Debates of Feb. 1st, 2021

Standing Orders and Procedure

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

Madam Speaker, it is increasingly attractive because of the structural changes that have been made in this place. When we finally re-enter Centre Block, we will in fact have two chambers. I certainly support members who have said we need updates, and members sitting currently should know something about what is going on with the changes being made over there. The possibility of accelerating debates, hearing more private members' business and having two physical chambers within about 10 years is more attractive now than when it was hypothetical. I note that former member Frank Baylis did a lot of work in promoting this, and many of us signed on to that proposal in the previous Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, out of deference to my friend's interpretation of the rules, I did not heckle at all while she was speaking.

I very much agree with her comments about the Speaker retaining control over recognition. Although that is the rule, it is just an issue of party lists. It is not so much an issue of the rules as it is the practices of the House.

I agree with her about the issue of interjection. I recall, after one long day in Parliament, going home and watching Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rory Stewart debate the nature of human rights. I thought this is how Parliament should be: two members of the same party intervening to have a very deep back-and-forth about substantive questions on the origin and nature of human rights.

I want to ask the member about issues around prorogation. She proposes a procedure for prorogation, and some of it may come from the coalition crisis we had in late 2008 and early 2009. I observe that at that time, the reason we did not have a different government was not so much prorogation. It was because at the end of the day the Liberals backed down. Michael Ignatieff decided not to proceed. A lot of that was because of strong public pressure not to proceed, so it was not really—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Could members ask their questions so other members also have an opportunity to do so?

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, for the confidence conventions, I am not making recommendations based on any one episode, but one question remains: When should the Prime Minister be able to put forward a vote for prorogation?

We could make the same argument for this summer as we would have four years ago. The idea is that it is for a reset. That is why we prorogue. There are normal prorogations that are completely part of our parliamentary convention and I would never object to them. However, if the government cannot carry the confidence of the House after saying we need a restart and that it has done the work outlined in the Speech from the Throne, then I do not believe a prime minister should be able to go to the Governor General to prorogue.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am really glad my colleague pointed out in her speech that, too often, unfortunately, some of our colleagues read speeches.

I am not complaining. It is just something I notice a lot. We are expected to be experts on everything. One day we are talking about natural resources, and the next we are talking about international affairs. Unfortunately, we talk about everything superficially and never talk about anything in depth.

I agree with her, and I think we would have deeper discussions if we asked members to really think for themselves and not just read speeches written by assistants. All too often, that gives everyone a false impression of the debates we have here.

Does my colleague agree with me?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Jonquière and I thank him.

Debates certainly touch on a lot of subjects. I myself have never delivered a speech written by someone else. I always express my own ideas and use my own notes.

Reading speeches written by others is not real debate.

It like a bad high school play; it really ought to end.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope no member will feel I am playing the role in a bad high school play, as somebody who is not in the habit of reading canned speeches anyway.

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in some debate on the Standing Orders in the House. Often, these things are dismissed too quickly as being the wheelhouse of procedural wonks and we often fail to recognize the extent to which these rules really do affect outcomes in the House of Commons.

Sometimes those things flare up and we have moments where people are more appreciative of how the rules of the House affect the business of the nation. In between, we often do not pay them very much regard.

I know Madam Chair will appreciate some of that, having been a part of the studies of the estimates process we undertook at the government operations and estimates committee in the last Parliament.

I really want to zero in on something, and 10 minutes is not a very long time and there is a lot to discuss. However, partly because it is very germane to this Parliament, and any minority Parliament, I want to take time to talk about the confidence convention and some opportunities for us to make a difference when it comes to that.

It is a long-standing prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament whenever he or she sees fit. In Canada, that has really come to mean that the Prime Minister gets to dissolve Parliament when he sees fit, and with one short exception, it is pretty much always been a he. When we talk about the different roles and aspects that our government plays, this is really a place where the legislature, the House of Commons particularly, ought to have more say. I am not talking about the unelected other place in this instance. Canadians' elected representatives ought to have more say about when a Parliament ceases to work. I do not think that is a decision of the Prime Minister.

