SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/17/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/17/23 12:03:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the outset of the pandemic, a number of very young adults graduated out of foster care. Of course, in the first summer of the pandemic, there was no employment because the economy was effectively shut down for public health reasons. Normally, kids graduating out of foster care, if they did not have employment, would apply for social assistance with the provincial government. The Government of Manitoba told them that it would not even entertain their applications unless they had applied for every other possible source of revenue. Of course, at that time, CERB had just been made available, so the provincial government gave those kids the link and said they should go and apply. The provincial government knew full well that it was a no-fail application process. Those kids did what the government told them to do. They applied for the CERB and started receiving CERB because they were not eligible for social assistance. Then, much later, they were told by the federal government that they were not eligible for social assistance and that they had to pay all the money back. Of course, the provincial government was not going to give them back pay on the social assistance that they otherwise would have been entitled to. These are some of the people who are now struggling to pay back that CERB debt. To insist on these kids' paying that debt back to the federal government is a surefire way to undermine them as they try to get a start in life after a difficult childhood. The federal government says it is going to deal compassionately with these cases using a case-by-case approach, but the evidence is that a lot of people are getting the bills in the mail. They are having a hard time getting through to the CRA. They are not getting the debt relief they require. The compassionate thing to do would be to have a general policy of debt amnesty for low-income Canadians who got CERB but were not eligible. That is the compassionate approach, but the government refuses to do it and, instead, insists on this case-by-case approach. Let us contrast that with the treatment of companies under the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. As early as December 2020, the Financial Post was reporting that at least 68 companies that got the wage subsidy were paying out dividends to their shareholders. Some of those companies include Imperial Oil and Suncor, which would go on to make record profits. I mean that they made more profit than they have ever made, ever in their entire history, over the course of the pandemic. Do members know how much the government has asked them to repay? It is zero dollars. Let us talk about the Ottawa country club that got the Canada emergency wage subsidy. It actually ended up having a banner year because it had a way for people to play golf in a socially distanced manner. It decided to advance its capital plan to repave its parking lot by about three years with the money it got from the emergency wage subsidy program. Do members know how much it has been asked to repay? It is zero dollars, not a cent. In Edmonton, Cessco Fabrication and Engineering Ltd. locked out its employees and used the wage subsidy to hire scab labour to come in behind the picket line and perform the work of unionized employees who were exercising their legal and constitutional right to strike. Do members know how much it has been asked to pay back? It is zero dollars. Why is it that foster kids graduating out of care in Manitoba during a global pandemic, who were told by government to apply for the CERB and just did what they were told, cannot get any compassionate relief policy out of the government, but giant corporations that got money they were not entitled to, which then went on to abuse workers, spend money on parking lots or pay it out to wealthy shareholders, are not being pursued by the government in the same way? Where is the fairness in that?

694 words

Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/17/23

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

May/17/23 12:07:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe our government's approach during the pandemic was compassionate, fair and responsible. I listened tonight to my colleague, and I mentioned before the respect I have for him. He continues to raise such matters, as is his right, but he neglects to mention what the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or the CEWS, a signature pandemic emergency response program, was all about. Yes, wage subsidy support did go to large corporations, but the vast majority of the funds under the program went, in fact, to small businesses. It went to medium-sized businesses as well, but, in the main, it was small businesses, mom-and-pop shops, restaurants, retailers, those in manufacturing and entrepreneurs who had started businesses and had put their blood, sweat and tears into those businesses. They were the ones getting the support. Failing to mention that, in a way, takes us down a path that would misunderstand what the CEWS program was all about. It was about keeping employees on the payroll. It was about making sure those employees who had been laid off as a result of the pandemic could be rehired. By and large, it was an enormous success. If my colleague is looking for perfection, he will look a long time. There is no perfect policy, but I go back to the fact that in the context of a pandemic, where one had to fly the plane and build it at the same time, so to speak, this proved to be an enormously successful program. My friend does not have to take that only from me; he can talk to the business community. He will note that unions have spoken about the importance of the wage subsidy. Again, it is not a perfect program, but it is a program that did help enormous numbers of Canadians, businesses and their employees, by the thousands. In my own community of London, Ontario, I saw it at work. It was quite successful there as well. Whether it is on the street or in the constituency office, I continue to hear about the role it had.

352 words

Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/17/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/17/23 12:11:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think my friend needs a slight history lesson. He will recall that it was actually the NDP that called for the wage subsidy program in the first place. The Liberals proposed a 10% wage replacement rate, and New Democrats argued for a 75% replacement rate because we understood that this was an important program. This is not to take away from the good work CEWS did, just as the CERB did a lot of good work, but the difference is that in the case of the wage subsidy the people who abused it, who should not have received it, were big corporations making a lot of money. In the case of CERB, there is a whole bunch of people who did abuse that program by committing identity fraud and through other ways of getting it. The New Democrats have been very clear that this money should be pursued. However, for the folks who applied in desperation and who continue to have low incomes, New Democrats believe compassion has to be shown. Why is there compassion for giant companies and not compassion for the poor?

187 words