Debates of Sept. 29th, 2020

COVID-19 Response Measures Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to start with that. This is a government with a Prime Minister who in 2015 said that they were going to be different, and they have been anything but. They are using omnibus bills. They are using prorogation when they said that they would never use prorogation. They are using prorogation for what reason? It was to get themselves out of a political scandal.

We find ourselves here tonight debating in just four and a half hours a piece of legislation that costs $57 billion, without the process of Parliament. Here we are, returning to the full process in a hybrid manner of Parliament, but not having the ability to scrutinize this piece of legislation to make it better.

He can live in the lollipop, gum drop and fairy dust world all he wants. Canadians know the truth, and the truth is that the Liberals have not been as he describes them.

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

Mr. Speaker, how fascinating.

One thing I want to say is that I was deeply moved by my hon. colleague's speech. I too am an emotional guy. I too am in touch with my emotions. What is fascinating in all of this is that in 2011, when Stephen Harper was in power, the Liberals claimed it was impossible to impose a gag order or to prorogue Parliament, and yet Stephen Harper did it. The NDP said the same thing. Now, the Conservatives are telling the Liberals that it is not possible to prorogue Parliament or to use a gag order.

I want to understand something. Could my hon. colleague tell me whether the Conservatives, if they were to regain power, would be okay with proroguing Parliament and using gag orders again, as they have done in the past?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak a little French because I know that my colleague would like me to speak more French in the House.

I was not here when the Harper government was in power. I ran for office in 2015 for Prime Minister Harper, but we are not the ones who promised to do things differently in the House. It was the Liberals who promised that. The Liberals did not fulfill their obligations to Canadians in 2015 and they are not doing so now. I think that is the big problem that we are talking about today.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I am extremely pleased to be here tonight to debate Bill C-4 on behalf of the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Before I begin, I would like to address a somewhat sensitive subject. I think that my colleagues were shocked and saddened by the same news as I was today. An indigenous woman died from an overdose of morphine administered by nursing staff in a Joliette hospital who did not listen to her when she said she was allergic to the drug. Staff were uttering racist and violent remarks as she lay dying, a horrible death.

Apart from Bill C-4 and the government's response to COVID-19, I think that it is going to take a lot more than a prorogation. The government can no longer hide behind that tactic to infringe on other jurisdictions. It is also going to take a lot more than a law instituting a national day for truth and reconciliation with indigenous people to fight systemic racism in Canada.

Now I am going to talk about Bill C-4. Earlier today, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons insinuate that the reason opposition parties wanted to prolong the debate was probably that they did not understand what it was about.

I can assure all members that we know exactly what this is about. We know it so well that we have already noticed the problems with this bill and want to fix them now, not when it is too late or when most individuals will already be involved in the program.

I would note that hundreds, if not thousands, of people have called their MPs to say that they did not think they were entitled to the CERB but that it was so easy to get that it must have been fine. Now many of them no longer have enough cash to pay that money back.

Those people could have stopped collecting the CERB at some point during the crisis when it was time to go back to work and do their bit to restart the economy. Unfortunately for our businesses, the lack of incentives to work meant that people were making more just staying home than they would have made going back to work.

This is the type of flaw that we must take the time to shed light on today in Bill C-4 even though the government wants to speed up the process. We owe at least that much to the people who elected us.

I will take this opportunity to make suggestions to the government to ensure the well-being of the people in my riding and those in Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois presented its recovery plan yesterday and I invite the Liberals to read it carefully and use it as a guide because it reflects the needs and demands of the people of Quebec.

I am from Amqui, a small town in the Matapédia region in eastern Quebec. I am deeply attached to my region and the success and survival of all the regions in Quebec. I am sure that the economic future of Quebec lies in these regions and only Quebeckers should decide how to use public funds.

The role of Canada, as long as we are part of it, is limited to the authority it is given under the Constitution. We talk about this Constitution a lot, probably because of the very centralizing Speech from the Throne that was delivered last week. What does the Constitution say? It says that the federal government must transfer to Quebec money to which it is entitled according to its areas of jurisdiction.

Since Ottawa is going to continue to pump huge amounts of money into the programs set out in Bill C-4, it is imperative that this be done properly. Yes, we need to support those most in need, those who have lost their jobs or have to stay home because of COVID-19. However, before it can start talking about creating thousands of new jobs, the federal government must ensure that existing jobs are protected. We need to support businesses that are struggling to stay afloat after the first wave.

