represent. I am extremely grateful for the ability to do this.

Last night, the world passed a milestone. I do not know if a lot of people heard about it, were paying attention to it or are aware of it. Last night somewhere around 4 a.m., we passed the one-million mark for number of people throughout the world who have died from COVID-19. This means that within the last eight months or so, this virus has spread so quickly throughout the world and infected so many people, that we are now at the number of one million deaths throughout the world.

In Canada, we are extremely fortunate. We should always strive to have absolutely no deaths in a pandemic like this, even though that reality is very unlikely to happen. Nonetheless, Canada has only had just slightly over 9,000 deaths. Like I said, it is still a lot, but compared to some of the other countries, in particular those in the G7, it is a relatively low death rate.

I bring this up because I think it is extremely germane to the discussion we are having. This discussion is about timing and about how important it is to deal with something with great haste to ensure Canadians get the supports they need. They need to have that security to continue to support themselves and pay their bills during a time when they are also experiencing a great deal of anxiety.

Over the last number of months, we have made those programs better through work with all parties in the House, and I have no problem giving credit to the NDP and Conservative parties where it is due.

I heard comments earlier today from the Conservatives. One member in his 10-minute speech said the Liberal government does not want to work with the Conservatives, but then about two minutes later he went on to talk about how the Conservatives would like to take all the credit for changes to the employee benefit because of their hard work. I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. The Conservatives did play a very important role in helping to shape that policy. That is what this has been about from the beginning.

It has also been about moving very quickly. I mentioned this many times in the House, but I am going to say it again. What we saw at the beginning of this pandemic was politicians working together to get the CERB out the door, which would have taken about 18 months by any normal standard. We put it together five days. We have an incredible public service that took this program and pushed it out the door to get money into the bank accounts of millions of Canadians in such short order. We are talking about one month and four days to get money into the bank accounts of 5.4 million Canadians from the day COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the WHO.

I truly believe that it is because of that speedy work and the reiterations on the fly and the willingness for the Conservatives, at times, to push for what they thought was right. Through the Speech from the Throne and what we are experiencing now through this piece of legislation, the NDP were pushing forward to focus on people who inadvertently were not given the full attention they should have received. That is what a minority Parliament is supposed to work like.

When I hear Conservatives say things to the effect that Liberals are not working with them, it is just completely untrue. By their own admission, they will take credit for the fact that they had a lot to do with increasing that wage subsidy early on in the pandemic. As we start to debate this bill, we want to move it forward as quickly as possible.

It is about extending and moving into the second phase of these various different supports for Canadians, whether that is a support to help people stay at home with their children or loved ones; whether it is for sick benefits, and again I thank the New Democrats for being champions of that; or whether it is about creating a benefit for people who will not fall under the reformulated employment insurance program. We need to make sure that these Canadians are taken care of.

I think that when we look at the timelines, what is so incredibly important is to look at another set of data. I opened my speech by talking about a million deaths throughout the world, and how just over 9,000 of those were in Canada. I have heard the member for Carleton, on a number of occasions, talk about the amount that has been spent in terms of stimulus funding in Canada, and he compares it to other G7 countries. The reality is that, as of the most recent data, Canada has spent 15% of our GDP on COVID stimulus packages. Compare us, for example, to our closest neighbour, the United States, which spent 13.2% of its GDP on stimulus packages. So, we have spent 1.8% more in our stimulus packages. We have moved quickly and we have supported Canadians in great haste, and as a result our death rate is one-third of what it is in the United States. In the United States, as we all know, things are unravelling extremely quickly and their governments cannot seem to get a grasp or a handle on what they need to do in order to control this.

We as parliamentarians, and I use the collective we, worked together early on, sometimes through negotiations, sometimes through compromise and sometimes by yelling at each other across the floor of the House of Commons. We were able to get this package out the door as soon as possible, and now, as we move toward the second wave and we know that more struggles are going to come by Canadians as a result of what is ahead, we need to make sure that they are taken care of again. That is why this is so incredibly important to deal with right now.

