Debates of Sept. 29th, 2020

Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was not surprised. I somewhat anticipated that the Conservatives might try something of that nature, primarily because I do not believe, at my core, that they are really arguing for additional debate. Their ultimate goal is to make Parliament, the House of Commons, and the debate look as dysfunctional as possible.

I believe that is their real objective, even at a time when Canadians need the Conservative Party to be more responsible and to co-operate, as other political parties are doing, in order to deal with this pandemic and protect our economy. However, it is never too late. Maybe we will see some more encouraging signs from the Conservatives in the coming weeks and months.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoy the member for Winnipeg North's spin on how he thinks the proceedings in the House of Commons are going. He lives here quite often and does quite a lot of work. He carries a lot of water for the current Liberal government. I know he takes pride in that.

There are some things that I will probably take issue with, but I understand how much work the member does, and that he carries the water for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office, all while taking on some of the slings and arrows that no one else on that side of the bench wants. I remember another Liberal from western Canada who did that. That Liberal had been elected for 25 years, and he was Mr. Ralph Goodale.

The member across said that he had been elected for 20 years. There is only so long someone can carry the water for Ottawa before going back out to western Canada and western Canadians asking, “When are you going to start being a voice for us again?” Mr. Goodale went through that in the 2019 election. I would like to give some advice to my learned colleague across the way: There is only so much water a person can carry before that bucket spills over, leaving their constituents to think that they are not being supported any more.

This process to go through $57 billion of spending over the last four and a half hours is very interesting. The member stated that we as the opposition always want to create chaos to make it appear that the House is not functioning properly. I say that there is nothing further from the truth. I think we are working as team Canada. We want to contribute.

We contributed with the CEWS, the emergency wage subsidy, when the government first brought it in. We talked to our constituents across the country. They told us it was not going to work for businesses. We also went to members of the opposition. I believe that is one of the reasons why the benefit increased from 10% to 75%.

Members on this side have helped with the team Canada approach and have added some constructive criticism. That in turn has helped Canadian businesses to keep employees longer. It has helped people get through the pandemic, but more often than not, when we put ideas forward, there is a feeling that we are left without teammates.

When it comes to us working as part of team Canada, the Liberal member suggests that we be constructive and bring forward ideas. We continue to do that. I remember asking questions of the minister responsible for economic development and employment in July.

The member has said there was a full Parliament, but there was not. It was a COVID-19 committee. Once again the spin and the rhetoric does not match the words coming out of the member for Winnipeg North's mouth because there was no full Parliament. We know that. When he is says that, the member is trying to mislead Canadians.

He has also said that this has been the most open and transparent government in history, which could not be further from the truth. I remember during the start of the pandemic, when we were having our COVID-19 committee meetings, the Prime Minister was in his cottage hiding under his bed because he did not want to make a decision for Canadians. He would pop out every day like a cuckoo clock when the media was there to give his two-minute statement, take three softball questions and then go back into Rideau cottage. I do not think that was showing leadership when Canadians needed it the most.

The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North sits there and says that there has been great leadership and the government has shown Canadians that it has been there every step of the way. I know that constituents in Regina—Lewvan do not feel that way.

I know the hon. member also said, “When standing in this House you should say and speak of what your constituents would want you to say”. I am sorry to say, Madam Speaker, that if I did that you would ask me to leave because sometimes my constituents use colourful language to describe how they feel the Liberal government has left them behind time and time again.

The member said that we are talking too much about prorogation. I think that over the 10 or 15 years he was on these benches, in the corner, he talked about former prime minister Harper and his government proroguing Parliament. The opposition at that time could not scream it loud enough from the rooftops, but this is a different situation. This is a Liberal government. This is just another case of “Do as we say, not as we do. It is is respectful for us to prorogue Parliament because we are going to do a reset”.

The member keeps saying that we are going to turn the page, but he does not finish his sentence. What did the hon. member want to turn the page from? Why do we have to turn the page? The election was not very long ago. The government is only a year into its mandate. What does the page need to be turned from? There was a throne speech. Why did we have to have another one?

Both throne speeches are the same. The Liberals have the same recycled promises they will never follow through on. They have been promising child care and day care probably since I was in day care, so they have never really followed through on that one. The problem we see on this side is there will be 50 billion to 60 billion dollars' worth of spending, so forgive us if we do not think we should just write blank cheques to the Liberals.