One such business that comes to mind is Marmen, in Matane, a leader in the development of wind power in Quebec. This company is an expert in its field and is doing the Lower St. Lawrence region proud. Yesterday Marmen had the difficult task of announcing that it will have to lay off 55 employees on November 22 and another 100 or so the following week. When we hear news like that, we really need to hear the government say it will take the bull by the horns and make investments to support not only our people, but also our expertise.

We need a government that will once and for all stop investing directly in western Canada's fossil fuel industry through subsidies and tax breaks. We need a government that will invest in the energy transition instead, in wind power, forestry, innovative technologies and research and development. That is also what we need to hear. We also want to hear the government stand up for sectors that have been falling through the cracks since the crisis began.

I am thinking in particular of travel agencies, which have been hard-hit from the beginning of the crisis. Ms. Labrecque is the owner of a travel agency in Maria, in the Gaspé, which is in my riding. Unfortunately, she thinks that she will not be able to keep her doors open for more than a few weeks for lack of funds. One of the problems is that she does not qualify for the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program and her business is considered to be a risk. Given that the travel industry is paralyzed, she no longer has access to credit.

For some businesses in Quebec regions, the summer of 2020 set records for visitors, but not for those agencies trying to survive on only 3% to 4% of their usual revenue. More than 200 agencies in Quebec have already closed their doors permanently. From the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has criticized the commercial rent assistance program as being ineffective and a poorly designed program that has failed miserably.

Bill C-4 is unfortunately not enough to help the travel industry. It is a dying industry. The Bloc Québécois proposed a refundable tax credit of 50% of recognized fixed costs. I am very interested to hear what the government has to say about that.

I now want to talk about seniors, a topic that is very close to my heart. I am fortunate in that my four favourite seniors are still living. I want to take this opportunity today to acknowledge Noëlla, Florent, Lorraine and Jean-Marc, from the bottom of my heart. No matter how old I am or how old they are, I will always call them grand-maman, grand-papa, mamie and papi. I am fortunate in that they are in good health.

It is difficult for me to restrict contact with them during the pandemic, but it is even harder for them and for all seniors in Quebec and Canada. They have been isolated for months, without support from the federal government, aside from a single, paltry cheque. It was a pittance.

Seniors have been hit hard by the crisis, as has their physical and mental health. We need to help them by immediately and permanently increasing the old age security pension, starting at age 65. Yes, I said age 65 and not 75. The guaranteed income supplement is in urgent need of being adjusted so that no one is penalized. We are calling for the federal government's health transfers to be increased to 35%, without any conditions. We will be repeating this many times.

The tragedy that struck long-term care facilities and seniors' residences in Quebec during the pandemic is the result of many years of underfunding, particularly on the part of the federal government. The situation in many facilities in Quebec is still difficult.

To date, over 5,800 people have died in Quebec. Of those, 4,000 died in long-term care facilities and 976 died in private seniors' residences. Those numbers are growing every day. We must not kid ourselves. The storm is not over yet.

I would like to take a brief moment to talk about the health care workers who care for seniors. Personal support workers and registered practical nurses work under extremely difficult conditions and they deserve our respect and admiration.

Canada needs people like Ahmed Aouad who works in a seniors' residence in Mont-Joli in my riding. This man does vitally important work, particularly in the current context. For months, he has had to work seven days a week because of a labour shortage. Mr. Aouad is seriously considering leaving Quebec, but it is not because he does not like his work, his home or his new country. On the contrary, he would like to live in the Lower St. Lawrence area. The reason he is considering leaving is that his wife lives in Morocco and it is practically impossible for her to come join him in Canada. The situation in Morocco is troubling, not only because of COVID-19, but also because of the political situation. All steps taken with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to help her come to Canada faster have been blocked indefinitely. I would have liked to send more time talking to this man, but I am sure I will have the opportunity to do so soon.

In closing, I want to point out that the government could have prorogued Parliament for 24 hours but decided to prorogue for five weeks. As a result, we are being asked to rush Bill C-4 through without hearing from witnesses, even though that would have enabled us to identify and correct problems in the bill. That all happened because the Prime Minister wanted to sweep the WE scandal under the rug. Although we wanted to do whatever it took to serve our constituents' best interests, we deplore the government's approach. The government introduced Bill C-4 at the last second and is now asking us to pass it without conducting a thorough analysis because there is not enough time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member only gets one question in French.