If we were to ask a lot of Canadians whether it should be up to the Prime Minister to decide whether he enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons as opposed to having the House of Commons decide whether the Prime Minister enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons, I think we would find that a lot of Canadians agree it makes more sense that the House decide that question. However, that is not the way our system works.

I have done a bit of work on this. As some members may know, the NDP tabled a supply motion in my name in November in order to try to come up with a solution to this problem, at least for now, short of amending legislation. There is the opportunity to try to do some of that work in the Standing Orders. As it stands, a no-confidence motion, or confidence motion, depending how one wants to frame it, could come either from the government as a motion or it could come any day from opposition parties.

The other thing that does not quite make sense is that an opposition party can put a no-confidence motion on the Notice Paper along with any number of motions and we would not know until the day of whether we were debating a motion of confidence or not. As we saw in the fall, we could have what appears to be a pretty simple matter of establishing a committee and the Prime Minister could decide the same day that it would be a confidence motion.

It really makes sense for democratically elected members of Parliament to have more say on whether the House of Commons has confidence in the government. Also, instead of the kind of gamesmanship that the current rules allow, if there were to be a confidence vote, members from more than one political party ought to be movers of that motion. There should be some agreement across party lines. Members should know days out whether there will be a question of confidence voted on by the House of Commons so everybody has time to prepare and to show up. I do not think these things should be done flying by the seat of our pants.

I encourage members to take a look at the proposal that was tabled then and I hope that by virtue of this interjection along with that from the member Saanich—Gulf Islands this will be sufficient for the procedure and House affairs committee to take up this issue as part of its study. Along with it, I would hope that it would look at the similar prerogative of the Crown whereby the Prime Minister is able to prorogue Parliament. There has been some discussion on that point.

I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for having raised that point, because it is something that we really ought to be looking at. She is quite right to say that there are uses for prorogation, although we have not seen any in a long time. I just wrote “prorogation” where the government is updating the agenda for a parliamentary session, but what we are all concerned about are the instances of political abuse of that power. One of the ways to prevent that abuse is not by discussing the reasons after it is already done, but by implicating legislators up front so that they have some say about the appropriateness of a prorogation before it transpires, and there are ways to do that.

Hugo Cyr has already been mentioned in this debate. He talks about having a rule that deems the Prime Minister to have lost the confidence of the House if he seeks a prorogation without its permission. What that means is that because the Governor General is only obligated to follow the advice of a prime minister who enjoys the confidence of the House, if he is deemed to have lost that confidence, it does not tie the Governor General's hands in the same way. That is something that certainly bears consideration.

I mentioned the estimates. I think the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, either itself or in consultation with another committee, particularly the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, should be examining how to take up the project of estimates reform. Some things were tried in the last Parliament. Some of those went well and some of them really did not, I have to say. It is no secret to members who were here in the last Parliament that I hold that view, but it was a good project and we should be endeavouring to learn whatever lessons we can from that experiment. Despite the fact that there are very concrete timelines governing when the estimates have to be brought to the House, the estimates were deferred when we saw the country in crisis, and Parliament agreed with that deferral.

One of the reasons the government presented consistently in the last Parliament for not having a fixed budget day, which would allow a proper alignment between the budget and the estimates, was that sometimes crises happen, and then the government's hands cannot be tied to present a budget at a specific time. We saw that in a crisis, Parliament is quite prepared to work collaboratively with government to bend some of those rules when it is in the country's interest, and we can reasonably expect that this Parliament would have been willing to do that for a budget, at least to a point. There are some legitimate arguments to be made about whether the government ought to have presented an economic statement or budget sooner than it did, but Parliament has demonstrated that it is reasonable on this point and that if the government does not meet the deadline because there is a genuine crisis, parliamentarians are willing to work with the government in that case.

We should be asking that question about a fixed budget date again, because we need to do something to get the budget cycle and the estimates cycle into alignment so that parliamentarians have a better idea of what they are studying and what the financial implications of it really are. In the current mode, even in the last Parliament, we were not there, and now that we have gone back to the rules that obtained before the last Parliament, we are very far away from having a well-functioning estimates process that Canadians and their elected representatives can understand.