I should have said this earlier, but this will be a shorter speech because I will be splitting my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

Forgive us if we do not feel the Liberals deserve a blank cheque. I have another sports analogy about this and it concerns teammates. Lots of time on a sports team there are unforced errors. We feel it is the unforced errors of the Liberals that have caused the slow response to COVID-19. They all knew that on September 30 we were going to need new programming in place because CERB was ending.

However, we see unforced error after unforced error, including the WE scandal, the Prime Minister's chief of staff's husband getting a contract for $84 million, the Prime Minister's friends and family benefiting from the WE scandal, and Frank Baylis getting the contract for ventilators that were never certified. All these scandals backed up their agenda. They had to prorogue Parliament because, as the member for Winnipeg North said, we had to turn the page.

It is not the Conservatives' fault we are sitting here debating 50 billion to 60 billion dollars' worth of spending in four and a half hours because the Liberals did not have a plan for Canadians. They have continued to leave Canadians behind throughout the whole pandemic.

As the new shadow minister for economic development, I see the one thing missing from the throne speech, in which they said they are going to turn the page, is that the words “private enterprise” were only mentioned once, because the Liberals think private enterprise should help develop the COVID-19 app. There was no mention of releasing private enterprises' ability to spend money, to ensure they are able to hire more people and to help regain our economic advantage in the natural resources sector.

The member for Winnipeg should know that across western Canada there are 20 billion dollars' worth of private investment ready to go. The Liberals are building a pipeline that a private company was going to build. If the Liberals would have got out of the way, they would not have had to spend $4.5 billion on a pipeline and another $10 billion to help build it. The private sector would have done that, and we would not have had to waste public dollars.

The private sector gives money to help all these programs they want to run. When we have a throne speech that mentions private enterprise and private business once, that is not a plan for an economy of the future. That is not a plan for Canadians.

What Canadians wanted from the government in the throne speech during a pandemic was some hope and stability. They wanted to know, after COVID-19, what does Canada look like next? They did not want a bunch of ideologies. The problem right now with the Liberal government is there are no public servants on the front benches. There are a bunch of radical ideologues who want to change what Canada looks like to fit their picture of Canada.

That is not what Canadians want. Canadians want to go back to work. Canadians want to help their families get ahead. Canadians want to know that after we get through this COVID-19 pandemic together, there is a future for their children.

I have three young children. After I leave Ottawa and go home, they are going to ask me what I did at work. I want to say that we tried to make sure we had time to talk about our future, and that our future has hope and optimism for our children. I do not want our children to think that what they have seen over the last six months is what Canada is going to look like for the next six years. It is our job to ensure that the next generation has the same chance to succeed that we had.

As we go through this bill, we hear from the other side of the aisle that the Conservatives do not care, that Conservatives do not want to put forward ideas and that Conservatives do not want to make Canada better. It is all just untrue. It makes us feel pretty upset that the Liberals talk about wanting to have a team Canada approach, but our teammates continue to make unforced errors. They make sure they do not take advice from this side of the House that would make sure Canadians can get back to work and ensure we have success going forward.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, my question relates very much to only part of the member's speech. I have been listening all day to people on all sides of the House criticizing the government for taking time to prorogue Parliament to write an appropriate throne speech for a crisis that we are facing.

I was here in 2008 when Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament. It was prorogued for months and months, not to change, not to reset, not to do anything different, but simply to save his own butt. That is what he was doing. I would like to know what this member did during prorogation to add to that. We held meetings, we held round tables and we held town halls to contribute. What did the hon. member do during that very brief prorogation?

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

Madam Speaker, I was here too in 2008 during prorogation, as a staffer, and I know Prime Minister Harper actually spoke to the other leaders when he was talking about prorogation. I know finance minister Jim Flaherty talked to other members across the House to know what they would like to see in the budget to ensure they were going to work on behalf of Canadians. You guys should be half as good as those guys were in 2008.

When I was going around in my constituency talking to Canadians and my constituents, they said they wanted the private sector to get back to work. They wanted to know that there were jobs. They do not want a handout; they want a hand up. They want a government that would put Canadians first, instead of putting its friends, business people and wealthy lobbyists before everyone else across the country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address his questions and comments directly to the Speaker and not to individual members.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I picked up on his desire to explain to the government members that we are here to work constructively and that we want time to study bills. That is the reason we are here.