This has been a very interesting day. Obviously there has been a series of votes. The vote earlier called for four and a half hours of debate on what is effectively a $57-billion piece of legislation. Prorogation delayed, over the course of the last five weeks, the ability of the House to sit, and the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, did it to save his political skin at the height of the WE Charity scandal.

I am interested to hear my hon. colleague's views on what the Prime Minister did, how that impacted our ability to scrutinize this piece of legislation and the impact this could potentially have going forward.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I wish he had asked it in French, but I do appreciate his effort earlier.

I will answer the same way several of my colleagues have already answered today. We could have spent all summer debating bills and other things that are just important as the response to COVID-19, as I said at the start of my speech. Instead, the government chose to prorogue Parliament on the grounds that we had had plenty of time during the debate to ask our questions. That is not true. Today we are rushing this bill through in the middle of the night. I am happy to be here, but I think we could have dealt with this a long time ago for our constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I felt the same way when our colleague from Calgary Nose Hill spoke about the terrible tragedy of the death of Joyce Echaquan, an indigenous woman. A few minutes ago, I read in the news that an investigation has been launched and a nurse fired.

The problem of racism also exists in our public health system in British Columbia. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, a prominent indigenous woman and lawyer, is now leading an investigation into a similar matter. However, the circumstances are not as horrifying as those mentioned by my colleague.

What does my colleague think we can do to eliminate racism in our societies? It is not the focus of the bill before us, but that is what is in our hearts right now.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am glad that she raised this subject.

I will come back to what I was saying earlier. Prorogation had several negative repercussions. I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which was studying systemic racism in Canada's police services. Yes, racism is present in the health system, in police services and in many other places.

There have been reports on systemic racism. Everyone recognizes it. We were about to draft a new report, but Parliament was prorogued and the committee is no longer. The government must act. It knows what to do. The demands of the various groups have not changed. We know what needs to be done to eliminate or at least to work on eliminating systemic racism. However, the government chose to prorogue Parliament because of the scandal.

[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, Brian Sinclair, an indigenous person from Manitoba, sat in the emergency ward for 36 hours, and he died. He was dead for 36 hours before it was found out, and there was an issue of racism tied to it. Based on some comments I have heard, we should have an appreciation of how important it is, from a national government perspective, for there to be a role for us that goes far beyond some of the things we have talked about over the last little while.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on what role a federal government could play in the various issues that have been referenced this evening.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the federal government cannot do it all and cannot fix every problem, but it can certainly do a lot.

For instance, it could do more to support police services across Canada, such as providing more resources for officer training, to educate officers about systemic racism and the differences that exist in our society. There are a lot of things like that that it could do. It just has to pay attention and listen to what the opposition parties and groups that appear before parliamentary committees have been saying. It just needs to act.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-4. A debate is fine, but it would have been nice if the government had observed the rules of democracy from start to finish.

Near the end of her speech, my colleague said that the government could have prorogued Parliament for just 24 hours, rather than the five weeks. Like all bills, this bill may contain flaws that we might not notice at first glance, which is why the parliamentary process is useful, as it allows us to study the bill properly and hear from witnesses. That will all be impossible, unfortunately. We have to accept it, since now the government wants to fast track this bill, ignoring the need for rigorous, thorough analysis.

Not that the situation is not urgent; far from it. As we have been saying from the outset, a work incentive should have been included in the CERB way back in April. The lack of any incentive may have gone unnoticed when we were in lockdown, when virtually everything ground to a halt. That said, over the summer, Quebec tried to lift the lockdown and get the job market moving again. It was an extremely difficult situation.

Let's be honest. The CERB is not the only factor causing problems for employment. In times of uncertainty and fear, it is easy to imagine that many workers are afraid or do not really want to go back to work.

Let's get to the heart of the matter. As we know, the Bloc strongly favours workers. For that reason, as we have said, we support Bill C-4 in principle. We are naturally in favour of the idea of benefits that incentivize going back to work and that support people who have to stay home from work because they are sick or self-isolating. We are naturally in favour of providing support to those who would be putting themselves at risk by going to work. We are naturally in favour of supporting caregivers. That goes without saying. There is no problem there.

