44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2023 02:00PM
- Sep/20/23 6:15:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities.
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for placing his trust in me. I would also like to thank the people of Pierrefonds—Dollard for their support.
I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for his motion and his deep and personal concern for persons with disabilities, including children and youth. When it comes to creating a more inclusive and equitable country for persons with disabilities, we strongly must agree together. This must remain a government priority and a priority for all members of this House.
I am pleased to tell the opposition member that our government supports his motion.
In fact, this motion is consistent with the government's priorities. It is also consistent with our legislative program to promote the full social and economic inclusion of persons with disabilities. When it comes to educational opportunities for persons with disabilities, Canada is committed both domestically and internationally.
In the next moments, I will speak about our government's actions toward building a fairer and more inclusive Canada for all. This includes channelling our efforts through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act. I am especially proud of the historic Accessible Canada Act, which became law in 2019; and Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan, introduced in 2022. These are importantly supported going forward.
The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin specifically seeks greater support for the inclusion of children with disabilities into the education system. This motion ties federal spending to specific measures to achieve that goal, here in Canada and through our international commitments. As we know, education falls within the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, except for the first nations education on reserve. However, the federal government does play a key role in building and maintaining a system of quality education across the country. We provide specific block transfers to the provinces and territories through the Canada social transfer, including for post-secondary education. We will not intervene in matters under provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
In the spirit of “Nothing Without Us”, we remain committed to directly engaging with the disability community. Of course, we work with our provincial and territorial colleagues to use every tool at our disposal to remove barriers to quality education. Part of that collaboration with provincial and territorial and indigenous partners has been the establishment of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Inclusive and equitable access to the system is built into the government's agreements with provinces and territories. Federal funding is being used by our provincial and territorial partners to provide supports that can address these unique circumstances with each and every individual child and family.
In addition, last June, our government announced a $12.5-million investment under the engaging accessibility fund, small projects component. This supported 225 early learning and child care centres to buy specialized equipment for children with special needs so they can thrive in those environments. Through agreements we have reached with provinces and territories, we are building an affordable child care system that is accessible and inclusive to all Canadians in every region of the country. It is disappointing that the Conservative Party does not see the value in this historic program.
All this is in addition to supporting lifelong learning and skills development opportunities for working-age persons with disabilities, for example, the workforce development agreements program and the opportunity fund.
Let me briefly circle back to the disability inclusion action plan. The action plan has four key pillars. First is financial security; second, employment; third, accessible and inclusive communities; and fourth, a modern approach to disability across the federal government. We know that when persons with disabilities have equal opportunities to contribute to our society and to Canada, our economy grows and strengthens. We achieve the Canada we want through this: a country that is a richer and more vibrant and inclusive country.
There is still much work to do, but we are making important progress. We are working alongside the disability community.
A good, quality education is key to being lifted out of poverty and to one's social advancement. It increases the chances of finding a good job and earning higher wages. There is always the opportunity to learn on the job and develop additional skills.
Persons with disabilities often face barriers to attaining higher levels of education. This can lead to a lifetime of inequality. It can also deny capable and willing Canadians the opportunity to fully contribute, which takes away from the economy.
Statistics Canada has the data. The percentage of school-aged youth with disabilities drops considerably as they transition from high school to young adulthood. Women with disabilities are more likely than men with disabilities to quit formal education or training because of their condition.
First, we know that greater educational opportunity means greater participation by persons with disabilities in the labour market. Second, we are living in a time of labour market shortages and market transitions as we gradually shift away from traditional jobs to a greener economy. This brings us to the logical conclusion that when persons with disabilities achieve their full potential and thrive so does all of Canada.
That is why we, as a Liberal government, will continue to invest in persons with disabilities. We want and need persons with disabilities to have the financial supports they need. This is to help them complete their studies and successfully move into the workforce.
This past June, Bill C-22 received royal assent. This was a very significant victory for the disability community. We must savour that win and take in that moment. The Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities will be moving forward to deliver the Canada disability benefit to those who need it the most. This significant, transformative piece of legislation is unique. It will lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty and will genuinely improve the lives of Canadians.
I know and fully understand that many are anxious to bring this benefit to the finish line. As we bring it to the finish line, we must not cut corners with the quality of the engagements the minister is leading with the disability community. We must make sure the benefit is what the disability community needs. We are focused on getting this right. We will get it right.
I hope to see all members of this House support the Canada disability benefit. It is not enough to say that we need to be more inclusive. We must also take concrete actions. We will take more concrete actions.
It is important to recognize that there exists an array of disabilities. This community is not a homogenous group. Disabilities vary in type and severity. The barriers that one person faces might be different from those of another.
Our government is committed to ensuring the full participation and inclusion of all persons with disabilities.
Through historic milestones such as the Accessible Canada Act, the Canada disability benefit and the disability inclusion action plan, we are moving away from an ableist mindset of what is possible. There are many possibilities. They are now being put into action and they will become a reality, because inclusion benefits everyone.
I would like to close by giving thanks to the disability community and the advocates involved in this space. I thank them for their work, for pressing and pushing, for getting us to where we are thus far and for helping us get across the finish line.