Yesterday evening, we voted on a Bloc Québécois motion calling for collaboration with the intent of helping everyone, a motion that was in keeping with the hon. opposition leader's statements. In front of the media, the opposition leader claims he wants to respect Quebec's jurisdiction and help people. Yesterday, we moved a motion calling for just that: respecting Quebec's jurisdiction, increasing health transfers because that is what the provinces and Quebec need, and helping seniors starting at age 65.

I must have missed something. Can you explain to me why the Conservative Party voted against that motion?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

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

Madam Speaker, there are times when we will be able to work together as parliamentarians across aisles and across party differences, and there will be times when we disagree. I think we should respectfully disagree when we have those opportunities, and when we can, we should work together to ensure that Canadians have a better future going forward.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am confounded by hearing Conservatives talk about workers and the working class. In fact, one of their hon. members talked about how, at the beginning of COVID, they did not believe in big fat government programs, so my question is this. The Conservatives have been very critical about the government's income support programs during the pandemic. Would Conservatives have offered an income support program to Canadians during the pandemic, and if so, how would it have differed from the program that was offered by the government?

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

Madam Speaker, we have very similar ridings, so I think the best work program we could ever create is to unleash the private sector. The member has pipeline workers in his riding and I have pipeline workers in mine. We should get pipelines built. We should work together. We should release the private sector so we are able to make sure everyone is working together building pipes and everyone is working together to make sure we have jobs going forward for all Canadians, unionized and non-unionized alike.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the House of Commons. This time, for the first time this session, I am doing so virtually, from my home riding of Perth—Wellington.

Before I begin my remarks this afternoon, I do feel it is important to note a historic event that happened 35 years ago today. I was reminded of this event by Art Milnes of Kingston. It was on this date in 1985 that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed the first Black lieutenant governor of Ontario, the Hon. Lincoln Alexander.

Lincoln Alexander was certainly a Canadian who broke barriers at the time of his life as the first Black member of Parliament for the Conservatives and the first Black cabinet minister in Canada. Certainly his appointment 35 years ago today is equally of historic note.

We join the debate today on Motion No. 1. It is somewhat unfortunate that my first speech at length in this chamber during this session is one that is a motion of a guillotine. This motion provides exactly four hours and 30 minutes of debate on this matter, on Bill C-4. It provides for no committee study, no clause-by-clause consideration, no questions to ministers, and no opportunities for clarification on the implementation or the ramifications that this bill may have on Canadians. It provides for no witnesses, no comments from Canadians, from organizations and groups, from experts or from academics. In short, it provides for very little in terms of formal input from Canadians.

Of course, the government has noted, quite rightly, that many of the benefits that have been introduced for Canadians ended this week, but that does not excuse the opportunity that the Liberals wasted when they could have introduced legislation prior to this date. Certainly, before they prorogued on August 18, they could have tabled legislation on one of the Wednesday committee of the whole sittings that were scheduled for the weeks after they prorogued Parliament. They did not.

Even as recently as this past Friday, our new opposition House leader provided the government with the opportunity to have a Sunday sitting. We, as opposition parliamentarians, were ready, willing and able to be here on Sunday to debate this piece of legislation. We were ready to hear from the ministers and to question ministers on the implementation of this bill. We were ready, but the government was not. Rather, the government saw fit to introduce the guillotine motion and to cut off debate.

This brings me back to the importance of the opposition. My colleague from Regina—Lewvan talked about the team Canada approach. Certainly, early in this pandemic we often heard the Liberals talking about the team Canada approach, but for whatever reason, we do not hear them talking about team Canada anymore. Perhaps that is because half of team Canada is being left on the bench.

I would note that if it were not for the opposition and our pressure, there likely would not have been changes to the wage subsidy, which saw the government move it from 10% to 75%. It was good to see that the Liberals finally endorsed the back-to-work bonus that was introduced by our former leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, which actually provided an incentive for Canadians to transition back into the workforce.

Could one only have imagined if the government had implemented some of our ideas earlier in the pandemic, when we called for more strict quarantine measures for Canadians returning to Canada from international hot spots? We cannot improve legislation when we are being muted. It is unfortunate that the government has failed to see the important role the opposition plays in the governing of our country.