Furthermore, the bill will probably help unemployed workers, whether they are salaried or self-employed. Capping the benefit at $500 a week is entirely appropriate because under this new program, if an employer brings rehires an employee on a part-time basis, the employee does not lose the $500. My beloved riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is very reliant on agriculture and agri-food and is heavily dominated by the service sector. The coming into force of Bill C-4 will certainly do it some good. It will have a positive effect. While the CERB was rigid and vanished as soon as workers earned more than $1,000 a month, Bill C-4 adjusts the benefit in proportion to income. No worker will lose their income because they want to ply their trade. That is what the Bloc has been calling for since the spring. So much the better.

We are also in favour of support for caregivers. However, we think it would have made more sense to extend the benefit to parents of children aged zero to 16, instead of 0 to 11, purely because school is mandatory up until the age of 16. It is as simple as that.

We hope to be worthy of speaking for Quebec workers. Two days ago, Pierre Céré, from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, said that these benefits will ultimately support the economy as the second wave begins. These benefits will help people pay their rent or mortgage and bolster consumer spending. These benefits will help keep the economy operating at a certain level during these difficult times.

Yesterday I also spoke about this with Mouvement action chômage in Saint-Hyacinthe, a partner of my office. This organization thinks the bill is worthwhile, which is similar to our position. We think the bill is worthwhile, but woefully inadequate, and we think it contains some grey areas. Some other aspects are worthy of mention, such as the single eligibility criterion, which we have not seen since 1977; the elimination of the waiting period until October 25; the 26-week minimum; the reduction of hours to 120; and the reduction of sanctions for terminations that are deemed invalid. In addition, the benefits system is much more flexible. The bill does contain all kinds of good ideas. As members know, the Bloc would prefer that Quebec be allowed to administer its own program and its own EI fund.

The fact remains that this bill contains many of our long-held ideas and requests, along with several things that unions and lobby groups have been calling for for decades.

It even makes good on some election promises that the Liberals made in 2015 but did not keep.

Some may say that all that is fine and dandy, but that is precisely the problem. Why did it take a pandemic for this to happen?

The pandemic did not create the difficult conditions for unemployed workers. It simply exacerbated a situation that has existed for a long time. The major difference is that all of the demands and proposals that I shared with the House, our own and those of the unions and lobby groups, centred on an overhaul of the EI system, not a temporary fix. It almost seems as though the Canadian parties are leaving some wiggle room so that they can go back to the way things were as soon as the opportunity arises.

What will happen when the pandemic is over? Will we go back to the old EI system, or will Bill C-4 be the basis for real, lasting change?

Over the last 20 years and more, the EI system has been slowly but thoroughly dismantled. Fewer and fewer people qualify for benefits. Only four out of 10 unemployed workers have access to the program.

I remember that when I first became involved in politics about 10 years ago, during the election campaign, there were already posters asking who had stolen money from unemployed workers. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. Employment insurance has been altered so drastically that it can almost be seen as more of a tax than an actual assistance program. That says it all.

The National Assembly has adopted several unanimous motions calling on Ottawa to stop making changes that negatively impact Quebec workers. The story is always the same, no matter which party is in power in Ottawa or which party is in power in Quebec City. We are being accused of engaging in constitutional squabbling. I am not afraid to talk about the Constitution. The Constitution applies to us until proven otherwise, so we should be talking about it.

Ever since 1996, Ottawa has orchestrated an outright misappropriation of money from the employment insurance fund. Surpluses have been transferred to the federal government's consolidated revenue fund. In 2014, the real government of Canada, the Supreme Court, overturned Quebec unions' case against Ottawa for misappropriating nearly $60 billion from the fund. Canada's highest court, which some see as the government of judges, allowed that money to be diverted. Then, in 2008, the Supreme Court found that surpluses were illegally diverted in 2002, 2003 and 2005, but it did not require the government to pay back what it took. What kind of a lesson is that? In all, workers were stripped of several billion dollars. All that shows a consistently predatory approach to employment insurance.

To sum up, we are not happy with the way Bill C-4 was imposed, but we do support, to an extent, much of what it contains. Here is the real question: Is this a major step on the path to concrete, long-term change, or is this a temporary change that will evaporate the moment the crisis is behind us?