1287 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:25:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this issue. I would like to thank my colleague who moved the motion today.
It feels a little like Groundhog Day with this motion. I was listening earlier to the speech by my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, as well as the speeches from my other colleagues. Basically, this motion could be called “Canada is not doing enough for the less fortunate” or “Canada is turning its back on a bunch of people”. That pretty much sums it up. We would not need this motion today if Canada were doing enough for people with disabilities. Today, we are talking about children with disabilities.
I have often spoken on various issues. I have just returned from a tour all over Quebec. I visited all of Quebec's regions this summer, including Abitibi, Gaspé, Lac-Saint-Jean, the Eastern Townships, Montreal and Gatineau. Every region is facing extremely difficult situations. According to a recent report by the Quebec government, there are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec. How can we accept that? Winter is coming, and those people are going to be left to live outside. Some of them will die because of our inaction and our lack of commitment to the least fortunate in our society. I do not know how anyone can accept that.
We do a lot of debating in the House and all sorts of bills are introduced, but sometimes I get the impression that we are not making any progress. This motion is a sad reminder of that. We are talking about children with disabilities, and earlier I spoke about homelessness, but we can also talk about housing. The government is aware of the statistics. Everyone here is talking about them. The housing crisis was the major theme of the summer. Canada needs 3.5 million housing units to address this crisis. The numbers are astronomical. That is related to the issue we are considering now. We need a national plan so we can take care of the most vulnerable members of our society.
We need 1.1 million housing units in Quebec. We should stop everything and discuss just that, especially with winter on the way. What are we going to do about it? We need an industrial plan. We need measures that are just as broad as those that were proposed at the beginning of the pandemic. We stopped everything. I remember one evening when we adopted an $82-billion plan that involved sending cheques to everyone across the country to help industries, workers and individuals pay their rent. We stopped everything to deal with that crisis. We are in a major crisis right now that is at least as serious, but we are not dealing with it. We are not doing enough. I cannot understand it.
I will never be as moving as my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou in discussing these issues. However, I have some relevant personal experience. One of my nephews has Asperger syndrome. He is 33 now, and has spent the past 20 years or so in his room, playing video games. Now and then he comes downstairs to get a glass of juice or milk from the refrigerator, a sandwich or a cookie, then goes back upstairs to his room. He never speaks to anyone. What could be more devastating for a parent than to think their child will never have a social life or friends?
I had an experience that ties in with the motion we are considering today. When my son was in kindergarten, he was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Alarm bells go off in a parent's mind. My nephew had already been going through this for 20 years and I know that he had a very difficult life. He had no friends. It was hard for him to get to school, to go outside or even have a simple conversation with someone. It was the school psychologist who told us that my son might have this disorder. It is thanks to him that a light went off in our heads, but then we needed to find a clinic to get a proper diagnosis so that the school psychologists and professionals could offer him good care to help him learn.
Members can imagine our panic. I remember living in that reality for a year. We looked for a specialist but could not find one. How is it that, in this country, people cannot get the services they need for their children?
This ties in with a story that ran on television this week. It featured a young, single mother who has two children with disabilities. She, too, was unable to find the services to simply have her children diagnosed. It is an uphill battle. What exactly do we mean when we are talking about this? How can we take action?
Health is a provincial jurisdiction. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou mentioned that. Why is it that, in the negotiations a few months ago, the provinces were asking for $6 billion, but Quebec did not even get $1 billion? It is as though it is not important. Who is getting let down when this happens? Who is not getting taken care of when Quebec gets a cheque for a measly $800 million, when there is need for $6 billion? All of the Canadian provinces were in agreement. Everyone was asking for it. All the provinces were asking the same thing. As my colleague just mentioned, the government gives to oil companies. This country refuses to put a roof over the heads of the most disadvantaged. A single mother is denied the support she needs to have her children diagnosed. What are we doing instead?
According to the International Monetary Fund, $50 billion was invested in the oil industry in 2022. How can that even be? I would remind the House that, in 2022, the five big oil companies cleared $220 billion. In other words, Canada is making billionaires richer, but doing nothing for 10,000 homeless people in Quebec. It is doing nothing for parents who are worried sick about the future of their children who have all kinds of problems. People talked about the autism spectrum and children with a visual or physical disability. These are tragedies. These are not easy lives. These people need support. As a country, do we not have the means to help all these people? Do we want to make other choices, such as enriching billionaires instead of supporting our society's least fortunate? I simply will not accept that. I want us all to be aware of the real issues. Instead of looking up at the billionaires, we need to look down where the needs are.
For example, we also need housing units that are adapted for adults with disabilities. We were talking about the needs of children, but children become adults. In my riding, there is a wonderful housing resource for adults with intellectual disabilities. It is called L'appart à moi and it consists of six amazing housing units. In the basement, there is a shared kitchen where people can meet up. They gather, they hold meetings, they organize activities and they go on outings. In the spring, they even came here to Parliament. I brought the people from L'appart à moi to Parliament. I am talking in particular about Étienne Grutman, who follows politics and spends his time liking my posts on Facebook. Perhaps he is watching right now. I want Étienne to know that we are going to work here in the House to make sure that all of the people like him across Quebec and Canada have access to a resource like L'appart à moi. We will never stop. I promise him that. We will not stop until we fulfill our promise to work for the less fortunate, the most vulnerable and the marginalized, the only promise that should be important, the only lasting promise, the only promise that should guide us. This motion talks about exactly that.
