Debates of Sept. 29th, 2020

Physician-Assisted Dying

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

Mr. Speaker, the second one that I would like to table is a petition from Canadians who are calling on the government to protect the conscience rights of physicians in this country, particularly as we do a review of the euthanasia laws.

Human Rights

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have petition 432, which is calling on the undersigned, with the House of Commons, to take the following actions to address the situation: formally recognize that Uighurs in China have been and are being subjected to genocide, and use the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act to sanction those responsible for the heinous crimes being committed against the Uighur people.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I remind hon. members who wish to present a petition to lay their documents on the table as soon as possible in the next few minutes.

Questions on the Order Paper

[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 ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Considering we are in a hybrid sitting, are there any members dissenting with that request?

There being none, I declare it so ordered.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 1, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places the usual way or to use the raise hand function so the Chair has some idea of the number of hon. members who wish to participate in this 30-minute question period. I ask members to rise now.

We need to count the number of members who used the raise hand function, which is a new function in this hybrid system.

We will now proceed with the 30-minute question period.

The hon. opposition House leader.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the cat has been let out of the bag. Are we surprised? Unfortunately, no because for months now it has been clear that the government does not like parliamentary debates.

The government is doing everything it can to stifle the work of MPs, who are here to hold it accountable. At a time when the Prime Minister was caught up in the WE scandal and parliamentarians were doing thorough and serious work in parliamentary committee, the Prime Minister decided to prorogue the House for six weeks, shutting down parliamentary work. That happened in the middle of summer.

Knowing full well that there were sunset clauses on financial commitments that are due to expire on September 30, the government was in a position to continue on if it wanted, while showing respect for democratic debate and parliamentarians. But no, the government decided to deliver an inaugural speech last week, barely a week before the deadline. It informed us that the plan to deal with these commitments would be debated over two days.

We were prepared to meet last Sunday to sit in committee of the whole. Four ministers would have had a great opportunity to testify and explain themselves. The government refused. Worse yet, it wants to put a four-hour limit on the debate on spending, which could reach $50 billion.

Why is the government limiting members' speaking time during extremely important debates?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we told Canadians over a month ago of our plan to transition from the CERB to EI.

We talked about the changes made to the system that would allow more people to transition to EI. We said we were going to create three new benefits, namely, the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. We also explained the details of those three benefits.

We worked very closely with public servants to make sure that the transition to EI would happen without any interruption to Canadians' benefits. It was very important to us that we continue our work behind the scenes, in co-operation with officials from the Department of National Revenue and Employment and Social Development Canada, who are working very hard for Canadians.

Quite frankly, there should be no big surprises here. We shared all the details of our plan over a month ago. I hope everyone will be happy with this. It is very important that these benefits get paid out so that workers—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

For the purposes of getting to all members who wish to speak during this 30-minute question period, I ask members to keep their interventions at around one minute, both for the questions posed and the responses. I am sure that will work out well.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some may find it puzzling that debate needs to be limited because of the urgency of the situation, especially since Parliament was prorogued for six weeks. Before then, the Liberals did not believe the situation to be urgent.

During a pandemic, we must apply a rather simple principle, the precautionary principle. We must act in the initial stages to prevent problems from occurring later on. Clearly, the government did not do that. The leader of my party stated some time ago that the government perhaps did not have the focus to manage the current crisis. The Prime Minister was mired in the WE scandal. We suggested that the Deputy Prime Minister take the reins. That might have prevented a six-week prorogation. Today, we might be at a different point and we might be discussing the recovery plan.

I am struck by the fact that when my Liberal colleagues speak about collaboration, I sometimes think that they are confusing their own interests with those of the general public. Collaboration means working with the other parties, and not putting one's interests before the interests of Canadians. I would like to hear what one of my Liberal colleagues has to say about that.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working together for a long time to help Canadians during this pandemic. It truly is an emergency. We all agree on that.

My government colleagues and I are listening to the opposition parties. We are aware of their concerns about the CERB and we understand what they wanted in this bill. When we created the new benefits, we tried to include what all the opposition parties wanted to see in there.

We do not want to discourage people from working. We want to be sure that there are integrity measures in place. We want to be sure that people are looking for work and that they accept employment when it is offered to them.

The three benefits really reflect that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister mentioned fraud. Before prorogation, the industry committee had a motion from the NDP, which was was supported by all parties, including hers. It is a really good report on fraud and I hope we get that released in the House of Commons. We will need unanimous consent and I hope that happens.

Specifically on supplementary employment benefits, the minister and her colleague know that many people might have their CERB clawed back or be punished by employer incentive programs that were negotiated, which might increase their benefits over that amount.

I would like to hear from the minister what she is doing about that to ensure the sub-benefits, as she has been made aware of several times, do not affect workers. Their benefits should not be clawed back and they should be made ineligible for some of the benefit programs that have been rolled out. Could she please update the House?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can. In fact, I can advise the House that we are working with every employer that has a sub-plan to ensure that it is as seamless as possible, working with individual employees, and that nobody is put in a situation that is untenable, given their individual circumstances. This is an excellent example of the changes that one will see in the new benefits.

