Debates of Sept. 29th, 2020

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, 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, 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.

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

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before we continue, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised on September 28, 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 as 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to place the context of this debate under the looming end of the Canada emergency response benefit. We are having this debate, and its urgency can be linked to the fact that the Liberals prorogued Parliament on August 18. We could have used the six weeks between that time and the scheduled return of Parliament to deal with this.

Would the member agree with me that the Liberals' action of proroguing Parliament on August 18 left many Canadian families with a deep sense of uncertainty and, as a result, we are now having to do all of this at the eleventh hour in an incredibly rushed fashion?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have to disagree with him. I think the government has been outstanding in its response to the pandemic thus far. Over the last several weeks, the government has planned a new agenda from the Speech from the Throne. We worked together as best we could with opposition parties to craft the modalities that are in Bill C-4. I know that we share the same objective, which is that Canadians who are out of work at this time or who need to stay home because of COVID–19 get these benefits and are protected within federally regulated workforces. I very much hope my hon. colleague will be supporting this bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

Although I did start out to speak to Bill C-2, which has the same name, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4. I certainly agree with the ruling the Speaker just made. It is an improved bill and better addresses the needs of citizens affected by COVID-19 either directly or indirectly.

The bill, or at least some of the issues and policy flowing out of the bill, shows that this place, the Parliament of Canada, can work well for Canadians through discussions, compromise and a willingness to accept the fact that not any one party has a lock on good ideas or good policy approaches.

While this bill looks forward, I do believe it is important to take a moment to recognize how far we have come since this place basically closed down in March, when we were sent home to try to operate Parliament in a different way. A lot of programs have come out to help people and businesses weather as best they can the financial and health difficulties caused by the pandemic.

Regardless of political stripe, I believe we have to say the government acted quickly. It introduced programs that made a huge difference for the economy, for families and for businesses. It did so quickly. In terms of CERB. I do not think we would have thought it possible that the public service and the government could actually come up with a program that could handle 10,000 applications a minute. That is a pretty phenomenal feat, and I think we should be proud of that.

I went through them today and by my count there are slightly over 100 programs that have been introduced. Liquidity has been provided to the lending institutions, coordinated planning has been established with the provinces and territories, and programs have been flowing out of the Government of Canada based on discussions with the premiers, and in fact with all parties in this House. Roughly $19 of every $20 have come from the federal coffers. Some of my colleagues on the former finance committee will talk a lot about the deficit. However, it is a fact that the federal government is better positioned to carry some of that debt rather than transferring it to individuals, businesses or indeed the provinces, because our rates are preferred, and we certainly hope they stay that way.

Programs were introduced, subject to change, which is unusual. They were not introduced with a hard line that they were going to be the bottom line come hell or high water. They were introduced subject to change, recognizing there were going to be problems and changes that needed to be made. They were improved with the input of members from all parties. I doubt the public knows, but all of us in this House know that members had the opportunity to participate in daily conference calls with senior members from several departments across the Government of Canada.

Through those calls, we had the opportunity to question and discuss, and programs were improved with input accepted from all members. Members could give their input based on how they saw the programs working on the ground, whether it was CERB or any other program. They could give that input from whatever region of the country they reside in.

We must acknowledge members of the public service for participating in program development, in working long hours and participating in those conference calls night after night after night. They would explain programs and answer questions. They would sometimes take criticism. They would accept changes and make recommendations to the various ministries as a result.

We were not always successful in the issues we put forward. I know both the member for Edmonton Centre and I put forward in those nightly calls that CEBA needed to be changed to allow personal bank accounts to be considered. That still has not changed. I am still demanding that the government change that so the people with personal bank accounts and not business accounts can qualify for the CEBA or the RRRF. That needs to be done.

Members from all parties have raised that point. It should not be a program where the banks get the benefit. It has to be a program where people get the benefit. I am disappointed in how I see the banks living up to their obligations in the pandemic at the moment, because they have been provided billions of dollars of liquidity. Many of us in this House agree that change needs to be made.

I sincerely want to thank all members of the public service for their efforts under trying circumstances. They are under the pressure of a health crisis, working from home and working under completely different circumstances than they are used to.

All the programs made a difference. I can certainly say in my riding and across the country the big ones were CERB, the wage subsidies and CEBA. However, now it is time for future extensions and future improvements. That is what we have in Bill C-4. As my colleague before me mentioned, there are three main areas in this bill, three new benefits.

The first is the Canada recovery benefit, which will provide $500 per week for up to 26 weeks for workers who meet the eligible criteria. In other words, they do not qualify for employment insurance, are not employed or have a reduction of at least 50% in employment or self-employment earnings and are available and looking for work. That is important. I do not mind admitting that one of the concerns I have with CERB is I hear from too many businesses that they cannot find workers. There has to be balance here. We need to be there for people who cannot find work, but people also have to be willing to work if work is available. The changes made under employment insurance make it necessary for people to be going out there and striving to gain work.

The second major area in this bill is the Canada recovery sickness benefit. That will provide the same amount of money I mentioned in the first program. This is for workers who are unable to work at least 50% of their normal work because they contracted COVID-19, have underlying conditions, are undergoing treatment or have contracted another sickness that would make them more susceptible to COVID-19.

The third area is the Canada recovery caregiving benefit which will also provide $500 per week for up to 26 weeks per household for eligible workers who are unable to work at least 50% of their normal work and need to take unpaid leave to care for a child under the age of 12 due to school or day care closure, or a family member who requires supervised care and is unable to attend a day program.

There are changes. What I tried to outline is that a lot has happened since the COVID-19 pandemic hit this country. All parties can take some credit for those programs.

The government moved rapidly and with this bill today we see how we are recognizing some of the lessons learned from the programs we have put out there and that there needs to be other changes made. I do not have time to go into the employment insurance changes, but they are good as well. We need to debate them further and continue on improving them until we see the end of this pandemic.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for the hard work he did on chairing the finance committee.

In that committee, we did a lot of good work. It is a real disappointment that work got shut down when Parliament was prorogued. One of the great things we did at committee was we would study. We would study the effectiveness of programs, government programs and some of the packages that were put out.

We now have a new bill in front of us in which, given what we have seen before, we have the highest spending per capita in the G7 and the highest unemployment. The two do not coincide very well. We now are going to approve another bill in effectively two days. Is the member not concerned that we are not doing further analysis on what is within this bill like we would normally do at committee?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have enjoyed working with the member for Edmonton Centre on the finance committee as well. In fact, between early April and probably early June the committee heard between 300 and 400 witnesses provide their views on COVID–19.

We are in an urgent situation at the moment. The pandemic continues to evolve. We are in the second wave. We know the CERB is running out. We have an obligation as a government to move as rapidly as we can and have a fairly reasonable debate in the House. It is always better to take more time, but we just do not have the time. The need is there at the moment. The government is showing it is willing to change and adapt programs, and I am sure it would be willing to do the same with this one as we go down the road and the needs arise.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I found it interesting, especially when he said that his government had learned some lessons from what happened in the spring.

If we remember what happened in the spring, we had a government that was pushing all kinds of measures and programs through quickly, saying time was of the essence. Often we would give it the benefit of the doubt and let things slide. Then we would ask for corrections, but the government would refuse them. For example, the work incentives that we proposed implementing in CERB would not have prevented people from receiving the benefit; they would have simply resulted in a better economic recovery.

A new bill is under consideration, and we barely had time to read it. It is going to have to be passed when it could have as many flaws, if not more, than the existing programs. I am trying to understand what they learned from the spring, because I feel like we are going through exactly the same thing.