It would be good to ask the parties seeking to govern Canada about this. If the past is an indicator of the future, we have good reason to be worried—quite worried. Luckily, the Bloc will not give up the fight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know it is late. I appreciate the way you are managing things. I have a question for the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I know his region quite well, and I liked his speech very much. I have explored every corner of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I know the issue he raised is a real concern there. This money that was stolen from the EI fund means that workers who paid for insurance for years in case they lost their jobs ended up not getting insurance benefits when they needed them. Often, in almost 60% of cases, people who lost their jobs did not have access to EI. That is ridiculous and disgusting. It shows a total lack of respect for workers.

My question is quite simple. The fact is that the Conservative Party and the Liberal government stole from an insurance program that was there for workers. In this case, it was not available for the people who lost their jobs. What impact did that have in my colleague's riding?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, probably much like in every corner of Quebec and Canada, this obviously has had extremely serious repercussions.

Agriculture and agri-food are huge in my riding. While Saint-Hyacinthe is a major centre for agri-food processing, the service industry is also very important for the region. There have been serious repercussions. Since the pandemic has only exacerbated those problems, it is never too late to do the right thing. Let's hope, once again, that this is not just temporary. It would be nice to hear some commitments in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned in his speech that I found interesting was that things that seemed impossible for the Liberal government suddenly became possible when COVID-19 hit. I noticed the same thing about the illegal border crossers at Roxham Road. Suddenly we seemed to be able to solve that problem once COVID-19 hit.

I am wondering what the member's thoughts are on that.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague certainly asked a leading question.

We often hear about things being impossible, but it is often a self-imposed impossibility, so to speak. In many cases, it could be called self-censorship. Motivation can often be found when needed, but at other times it is elusive.

My colleague's remarks were eloquent enough without my needing to add anything. He asked a question that was really more of a comment, and I agree with him.

[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 have a question in regard to recognizing that in order to maximize the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic what we have witnessed is governments at different levels, the provincial governments across Canada, working with Ottawa and we have seen a heightened sense of co-operation.

Would the member agree that governments working with different types of responsibilities still working together on the responsibility of serving Canadians first and foremost was one of the reasons why we were so effective at getting the resources to the people who needed them the most during this pandemic and one of the reasons why it is important that we continue on with the legislation that I understand the member will be voting for and I appreciate the member's and the Bloc's for support for the bill.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is asking about working together, working with governments at different levels.

In the past two weeks, health transfers have been a popular topic. Of course, when there is a pandemic, work is done within a Parliament or between governments at different levels, but the Quebec National Assembly is unanimously calling for health transfers. I am not talking about the Government of Quebec or the Premier of Quebec. Everyone across the political spectrum, from Québec Solidaire to the CAQ, is calling for this.

For the past two weeks, the government has been accusing us of trying to pick a fight, but these problems have been around since the 1990s, when a minister in Jean Chrétien's government called cuts to health transfers a political weapon.

Who is the one picking a fight here?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I am delighted to be able to join today. I am delighted to be able to virtually participate in our discussion on Bill C-4. I have enjoyed listening to all the members speak and I do miss being able to be in the House, but there is some benefit because it is a little bit earlier in the day in Alberta where I am at the moment.

I am going to talk about Bill C-4 and I am also going to take a moment to talk about what COVID-19 means in Alberta and how Bill C-4 will help in Alberta. I was certainly moved by the words we heard from the member for Calgary Nose Hill and I would like to add to that, if I may.

I first want to say that Bill C-4 is a good first step. I am so proud that because of what the NDP fought for, including the paid sick leave and for supports for Canadians who cannot return to work, Canadians, Albertans, Edmontonians, people in Edmonton Strathcona, will not be as anxious about they will deal with the second wave of COVID-19 we know is coming.

People will worry about their health and safety, and the health and safety of their family, but they do not need to worry about their bills or how they are going afford to meet their needs. Extending the supports until summer and keeping the support at $2,000 a month means that people impacted by this pandemic can pay their rent and can put food on their tables in the coming months.

Paid sick leave means that Canadians who are sick or Canadians whose children are sick, can stay home and do the right thing to protect themselves and our communities without worrying about losing income.