On the question of a second chamber, I would say I quite like the new chamber. I would be happy to spend more time in it if folks in Elmwood—Transcona are gracious enough to give me the opportunity to continue serving them, but I would much rather see, when we go back to Centre Block, a second chamber established in the red chamber after the abolition of the Senate, which I think would be a wonderful thing to see. It would go a long way toward making Canada a true democracy in the 21st century.

Of course, we cannot speak to the rules of the Senate here, but what we can speak to is what I think has been a real travesty, something we saw in the last Parliament with a bill that would recognize and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We saw procedural shenanigans tie that bill up in a way that, as far as I am concerned, was completely inappropriate, given that it had the blessing of Canada's elected representatives. Reforming the other place is required, and as the House that actually represents Canadians by virtue of their choices and not prime ministerial patronage, it is important that we undertake to do whatever we can as a House to assert our will over theirs.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my hon. colleagues for their very interesting comments and ideas. I have heard a lot of good things, and some things I would disagree with as well.

I would like to ask the hon. colleague his opinion on making Parliament more family friendly for young people who want to run for office, and in particular for women who have children when it is so difficult to be far away from them if they do not live in the area around Parliament.

I would also like to know what his opinion is about keeping some of the virtual Parliament even after COVID-19 has passed.

Also, what is his opinion about the dress code, regarding men for instance? As the member for Sarnia—Lambton mentioned, in this day and age, even in business, men are somewhat less dressed with ties and suits when it is very hot, and things like that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but I have to allow the member to answer and have other members ask questions.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am satisfied with the dress code for men and would prefer that we spend our time and energy on other kinds of reform.

The biggest thing that we could do, particularly for young mothers, and also for MPs with young families in general, does not have to do with the Standing Orders. It has to do with having a proper day care that is accessible, not to just members but also staff on the Hill who may well have young families, and not just political staff but House staff as well. I do not think the House of Commons is where it needs to be in delivering reliable child care for the people who work all sorts of hours to make sure that Canada's democracy works. That is something I would like to see the House administration pursue with serious vigour until it succeeds, because it has not succeeded yet. That would do a lot, not just for MPs but also for all of the staff who animate our democracy here on the Hill.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk today about things like scripting and non-answers, and attire. I would even put decorum in that category to some extent. I question who should be the arbiter of these things. It is difficult to police a lot of these things. I would make an argument that, with our House of Commons broadcast, everything is available for constituents to see and that we can all share on social media what we see. When possible, I would like to leave it up to the public to hopefully get more engaged and watch, and then make their assessment at election time.

I wish I had more time to debate this with everybody, but I wonder if the member could give his thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I would tend to echo some of the remarks we have heard about the fact we do not need to change the rules as much as we need to change the culture. I would like to see more activist Speakers who have a better conception of how debates should be unfolding in the House, who really take unto themselves the powers that are already conferred on the Speaker under the Standing Orders. That can make a real difference.

I was not in the House at the time, but I have it on good authority from a number of members and former members that from 2006 to 2008 we had a deputy Speaker in the chair sometimes who was pretty good at bringing things to heel when the need arose. With the right attitude, a Speaker can do a lot under the existing rules.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech, in which he talked about the Senate.

There is no need to poll my colleagues to find out what we think about that institution. My colleague mentioned that we should perhaps reassess the Senate's role. Does he not think that the Senate should be abolished? What role does he think the Senate should play in the current context? He raised the issue in his speech, but I would like him to elaborate.

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

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, a chamber made up of non-elected officials does not have a very big role to play in democracy. It is as simple as that. However, the Senate does provide regional representation, so we should think about a way to maintain that role in an elected chamber.

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

Madam Speaker, it really is a great pleasure to be joining today's debate, and I have been listening with interest to the contributions from colleagues from all parties. It is a refreshing change from the debate that we are used to. It is great to hear the ideas coming forth, and the fact that so many people are engaged in this debate shows the level of interest.

I remember when I was first elected in 2015 and first received a copy of our gigantic House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I enjoyed going through it, and I admit that I was a bit of geek in trying to discover all the rules and procedures by which we operate. They are very much rooted in centuries of use, much of it inherited from the United Kingdom.