I am often reminded of a speech that was given in 1949 on the role of what was then His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It was delivered by a then little-known member of Parliament from the riding of Lake Centre in Saskatchewan. This member, of course, went on to become better associated with the next riding he represented, that of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

John Diefenbaker said this in that important speech:

The critical question is often asked as to why the need of two sides in Parliament, one to propose and the other to oppose. The simple answer is that the experience of history has been that only a strong and fearless Opposition can assure preservation of our fundamental freedoms and of the rights of the individual against executive and bureaucratic invasions of those rights.

We are here to protect those rights of all Canadians and to speak up on their behalf.

There is no question that this pandemic has had an impact on Canadians across this country. I would dare say there is not a single Canadian who has not been affected in one way or another by the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it is families, farmers, small business owners or children.

One point that is important to highlight again and again is the fact that the government has failed on rapid testing and at-home testing. We see our international colleagues implementing these programs for quick testing so that they do not see the massive lineups or the wait times for single parents waiting with their children to get tested. The government has failed on this matter.

The government has also failed on reunifying families. I have raised the case in this House on a number of occasions, and so have my colleagues, of my constituent Sarah Campbell. Sarah has been separated from her British fiancé Jacob since February. It was bad enough for a young couple in love to have to cancel their June wedding, and I am sure many Canadians can associate with the disappointment that this would have caused, but what was truly heartbreaking was that within days of their scheduled wedding date, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and throughout her surgery and treatment, she has been separated from her fiancé.

Sarah has written over 100 letters to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, as well as to the Prime Minister, with very little response. In fact, only yesterday, Sarah's case was raised by my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, and the Minister of Immigration did not even get my constituent's name right, despite it being in the question.

No one is calling for the borders to be reopened, but what we are calling for is some compassion, some compassion for committed long-term relationships and for adult children to be reunited. Unfortunately, Sarah and so many others like her continue to wait and are met with apathy from the Liberals across the way.

My riding, like many ridings across the country, is heavily agriculture-related, and the challenges that our farmers and farm families face are astronomical. I have talked to local farmers, farm businesses and agriculture processors about how this COVID-19 pandemic has impacted their businesses. I hear about the challenges they face in accessing programs such as CEBA loans in redressing COVID-19 through the existing business risk management programs. Farmers and families feel that they are not being heard by the Liberal government, and it is truly unfortunate. Now is the time that the government needs to come to the table with farmers and farm families and address the challenges that they have faced with the business risk management suite of programs.

As well, Perth—Wellington is home to many cultural and artistic attractions, including the Stratford Festival, Drayton Entertainment and Stratford Summer Music. These, in the tourism industry, have been hit the hardest. They are among the first to have been cancelled as a result of the pandemic and they will be among the last to emerge from the pandemic.

Arts and culture affect the whole tourism and hospitality sector as well. From speaking with local business owners who own restaurants, bed and breakfasts, motels and hotels, I know that businesses that have been around for sometimes multiple generations are now concerned about how they are going to get through not just the next six months but the next 18 months, and they are just not seeing the hope, the reassurance that we will come out of this pandemic better than they were before.

I want to end by saying how unfortunate it is that we are debating a guillotine motion here in the House rather than addressing the concerns of so many Canadians, like the restaurant owner in Stratford, the farmer just outside of Drayton, the family from Mount Forest that is not quite sure whether their job will still be there in a few weeks. Now is the time to really address the concerns of Canadians, but instead of having the opportunity to have a full discussion on the bill, a multi-billion-dollar spending bill, we are instead limited to four hours and 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also regret that we have to be put in this situation, but the reality is that the only thing the Conservatives seem to want to talk about is how they have been impacted by their inability to discuss and debate the motion we are going to be talking about shortly. They do not actually have anything to contribute to the debate.

My question to my colleague is very simple. Given his concern over the fact that we are debating this right now instead of Bill C-4, did the member share the same concern when it came to a motion of concurrence that was debated this morning? It had absolutely nothing to do with this session of Parliament. It may be a very worthy cause for the Conservative Party to take up, but the timing was absolutely ludicrous given that there was no relevance to the need to do it today. The member must share the same view when it comes to that motion.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly see why the member for Kingston and the Islands would not want to talk about the ethical lapses that are all too apparent on the other side of the House. The 10 ethical lapses from the former Liberal member would be relevant to holding the government to account. We have a Prime Minister, a Liberal Party leader, who has been found on four separate occasions, and likely will be again, to have broken the ethics rules of the House of Commons. I can see why the member would be leery to talk about these things.