I would like to congratulate the government on listening to the NDP and recognizing that Canadians need sick leave during a global pandemic. Of course, Canadians need sick leave at all times, but we will keep fighting for that. Canadians also need to know that they will have adequate support until they go back to work.

We know that this bill would provide help to millions of Canadians and I am proud of that. I appreciate the collaborative way that some, certainly not all, parliamentarians have worked to help Canadians during this pandemic. I am particularly proud of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and the members who have been fighting for Canadians since the very beginning of this pandemic. We are ensuring help for people out of work through no fault of their own, seniors, students and recent graduates, small businesses and people living with disabilities, all those who were forgotten by the Liberals in their initial plans. I am proud that we were able to improve on almost every single proposal by the government and I am proud to say we will continue to fight for Canadians and we do not think that our job is done.

I do want to focus on Alberta for a moment. Even before the pandemic was declared six months ago, Edmonton had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Our economy was in free fall. The provincial government had done cuts that were leading to layoffs. The post-secondary institutions we needed for innovation and diversification were dealing with deep cuts to support. Women were facing higher levels of violence than in other regions of the country. We were also already facing a homelessness crisis.

I recall standing in the House and asking what the government's plan was to support Alberta workers facing a decimated oil and gas sector and the desperate need for us to help to diversify the Alberta economy. I pleaded with the government then to create a plan and solution to the economic crisis that is gripping my province. A plan for an economy that will support Alberta now and into the future. That was in February. I stood up in the House and said those things in February and then COVID-19 hit and that has made it worse.

While some provinces are beginning to see a recovery, in Alberta, we are not. In my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, CERB has been a lifeline for tens of thousands of constituents and constituents need the support to keep their homes, to pay their rent, and to put food on the table for their families.

I have personally spoken to hundreds of Albertans who have used CERB to survive. I am not sure if members heard in the news today, but not a single one of those people I spoke to used that benefit for Cheezies, cartoons or drugs. I am appalled that a Conservative in my province thinks that 1,062,640 Albertans did not need the support they received during this unprecedented global health pandemic.

I live in Edmonton Strathcona, the heart of the creative sector. It is where we have the fringe festival, the Edmonton Folk Music Festival, theatres and restaurants that work with those theatres. Those artists, musicians, venue operators and restaurant owners were all so worried about what would happen and how they would survive at the end of CERB. I am so pleased that I can offer them support with the CRB.

I have spoken to small business owners, to parents and to recent graduates struggling with debt and a lack of income. I have spoken to people with disabilities who are desperate to know when they will be supported. I cannot say it enough that people in Alberta are dealing with the triple blow of an economic catastrophe, a provincial government that has implemented a cruel regime of cuts and layoffs, and a global pandemic unlike anything we have ever seen. Those people in Alberta need the support that the bill would provide, but it is not enough for Alberta. Albertans will need all of us, all parties, to fight for them in the coming years ahead.

We know that the supports in Bill C-4 are good, but they do not go far enough. If it was not apparent before COVID-19, we know that so many people in Canada, so many people in Edmonton Strathcona, have precarious employment. They rely on part-time work and gig work. They are contract workers or self-employed, and they are not covered by EI benefits. It is critical to recognize that the EI system is inadequate for our needs with or without a pandemic. We need to make these temporary emergency fixes permanent, because all workers need to be protected, not just some.

We know that at the beginning of the pandemic my NDP colleagues and I pushed for an emergency basic income that would have gotten support out to everyone who needed it. Instead, the government relied on the EI system. We asked for something that would go out to everyone, but we did not get that. What we got instead was a system that was based on exclusions. Dozens of students did not qualify for CERB. Expectant mothers lost their EI benefits. People living with disabilities facing enormous challenges were left out. What we have to do now is to make sure that those people are not left out going forward.

I am pleased that the government is extending emergency support beyond basic EI into the summer. I am pleased that the government has adopted our recommendation not to cut the benefit to Canadians from $2,000 a month. I am happy to see the Canadian recovery child care benefit and the Canadian recovery sickness benefit, but I have concerns. These things have to become permanent. Sick leave has to become permanent. Things like child care cannot be limited to children who are under 12 years old. I am the mother of a 12-year-old child. If that child has COVID or is ill, I cannot leave them at home. We need to do better. We need to look at what is in Bill C-4, recognize the value in it and improve it.