I am going to approach today's debate more from the perspective of a member of the opposition. The great Stanley Knowles gave a speech to the Empire Club in 1957. He stated:

It is the opposition's right to insist at all times on the full protection of the rules of debate. The government is entitled to that same protection, but in addition it has its majority with which to establish its will. The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the greater importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules.

We, of course, are in a minority situation, but in the last four years during the previous Parliament, the protection of those rules was very important to the members who sat in the opposing benches.

As the first part of my remarks on this debate, one of the things I would like to look at is the amount of time we devote to Private Members' Business. We have one hour scheduled for Private Members' Business each day of the week. For a member of Parliament to introduce a piece of legislation is indeed a huge honour, and I do not think that the government of the day has a monopoly on good ideas. Most of the time in the House, of course, is devoted to Government Orders. If we were to allocate more time for Private Members' Business to allow legislation to come through at a much faster pace, I think that would contribute to giving a lot more equality to the many great ideas that are out there.

For example, in the last Parliament's lottery, I drew the 159th spot. It took four whole years to come up to my turn, and then the House adjourned right before I was scheduled for my first hour of debate. It took us four years in the 42nd Parliament to cover 158 positions. I think that such a pace in examining legislation is far too slow and that we could really benefit by devoting more time to the consideration of Private Members' Business, be it bills or motions. I believe all MPs sitting in our House, not just members of the cabinet, have good ideas to share, and they should be given a full airing.

One other thing I would like to see the procedure and House affairs committee examine is the opportunity for MPs to launch a take-note debate based on the petitions they bring to the House. Former Speakers have agreed that the right of petitioning a Parliament for redress of grievances is certainly one of the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Petitioning the Crown and later Parliament for redress of a grievance originated in 13th century England. That is how old this practice is.

As it stands, MPs are allowed to have a short introduction when they table a petition, and then the government has 45 days in which to respond. Many times, when members of the opposition get that government response, they may not find it to be very satisfactory. However, we could have a mechanism that would allow MPs, once they had received the government response, to launch some kind of a take-note debate, especially for petitions with signatures that exceeded a certain threshold and showed there was great interest right across the country. Maybe we could allocate spots based on individual standings of the parties, but we could have a certain amount of time for people to bring forth for debate a petition that was of great national importance and explore why the issue needed to be part of the government's agenda. Such a measure could also give members of the opposition a lot more airtime to bring forth their constituents' concerns.

I also want to spend some time talking about how we can improve question period and debate in general. I often tell my constituents that question period is an hour of my life I will never get back each day. Trying to put forward a thoughtful question in 35 seconds and get a thoughtful response in 35 seconds, if we are honest with ourselves, is basically theatre.

I found it so refreshing over the summer when we, as a collective body, were sitting as part of the special committee on COVID-19. We had those five-minute spots where we could have that back-and-forth with a minister. One could have a bit of a longer introduction to one's question, ask the question, and then get the minister's response. Also, five minutes allows enough time to launch a rebuttal to the minister's response.

This would do two things: force ministers to go more in depth, because they could not just give the same canned answer; and force members of the opposition, if they actually did get an answer to their question, to change tack and really go with the flow of debate. I would love to see the Procedure and House Affairs Committee expand on that five minutes.

We also need to look at increasing the number of spots during the adjournment proceedings debate, which is a mechanism for MPs to follow up on a question that was asked during question period. Currently there are only three questions at a time, and they follow the format of a four-minute debate, a four-minute reply, a one-minute rebuttal and then a one-minute closing by the parliamentary secretary. This would be expanding that a bit more.

Those are two examples for the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to examine in our debate structure. First, reforming question to allow for that five-minute exchange, and maybe looking at whether that four, four, one and one debate format can fit into other areas of the House.

Another aspect I would really like to see is regarding the Standing Orders. Our Standing Orders, as they are currently written, allow each year, during the main estimates, the Leader of the Opposition to select two particular ministries that the committee of the whole can question. I would like to see that mechanism expanded. I really enjoy the committee of the whole format, where a member has 15 minutes to use in any way they choose. They can make part of it their speech or have a back-and-forth question period, but it is 15 minutes. During the four hours scheduled, it really allows members to have in-depth back-and-forth.

Either we expand the number allowed during the main estimates, or we expand the number of times it happens each year. I really think that would do more justice. It would allow members of Parliament who are not members of the governing party to have more interactions to hold the government to account.