However, the fact remains that this concurrence motion had to be moved within the next few sitting days. This does not take away the fact that the Liberal government has still provided only four hours and 30 minutes for discussion on Bill C-4. The fact that the opposition had a concurrence motion does not change the fact that the Liberals have left four hours and 30 minutes for Bill C-4.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I am going to repeat the question I asked the previous member, because I did not get an answer. In the speech, I can clearly see the intention to work to improve conditions, and so on.

Yesterday, we voted on a Bloc Québécois motion calling for respect for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec, which is what the new Conservative Party leader claims to want to do. This motion also called for an increase in health transfers, which would truly meet the needs of the provinces and Quebec, respect their jurisdiction and ensure that we keep moving in the same direction. Lastly, this motion also called for help for seniors starting at age 65.

I would like to understand why members are making speeches today saying that we are going to work together and improve the lot of Canadians, when last night they voted against such a motion.

I must be missing something.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his question.

Our leader, the hon. member for Durham, said very clearly that he wanted to work with the provinces and that he would respect provincial jurisdictions.

Our opposition party, the Conservative Party, also made it very clear after the throne speech that we would like to see increased funds allocated to the provinces for health. We recognize that health care is a provincial responsibility, and everyone in our party would like to work with the premier—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one more short question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with my hon. colleague's riding. It is close to mine. It certainly has a great impact on mine because of incredible things, such as what he spoke about regarding the Stratford Festival. A lot of jobs go into my riding because of his community and I am quite grateful for that.

The member talked about small businesses and restaurants. So many of them rely upon those incredible arts communities. I am sure the member has heard from many small business owners about the failures of the government's CECRA plan for commercial rent. The Liberals were supposed to provide $3 billion and have only provided about half that.

Could the member comment on that and how that has impacted the incredible small businesses in places like Stratford and St. Marys?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right about the challenges for local businesses in Stratford, St. Marys, Mitchell, Listowel, Mount Forest, Arthur and Drayton. They have all experienced challenges with the commercial rent program. The uptake just was not there. The fact that we see so much of that $3 billion left on the table has been a real failure for small businesses in my riding, in the member's riding of London—Fanshawe and across this country. It has been a real failure on the part of the government.

Standing Order 69.1—Bill C-4—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised on September 28, 2020, by the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19. I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this question, as well as the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Government House leader for his intervention.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie asked that the Chair use the authority granted under Standing Order 69.1 to divide the question on the motions for second and, if necessary, third reading of Bill C-4. He argued that the bill is an omnibus bill that contains an element that should be voted on separately. In particular, the member asked that part 3 of the bill, dealing with the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act, be the subject of a separate vote, as he contends that it is a distinct initiative unrelated to the rest of the bill.

The hon. parliamentary secretary argued that all elements of the bill are part of the government's response to the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and that this constitutes its unifying theme.

As members will recall, Standing Order 69.1 allows the Speaker to divide the question on a bill where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked. The critical question for the Chair, then, is to determine to what extend the various elements of a bill are indeed linked.

Bill C-4 does contain different initiatives. Part 1 enacts the Canada recovery benefits act to authorize the payment of the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit in response to COVID-19.

Part 2 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, amend leave provisions related to COVID-19.

Finally, Part 3 amends the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act to limit, as of October 1, 2020, the payments that may be made out of the consolidated revenue fund under that act to those in respect of specified measures related to COVID-19, up to specified amounts. It also postpones the repeal of that act until December 31, 2020.

One could make the case, as the parliamentary secretary did, that there is indeed a common thread between these various initiatives in that they are all related in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In presenting his argument, the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie referred to the two rulings by my predecessor on Bill C-69 and Bill C-59, where he decided that the standing order could be applied to a bill that dealt with the same policy field as long as the initiatives were sufficiently distinct as to warrant a separate question. Each of those bills contained changes in the fields of environmental protection and national security, respectively.

The Chair is not convinced, however, that Bill C-4 is of the same nature. While each part of the bill is a distinct initiative, all three measures are in response to a specific public health situation, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. A close examination of the bill also shows that each part is designed to replace, supplement or extend measures enacted early this year that are expiring.