I am happy to support Bill C-4 for what it does for Canadians, but there is so much more we must do. We must extend the moratorium on student loan payments. We must provide support for students and graduates who cannot find work. We have to ensure that there is accessible, reliable, universal child care. We need to make sure that our seniors are protected in long-term care centres that are not driven by profit, but rather have national standards that protect all seniors. We need to invest in our public health care system with things like pharmacare, mental health care and dental care.

We must identify the people who are left behind, and we cannot let them fall through the cracks again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. I have a good relationship with him.

Today, former NDP MP Françoise Boivin tweeted that she felt a pang at seeing her former NDP colleagues vote in favour of a gag order. I wonder what the member, who just gave a wonderful speech, thinks about that. One of her former colleagues, who was here during the Harper era and experienced these gag orders, would never have voted for one. She felt a pang at seeing her former colleagues vote in favour of the motion.

I would like to know how she feels about her former colleague's tweet.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I work very well together and he will know that, at the international human rights committee, we had planned to bring forward a report on the genocide of the Uighurs in China. Of course I was very disappointed to hear the government had chosen prorogation. It is the reason we are supporting this now. It is very disappointing that we have not been debating this, looking at it and taking care of Canadians while Parliament was prorogued, but I feel it is so important that we get the help out to Canadians. Of course I am completely disappointed that the Liberals dropped the ball on this and left it to the last minute. It is a complete abdication of their responsibility, but I understand that it is more important for us to get the support to Canadians as fast as we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my hon. colleague said we need this to go out as fast as possible but we also need a guillotine motion, a debate closure motion, and that the NDP are supporting that. We have all said we need to take care of the citizens of this country. Would it not be appropriate to just have allowed debate to fall on its own?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really wish we had that opportunity to debate, but because we have run out of time, I do not want to go back to the people of Edmonton Strathcona and tell them they have to wait. I spoke to a woman on the phone who burst into tears when I told her that we were fighting to have the CERB extended. I have talked to artists who do not know what they are going to do. I have stood on people's doorsteps and the one thing they have said to me is that they need to know how they are going to be taken care of because they cannot go back to work.

It is not about us in the House, or what we do in the virtual or the real House. It is about what Canadians need right now, and they need the support they are going to get from Bill C-4.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on this theme because, as the hon. member mentioned, it is frustrating to find ourselves with this sense of urgency, which was concocted by the government. I wonder what it will mean for Canadians if every time the Liberals come up with some kind of cockamamie political scheme, we decide to punish them.

I wonder if the member would like to remind members of the House when exactly the CERB expired and what that means for Canadians who do not know what is coming as a replacement and who already have to plan for October and have to know how they are going to pay their landlord and put food on the table. Yes, the blame lays squarely at the feet of the Liberal government for having created this sense of urgency when there was time to debate it.

However, is it the right thing to do to punish Canadians who are on the ropes for the incompetence of the Liberal government, or is it better to put that aside, in a state of emergency, and move swiftly to make sure that while we figure out the politics of it Canadian households are not on the ropes?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel we are really missing the thread if we start to focus on whether or not we have had adequate time to debate the bill. Yes, it is vital for the strength of our democracy, but as I said, I am talking to people in my riding who are desperate, who need support and who need to know what is happening when the CERB ends. This will give them the ability to have some peace of mind.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate tonight. We have heard all through the night from members of Parliament about the issues around the impact of the pandemic and what it is like for their constituents, for the people in their community. The impact has been significant. There is no question.

It is no less significant in my community of Vancouver East. Right from the get-go, when the pandemic was on the horizon, New Democrats got up on the floor to call on the government to act. Members will recall that the government's response was that it was going to waive the 10-day waiting period for EI. That was the extent of what the government was going to do.

New Democrats said that was absolutely unacceptable, because some 60% of Canadians do not qualify for EI. Through all of that process and in driving the issue, New Democrats would have ideally liked to see a universal direct payment or a livable basic income. The government resisted that, and instead it came in with the CERB program.

The CERB program is an important program, but let us be honest with ourselves. Even the Liberal members know this. The CERB program excluded a lot of people. As soon as the government announced that program, we had to fight like crazy to drive the issue, to bring forward the voices of the people who were left out and to say that we could not leave them behind.