I have heard a lot of comments on how we make Parliament more family friendly. I agree with some of my NDP colleagues who said no to eliminating a Friday sitting. I still believe that Friday sitting is important, and I am speaking as an MP who resides in a riding that is about as far away from Ottawa as one can get. For me, it is a nine-hour journey door to door.

We should be looking at making sure child care spaces are available to staff and MPs on the Hill, so parents see politics as a worthwhile enterprise. As well, in May and June, we have two five-week blocks separated by one constituency week. Why are we negotiating and scheduling five-week blocks of sittings? Could we not have a structure in place for our calendar where we have two-week blocks of sittings interspersed by one-week constituency weeks? That way MPs would not need to feel the pressure of travelling back to their ridings every weekend because they would be in Ottawa for a maximum of two weeks.

This is a great debate. I am really privileged to have been able to take part in it. I will conclude now, and I welcome any questions or comments my colleagues have.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, we have less than a minute for questions and comments.

If the member for Yukon could ask a question in 30 seconds or less, I would ask him to please do so, so the hon. member can answer.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, the member wanted to expand three types of debate: the take note on petitions, Private Members' Business and expanding the Adjournment Proceedings. There is already not enough time for government business.

What does the member think about the solution that Britain and Australia have of having a second chamber where we could have much more of all three of the items he wants?

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

Madam Speaker, I am certainly willing to consider that. That conversation needs to take place when we move back into Centre Block. What are we going to do with the current chamber that is in West Block? Perhaps rather than converting it into committee rooms, we could see it stay as it is.

That is absolutely something we could consider.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 51(2), the matter is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Veterans Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, before the Christmas break, I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs to explain why Veterans Affairs Canada was calling veterans across the country who were deemed eligible for and were already receiving the diminished earning capacity determination and telling them that they suddenly were no longer eligible.

In a specific case, the veteran was told that the office had lost the information that provided the proof of his eligibility and wanted the veteran to find the paperwork for the department. In my opinion, that is the problem of the government, not the veteran.

I hear from veterans across Canada about how frustrated they are when they experience having to reprove, again and again, serious health issues or concerns. We should do better for them.

In response to my question, the minister said that he appreciated my question and would look into the situation. He promised to address it promptly. I followed up with a letter, and the veterans and I are still waiting. Fairness should be at the very core of our supports for veterans after they served us so well.

We see the reality, though. The reality is that right now veterans are on a huge wait list for disability supports, tens of thousands of veterans. We still see veterans pointing out that the pension system is not fair in our country. With different streams, some veterans are eligible for certain access to programs while others are not. It is not based on the needs of veterans, but when they applied.

Also, veterans have had significant timelines missed because the workers at Veterans Affairs Canada are burning out faster than they can be replaced. It is absolutely appalling that veterans who did the work on time but did not get the supports when they needed them are now left out of certain programs simply because timelines were missed because service providers were not there.

Most recently, we saw the veterans ombudsman's report on the serious concerns around restrictions on mental health supports for families. That is seriously shocking for me. We know that veterans need a stable family. If the supports are not there for that family, that family could break down, and that is not good for veterans.

Veterans have fought for our country. Just recently we saw them go into horrific situations in seniors' long-term care homes during COVID. I represent 19 Wing Comox. I am amazed by the service I see in our communities across Canada. For example, last year the serving members from 19 Wing went to Shamattawa First Nation to help out during the COVID outbreak.

I cannot say enough good things about our search and rescue folks. They help people in situations I cannot even imagine walking into.

When will Canada get it right and serve our men and women in uniform correctly? Why do we have service people, veterans who have served our country now being told they are no longer eligible even though they were receiving the benefit? It does not make sense. When will the Liberal government fix it?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada takes very seriously any claim made by a veteran that they have been treated unjustly. We ask so much of our military members and we know that the traumas some have suffered have severely affected their ability to earn a living after they are released.

Veterans Affairs Canada is committed to ensuring the well-being of veterans and their families and does its best to ensure that the men and women who donned the uniform and helped shape our nation get adequate support in post-service life.