As my predecessor stated in his very first ruling relating to this Standing Order, on November 7, 2017, found at page 15095 of the Debates, and I quote:

Members will know that many bills contain a number of initiatives on a number of policy areas, some of which members support and some of which they might oppose.

The amending process affords members an opportunity to propose changes, including the opportunity to remove portions of a bill to which they object. The question for the Chair, in applying Standing Order 69.1, is whether the matters are so unrelated as to warrant a separate vote at second and third reading.

In this particular case, there is a government motion before the House that would limit the opportunity to amend the bill. Though the amendment proposed by the opposition House leader would provide such opportunities, the Chair cannot prejudge what the House may decide in this regard. The Speaker's duty is to determine whether the criteria in Standing Order 69.1 have been met.

In my view, all of the measures contained in Bill C-4 relate to the COVID-19 pandemic, and this constitutes a common element linking them together. Accordingly, there will be only one vote at second reading for this bill.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

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

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

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to address the House for the first time from my riding of Mount Royal. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Malpeque.

I am very pleased to speak today in support of the legislation before us, which would help Canadians and businesses as they face challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic has evolved, it has become clear that while everyone is affected by the crisis, not everyone is affected equally. While millions of Canadians have returned to work, we are aware that individuals in certain sectors continue to need the government's support because they do not have a job to go back to. While we know that Canada will make it through this crisis, we also know that the months ahead will continue to be challenging.

Simply put, this bill proposes to create three new temporary recovery benefits to help Canadians who are still unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. It also proposes to change the Canada Labour Code to ensure that workers can access these benefits. As our government outlined in the throne speech, our plan is to follow a steady course and continue to support Canadians through this pandemic for so long as it is necessary.

I would like to use my time today to outline what the Government of Canada has been doing to support Canadians during this unprecedented situation and how that has led us to the legislation that is before us today.

Last March, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Canada took a number of extraordinary but necessary measures to protect and support Canadian workers and businesses during the crisis. To help them get through this extremely difficult period, the government created the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

These measures, among many others, were introduced to help workers who were impacted by COVID-19 to provide for themselves and their families, as well as to help businesses keep their employees on the payroll. Additionally, they made sure that employees in federally regulated workplaces would be able to take time off work to deal with situations related to COVID-19, such as school closures and the need to self-isolate.

The government introduced a new leave under the Canada Labour Code. The leave, related to COVID-19, came into effect in March and was designed to complement the CERB. The CERB provided income support and the leave provided federally regulated employees with access to job-protected time away from work.

We also took steps to make it easier to access certain existing types of leave by waiving medical certificate requirements, easing the burden on health care systems and helping to ensure that every employee who was sick or needed to provide care for a loved one was able to stay home. Also, we took action to protect the jobs of employees in the federally regulated private sector. We provided employers with more time to recall employees who had been temporarily laid off due to the pandemic. These measures have helped protect the jobs of employees who would have otherwise been automatically terminated due to the length of the layoff.

We also temporarily extended the eligible wages period of the wage earner protection program by up to six months. This extension will ensure that any delays in insolvency proceedings as a result of the pandemic do not negatively impact workers' eligibility for the program.

As our Prime Minister has said, this government will continue to take a whole-of-government approach to respond to COVID-19. In other words, it is a team Canada effort. To protect the health and safety of Canadians, and to support workers and businesses, communication with the provinces, territories and our stakeholders has been essential.

Throughout this pandemic, we have heard from union representatives and employers in many sectors, including aviation, trucking, rail transportation, banking, telecommunications, broadcasting and courier services, to name just a few. These representatives collectively represent almost one million federally regulated workers and thousands of other employers across the country.

We also met many times with our provincial and territorial counterparts to share information, best practices and available resources with them. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Quebec's minister of labour, employment and social solidarity, as I had the pleasure of speaking with him several times in March.

One thing is certain: We all have a common objective, and that is to ensure that workplaces are safe, that workers are protected and that businesses and the Canadian economy are as strong as they can be.

As Canada's economy continues to adapt to the COVID-19 era, the health and safety of workers remains our government's top priority. That is why we are implementing measures to ensure that employers and employees have the resources they need to return to work safely and responsibly.