The Liberals left seniors behind. They left people with disabilities behind. They left students behind. They left self-employed individuals behind. They left so many people behind, part-time workers, migrant workers, and on and on the list went. New Democrats went at it like there was no tomorrow to drive home the message that we had to do better, that it was our obligation to do better.

We did get there. The government slowly, bit by bit, fixed some of those programs. Even with that, there are still people who did not get the support they should have gotten. Here is one example, and I raised this directly with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Single parents who are reliant on child support, as a result of COVID-19, lost that income. The Canadian government did not see that as income and, therefore, they did not qualify for CERB. I raised that directly with the minister, who indicated that she understood that she had to be there and that the government had to be there to support women. However, to this day, that has not been fixed.

That has been the pattern of the Liberal government to date, quite frankly, and it has been the NDP's job to consistently go after the government to do better. Bill C-4 is exactly just that, because we went after the government to do better.

I know some people will say that the NDP is in bed with the Liberals. Let us be clear about that. We are not in bed with anyone, with the exception of Canadians who need help. Our job is to make sure that we deliver support to them at this most critical time, a time when we are faced with a pandemic.

The government decided to prorogue the House and it was a shameful act, to be honest. It left people in the lurch in the middle of a pandemic and wondering what was going to happen to them. Before the government left, it said it was going to end the CERB program, but it was going to come in with another measure that reduced the amount of support. It was going to reduce the amount from $2,000 a month to $1,600, leaving so many people behind.

New Democrats never gave up. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, and our critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, just went after it relentlessly, saying that we needed to do better and demanded better. The result is Bill C-4. We actually got the government to change the program, to move towards what it needed to be, which was to provide $2,000 a month in support for people in need, for all the people who were left out. This is why we have Bill C-4 before us today.

Right from the get-go, New Democrats have said there is something wrong with our labour standards, in the sense that somehow people who fall ill are not eligible for paid sick leave. What is wrong with this picture? It was particularly evident in the middle of the pandemic when this occurred.

The government was not really going to move on that. It was the New Democrats who continually drove that issue to where we are today, with the changes we see before us in Bill C-4, so that people could get the sick leave they need.

All of that said, these measures are a patchwork approach. That is the reality of what we have today, and it is better than nothing, but the government claims that it wants to build back better. It should give some meaning to those words and make these programs permanent. We should not have to fight this every single time we are in a situation where we do not know what the future may hold. People should not have to worry about their future. People should be treated with the kind of respect and dignity that we all deserve. That is what the New Democrats will continue to fight for.

I think this highlights a very clear issue for us with respect to what needs to be done. My very good colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, put forward a guaranteed livable income motion. We should be debating that. We should be talking about how to implement that to make sure that nobody gets left behind.

The government talked about the great work it is doing with respect to housing. I listened intently to the throne speech and was looking to hear from the government about real, concrete action to deliver housing to people in the middle of a pandemic. Just before the throne speech the government announced 3,000 housing units. It was a rapid housing response, it said. Let us put this in context. From a homelessness count that was recently done, we know there are over 2,000 homeless people in Vancouver alone. Three thousand units are not going to do it.

My colleague, the member for Nunavut, just took a tour of her region, and it makes my heart weep to hear the testimony she shared with me and my colleagues about what she saw, about the experiences of people who are homeless and living in “mouldy boxes”. These are houses so infested with mould that it is making them sick. People are losing their children because they do not have proper, safe, adequate, affordable housing. Families are breaking up. She called it the modern-day colonization. That is the reality. What is wrong with this picture when we have this situation today and the government brags about 3,000 units as though that is the solution?

Today I say it is not good enough. This is a start, and the New Democrats are doing their level best to drive forward this issue with the government. We have to do more than just talk. It is incumbent on all of us as elected members in the House to do that job, not to play games, not for partisan politics and not to point fingers. At the end of the day, we must ask what we are delivering to the people who elected us to represent them.

For those in Vancouver East and all the people in my community, people in the Strathcona encampment who are homeless today, people struggling with the opioid crisis, seniors who need standardized national long-term care support, and people and families who need support from the Canadian government, we need to be a real partner at the table. We need to deliver, not just talk. It is enough already. This is a heads-up to all Liberal members to stop patting themselves on the back. They should ask themselves what they are going to do today to do better.