In transitioning so many people to EI, we are back to a system where sub-plans are in place. We are back to a system where people can seamlessly be on both EI and earn an income. It is an excellent example of why we and officials have been working so hard to transition people back to EI.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to hold the minister accountable, because in March we gave her incredible powers to assist people, like parents who were seeking parental benefits, and to deal with sub-plans. The minister sat by and did absolutely nothing until the EI system resumed. Retroactive or not, she let people down and she is letting Parliament down by having a press conference with the Deputy Prime Minister, now finance minister, saying that somehow this is sharing the plan without offering any specifics. She has let this place down.

Is this the way she wants to be remembered, as a minister who let people down, including the House?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we made a lot of effort and took a lot of time in the past six weeks telling Canadians what the plan was to transition from the CERB to EI, what the new benefits would look like, and I would say “retroactive or not”. A lot of women out there, because of the credit of EI hours, will be able to get retroactive maternity leave and parental leave. That is not just a thing one says, it is an important aspect of this transition.

We all know that the EI system was clunky and unable to serve us well when the pandemic hit. People have been working flat out to make changes and fix the system so we can now offer these better situations for Canadians. It is incredibly unfair to the people who have worked so hard to get us here to say that somehow they were not working hard enough.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous member, I would like to thank the minister for the tremendous work she and her officials have done over the past months. They have really moved mountains to help Canadians.

With the devastating impacts of the global pandemic, we have seen the many tragedies families have had to go through. We have seen families experiencing budget shortfalls. Also, about 50% of Canadians are saying their household income has been impacted by this global pandemic. Would the minister not agree that Canadians are anxious about wanting to see what services and future programs we are going to be able to offer Canadians as we face a possible second wave?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with this in real time, course correcting and working very hard for Canadians. One of the benefits of the plan we have put forth is it is a longer-term plan. The world changes every two to four to six to eight weeks. We have given Canadians a year-long runway so they know they will have access to these benefits for 26 of the next 52 weeks. They will have continuity, certainty and a little breathing space, because we do not know what is going to happen. Absolutely, Canadians are anxious and this recognizes that.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

I think there is some confusion. The government is extolling the virtues of the new measures, the new benefits and the transition from the CERB to a more flexible EI system. The government said that it informed us of all that and that Canadians have known about this for a month. The problem is that the government announced all of this to us in a press release two days before proroguing Parliament. Three of these measures really need to be examined by parliamentarians, by elected members. As parliamentarians, our role is to vote. What we take issue with is the process that we are dealing with today. Yes, the measures were announced, but we have to hastily vote on them on the pretext that they are good for us. However, the government is not giving us the right, as legislators, to take the time to examine those measures.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand. I am here today, we will be here tonight and I will be before the Senate in a few days. Frankly, this is an urgent matter. We decided to include these benefits in legislation that will help Canadians much more than the CERB did. It is far better to make the transition to employment insurance. The changes to EI are not legislative, they are regulatory. They do not involve legislation, but rather the regulations. Everything has been done. Over three million people are now making the transition to EI. The goal is to help Canadians and all workers.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, in its desperate rush to get NDP support, the government did not consult with the provinces, which have jurisdiction over most workers in Canada. Does the minister realize that Ontario workers who take two weeks of federally paid sick leave could lose their jobs? Provincially regulated workers with three job-protected unpaid sick days could be dismissed if they take two weeks of federally paid leave without the permission of their employer.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record. I recently had a meeting of all employment ministers in provincial and territorial governments and spoke with them directly about the three new benefits we intended to create. I respectfully requested that they amend their labour codes so they would parallel the changes we would like to make to the federal labour code to offer worker protection in both provincial and federal jurisdictions.

This happened during the CERB and I expect it to happen again. I have every confidence that the ongoing constructive relationships we have with provincial jurisdictions will result in worker protection in job to job to job, whether provincial, territorial or federal, it will not matter.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, so many people are left out. As I mentioned the other day, many people are unable to work or should not work, including seniors, for example. Because of the pandemic, students were unable to work. We know that with the WE scandal, any sort of support that was supposed to be provided for students is not there. I still wonder where those monies are.

There are many people in our society who fall through the cracks. Not addressing this is also a public health and safety issue. I think of the many people in my riding who are dealing with very complex trauma and mental health issues and who cannot hold a full-time job. We need to beef up our guaranteed income programs in this country. They are not liveable. OAS is not liveable. Motion No. 46 certainly offers a path forward for guaranteed liveable income programs so that all human beings can live with human rights and dignity in this country.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if one thing this pandemic has certainly laid bare, it is the massive gaps in our social safety net and how many of our systems do not respond to the needs of our citizens, workers and most vulnerable. It has also given us an opportunity to, as a legacy, do better by Canadians.

One of those systems that is dear to my heart is the employment insurance system, but we only need to look at our systems of delivering, or lack thereof, directly for our citizens with disabilities. There is a lot we need to fix. There is a lot we need to do working with provinces, as many of these programs are in other jurisdictions, but we have a mutual interest to support.

The benefits we are talking about today are for workers, for people who have lost employment income, but in no way does that diminish the importance of addressing the poverty and isolation felt by so many of our citizens who are vulnerable, at risk and for whom the pandemic has taken an incredible toll.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are grateful for the programs the government has been able to roll out, whether it was the CERB or the wage subsidy, and now we are here to talk about the CRB. Can the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion add one important piece that is missing? How are we going to get people back to work safely? What is the plan? The throne speech did not outline a plan. I am wondering if the minister has a plan, seeing as she is the minister for employment and workforce development. Can she elaborate on what that plan might be for Canadians when they elect to transition off of CRB and EI?