All employees in Canada have the same three fundamental rights: the right to know about the hazards present in their workplaces, the right to participate in decisions regarding their health and safety at work, and the right to refuse work that they have a reasonable cause to believe is dangerous to themselves. These rights, the responsibilities of employers and the structures created to support them, such as workplace health and safety committees, form the basis of internal responsibility systems in workplaces.

Today, I would like to reiterate the importance of employers taking the necessary steps to ensure that their health and safety committees or representatives are actively developing plans for a safe return to the workplace, and that these plans are widely shared with employees. Employers are also responsible for providing any training that may be required to ensure a safe return to the workplace. Strong and clear communication is crucial to ensuring that all employees have the information they need to work safely.

During the pandemic, we worked with stakeholders. We reminded them that an adaptable plan for preventing risk, ensuring full participation of health and safety committees or representatives in all decisions relating to health and safety, and using technology to communicate effectively with employees is crucial.

For federally regulated workplaces, these rights and requirements are set out in part II of the Canada Labour Code and its regulations.

We understand how important it is to ensure workplaces have the support and guidance they need during this challenging time. That is why I was so pleased that our Minister of Labour announced the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, or CCOHS, would receive $2.5 million over two years to continue its extraordinary work. This funding is part of a coordinated effort by federal, provincial and territorial governments, public health authorities and the CCOHS to make sure businesses have all the necessary tools and resources to protect their employees.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have put Canadians first. We provided the support they needed to make ends meet while staying safe and healthy, and that is exactly what we are going to keep on doing through the next phase of the recovery. The CERB was an important and necessary temporary response to support Canadians who had to stop working due to the pandemic.

To safely restart the economy, Canada must continue to ensure that workers do not return to work if they have COVID-19 or are showing symptoms. That is why, to encourage workers to comply with public health measures when they are sick or need to self-isolate due to COVID-19, our government is proposing the Canada recovery sickness benefit.

With this bill, Canadians would continue to get the support they need through a proposed suite of three new benefits: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. The legislation also proposes amendments to the Canada Labour Code so that federally regulated employees can access both the CRSB and the CRCB without fear of losing their jobs.

The proposed changes to the code would modify the existing leave related to COVID-19 to extend its availability beyond the previously set repeal date of October 1, 2020 and align it with the two new benefits. These temporary measures would help Canadians overcome the many challenges they are facing while encouraging people to safely return to work.

We are not out of the woods yet. We need to be ready. We need to make sure Canadians are protected for as long as this pandemic lasts. We also have to protect our economy and keep it strong. A strong economy depends on the safety and security of our workers.

In my view, in the same way as the CEWS, the CERB and programs like CECRA released during the beginning of the pandemic helped to protect so many businesses and people in my riding, the legislation before us will help us all get through the next phase of the crisis while we protect the economy. That is why I encourage all hon. members to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the CERB, the Canada emergency response benefit, offered $500 per week claimed. That was money paid without source deductions, so it was $500 in full with the expectation that it would be paid back in the following year's taxes. The Canada recovery benefit is the opposite: Deductions would be taken off at the source.

Does the member believe it is better to give people less money right now, and does he support the government's move to do that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his new critic appointments. At the beginning of the pandemic, people were quite desperate. People were losing jobs and were not used to all that was going on, and the importance was getting out a benefit that put as much money as possible into people's pockets. It meant it would be taxed at the end of the fiscal year, in 2021.

At this point, the overview of this new benefit is that it would be taxable at the source. That is reasonable under the circumstances, where we are now further on into the pandemic. It is not to say that people do not have a need, but it is now a reasonable proposal to tax the benefit at source.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time speaking virtually to the House. It is a bit strange.

I thank my hon. colleague from Quebec for his speech. The 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly have unanimously called on the federal government to transfer funding for health care to Quebec. Federal transfers currently cover 20% of health spending in the provinces, and the Premier of Quebec is calling for that amount to be increased to 35%.

What does my colleague think about the fact that all members of the Quebec National Assembly are calling on the federal government to transfer money to Quebec for health care, when it is a provincial jurisdiction?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. It is always a pleasure to speak with him.

I am proud to say that 84% of the money given to support Quebec taxpayers and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic came from the federal government. During the pandemic, we worked hard with our counterparts in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Now is the time for working together. It is not the time to incite squabbles between the federal and provincial governments.

I hope to be able to work with my colleague and the Bloc Québécois team to find better ways to support Quebeckers and Canadians during this pandemic.