Veterans Affairs Canada uses the diminished earning capacity determination to ensure that eligible veterans, meaning those who, even after rehabilitation, are unable to return to the workforce and find sufficient gainful employment to support themselves and their family, receive financial assistance through the income replacement benefit. A group of very capable and highly qualified case managers and health care professionals participate in the decision-making process and ensure that veterans receive the highest level of support possible.

The top priority of Veterans Affairs Canada is to ensure that veterans get the support they need when they need it, and that includes financial support.

With that said, I can confirm that VAC staff was given no direction to contact veterans who have been determined to have diminished earning capacity or to abruptly adjust eligibility and remove benefits. If an individual veteran has concerns with the diminished earning capacity determination, they should absolutely reach out to the department so any questions can be properly addressed.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his response. When I hear that response, though, my concern is that what we are seeing is a process problem within the department where veterans are being told they are eligible, now they are not eligible, they might be eligible, or we cannot find the proper paperwork and can they send it in.

I also want to remind the member that the minister said directly to me that he would respond and let us know, but we are still waiting. We have been waiting for a response now for almost two months.

If the parliamentary secretary could take that back to the department, we need to make it right. Veterans serve us. It is important that we get it right for them and I am calling on the government to finally do that.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will say again that no one at Veterans Affairs Canada was given direction to contact veterans about the determination of their diminished earning capacity.

This support mechanism testifies to the many risks that members of our military must face throughout the course of their military careers. We are extremely grateful to all of the veterans for the sacrifices they have made, particularly to those who have suffered debilitating injuries in the line of duty.

As always, the Government of Canada will do everything it can to ensure that these individuals and all other veterans get adequate support in post-service life.

Employment

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, at the start of this pandemic almost a year ago, many Canadian workers suddenly lost their work. Millions found themselves without an income and with no way to pay for rent or food. The Liberal government suggested that we could fix that with tweaks to the employment insurance system. The NDP pointed out that most Canadian workers did not even qualify for EI because they are self employed. They are artists, musicians, or contract workers, or workers in the gig economy. Most of them make modest incomes, but are proud that they can work and make enough to get by.

The NDP suggested that all these workers should receive $2,000 per month to keep their lives together, so they could keep their homes and keep food on the table, and thankfully the government ended up agreeing with us and CERB was born. The Prime Minister said repeatedly that the government would always be there for these workers. When nine million workers applied for CERB, they had to attest that they had made more than $5,000 in total income in the last 12 months. Now we hear that 400,000 of these workers who applied for CERB in good faith and met those criteria have received letters demanding that they repay thousands of dollars in CERB payments. They received those letters just before Christmas. Many of them simply do not have the money to repay, and they should not have to. They followed the rules.

The bill this House voted on to create CERB defined those eligible for support as “a person who...for 2019 or in the 12-month period preceding the day on which they make an application under section 5, has a total income of at least $5,000”. The CRA website listed the eligible sources of income to include income from self employment. That is the bill that I and other members of the House voted for. It clearly stated “total income”, not “net income” and not “taxable income”. Now the government has changed the rules to say that the $5,000 should be net income.

One of my constituents, Carol, made just under $10,000 in that previous year, but the CRA now says that she made just under $5,000, a few dollars less than the limit, so she was one of the ones who got a letter asking her to repay her CERB supports. It was Carol I was talking about in my question to the Prime Minister, and it was his unhelpful answer that triggered this adjournment debate. Carol was so disappointed with the Prime Minister's reply that she wrote him a long, desperate letter outlining why she had applied for CERB, why she was qualified to receive it and why she cannot possibly pay the money back without losing everything, including her business.

Carol is not alone. I also heard from Jai, who also qualified under the total income provisions, but is now being asked to repay $6,000. Jai is living with disabilities and a low income, and for her $6,000 is an impossible sum to repay. We are hearing from thousands of Canadians, people with home-based aesthetics salons who closed their doors to protect public health and reopened when they were allowed to, but now face greatly reduced business. These business owners had small incomes to help them get by. Those incomes are largely gone because of COVID. They cannot repay these supports they thought the government was giving them to make sure that they and their businesses survived. They are angry, disappointed and, frankly, they are scared.

When will the government admit that it made the mistake here, and not these hard-working Canadians?