I am sure I will get a question on this from a Conservative, so I may as well pre-empt it now. I know the question is going to come up about prorogation, and that we wasted five or six weeks during prorogation. Let us recap for a second. One special COVID committee sitting day was lost as a result of that prorogation, and two regular sitting days of the House were lost: the Monday and the Tuesday before the Speech from the Throne. That is the entire amount of possible debate that was lost. There was no other arrangement with House leaders and certainly nothing that had come to the floor of the House to support some kind of deal that we would sit and debate things in the middle of August. I know we also talk about committees that were doing work. Those committees are being re-established now. They are bringing back the issues again.

I can tell members that I sat on the PROC committee. We did a lot of work with respect to finding a way to vote virtually as we move forward. If we want to talk about wasting time, we are stuck now taking about 50 to 55 minutes to have a single vote happen in the House, when this is the exact model that the Conservatives were advocating from day one in the procedural affairs committee. They wanted to vote the exact way that we are doing it on Zoom, whereas the rest of the committee members suggested we follow what Britain has been doing since the spring and actually have an app-based solution that could confirm all the biometrics and that required less bandwidth to use, as another and more effective way of voting. I have become cynical, and a number of my questions have been about the amount of time that has been wasted by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, because I am left with the thought that this is the only explanation that can be there.

I know I am running out of time. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today. I want to encourage my colleagues to move with the same amount of speed that we did in March, because it was extremely important at the time, so that we could get the assistance that Canadians need in order to get through this pandemic and in order to be taken care of. That is what they really care about right now.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy listening to my colleague from across the way. He has a different aspect and a different take on some things than I do. I learn a lot when he delivers his presentations either virtually or in the House.

The member talked about working together, and that the government moved fast to make sure we had the CERB and benefits get out the door when COVID-19 started. Did his government not know that the benefits were coming to an end September 30? Was there not a conversation when proroguing government to make sure that we did not talk about the WE scandal in committee? Were they not having conversations about needing to have something planned after September 30, because that is when these programs run out? The thing that really frustrates us on this side of the House and most other opposition members is why the Liberals did not have a plan in place. They knew this was coming. Now they have to rush through $50 billion to $60 billion in spending in four and a half hours, because they had no plan in place.

Could the member please answer those questions?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the Prime Minister chose to prorogue Parliament was because these programs were coming to an end. Look at the amount of money that has been spent over the last number of months. It is incredible. When the original Speech from the Throne happened just shy of a year ago, there was no possible concept that we would be spending this amount of money and that we would be discussing these matters today. Nobody knew about it.

Now we have the opportunity to reset Parliament and make a decision. That is what the Speech from the Throne is about: decide if, yes, this government is going down the right road and its projection into the future is the right way; or no, we want to go to an election and see what the people think.

Ultimately, that is how we ended up where are, and I absolutely support that. This gives every parliamentarian—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will go now to questions and comments with the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his speech.

My question is very simple. I heard my colleague talk about the priority and needs of the people in his riding and all of Ontario.

On September 18, the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, and the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, very clearly set out the provinces' health care needs. They called for an increase in federal government support, from $42 billion to $70 billion next year and for the money to be recurring. In practical terms, health care support from the federal government would increase from 22% to 35%.

We understand that the government is opposed to increasing health transfers, but, in the midst of a historic pandemic, what could be more important than ensuring that people have access to health care? For that to happen, the provinces need money.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just point out that it is much easier to see you cut me off virtually than it is when I am in the House.

To answer my colleague's question, I am not going to weigh in on the Quebec part as I am an Ontario MP, but the member asked me about Mr. Ford, and what is more important.

I think the most important thing is for a provincial government to want to be a working partner and player with the federal government in this. I can tell my colleague that 97% of COVID relief money spent in Ontario has come from the federal government, and a lot of that was not attached or dictated as to how it would be spent. A lot of it is at the discretion of the provinces.

We need partners who want to actually work together to find solutions and not to play political games at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for acknowledging the NDP's work in getting paid sick days, but we are not done. We are disappointed that this is not permanent.

We are hearing that many people are falling through the cracks. There are people with disabilities who are still waiting for the $600 payment, which the government has not sent out, and seniors who are living in chronic poverty.

Does the member not believe that the time is now to implement a guaranteed livable basic income so that people are not falling through the cracks in our social safety net, which, clearly, as we are seeing in this pandemic, has huge issues and problems? This is also something that was in the calls for justice from the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry. Does he support moving towards a guaranteed livable basic income for all?