I thank my colleague for moving this motion. I promise him that the Bloc Québécois will support it and that we will never give up the fight for the less fortunate in Quebec and Canada.
1400 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:34:35 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has five minutes for his right of reply.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:34:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, John F. Kennedy once said, “Things do not happen. Things are made to happen.” That is the spirit with which I approached this important debate tonight. That is the spirit with which I will approach the call to action that will follow to help create an environment where every single person has a chance to thrive and contribute to their full potential.
Next Wednesday, when we gather in the House to vote on this motion, 338 members of Parliament will stand in their place and, one by one, publicly indicate whether they believe in this statement: “in the opinion of the House, where the federal government spends money on education, domestically or internationally, clear consideration must be given to the maximum inclusion of people with disabilities, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.”
It is important to point out that this is just a motion. It is not a piece of legislation. While it is an important step in the right direction, the vote next week should not be viewed as an outcome, let alone any form of comprehensive outcome. A unanimous vote for this motion would do absolutely nothing on its own. The interim outcome of this debate and of the subsequent vote will be the consensus that is formed.
I believe the motion will pass, because it is designed to pass. It is very intentionally designed to find some common ground in a world where common ground is very hard to find. Once this motion passes, it would create an accountability mechanism working to ensure that inclusivity is a part of every conversation a Canadian federal government has around education, because the people having those conversations will have publicly committed to that.
When the federal government negotiates agreements with indigenous leaders around education, we will be agreeing that clear consideration must be given to the maximum inclusion of people with disabilities. When the federal government spends money on education through the Canada social transfer or other federal programs, we will be agreeing that clear consideration must be given to the maximum inclusion of people with disabilities. When the federal government spends money on education internationally, as it does through hundreds of millions of dollars in investments to organizations like Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education, we will be agreeing that clear consideration must be given to the maximum inclusion of people with disabilities. Next week, each member of the House will stand to clearly indicate their individual position on and, I hope, commitment to this statement.
Earlier, I talked about outcomes. Ultimately, these outcomes will be realized person by person, as individuals with disabilities and, in particular, intellectual and developmental disabilities, are included in education systems along with their brothers and sisters, neighbours and friends, regardless of where they live in Canada and around the world. These potential outcomes are not limited just to education, because if we get inclusive education right, every single young person, regardless of their abilities or whatever label we attach to them, will come out with a more diverse perspective. They will have a different understanding, and they will bring that understanding to the places where they live and the places where they work, so our living places and our workplaces will become more inclusive as well.
These potential outcomes are not limited to vast improvements in the lives of people with disabilities, because as we work to build and support systems domestically and internationally that reach the most vulnerable people in the world, we will reach everyone else along the way. When we wire our hearts to include girls with disabilities, including intellectual and development disabilities, in education systems in the most challenging contexts in the world, we will reach every girl in the world. When we wire our hearts to include boys with disabilities, including intellectual and development disabilities, in education systems in refugee camps and war zones, we will better reach all kids in refugee camps and war zones and, of course, every less challenging environment in the world. Most importantly, when we include people with disabilities in all aspects of our societies, when we work to mitigate the challenges they face and unlock the skills and abilities they have, just like we do with everyone else, our societies will benefit from an immense potential previously unrecognized.
In a world where we seem to disagree on almost everything, this is one area where we should have some agreement. My sincere hope is that, next week, every member of the House will stand in common agreement with the words of this motion, and then understanding that the mission the motion seeks to advance will not advance itself, we will continue to work together to make it happen. Things do not happen. Things are made to happen. Let us make this happen.
809 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:39:55 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:41:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:41:50 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:42:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in 2018, the House was seized with a very emotive and serious issue. This was the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic, a child killer, from a maximum-security prison to a much less secure facility, a healing lodge. I remember the debate in the House and reading the stories of how the families of the victim were retraumatized through this decision. That was five years ago.
Before the summer constituency break, we had a very similar debate in the House. This was when it was revealed that a mass murderer, mass child killer Paul Bernardo, had been transferred from a maximum-security prison to a less secure facility.
Five years passed. I do not understand why the government did not make changes to ensure that this type of revictimization of families in the most serious crimes did not happen again. How did it happen again?
The former minister, Ralph Goodale, who was overseeing the McClintic file, failed upwards into an ambassadorial position. In fact, the Liberals, in 2018, actually amended the Criminal Code to require that inmates are held in the “least restrictive environment possible.”
It has been five years. Out of respect for victims and families, I would like to see some unanimity in this place on two things. First, the government should acknowledge that this is not appropriate. I would like the government to say that mass murderers should stay in maximum-security prisons. I would like to hear this from the member who is responding to this question, that the government agrees with that principle. Second, very importantly, the government should agree to rescind the amendment that they made in the former bill, Bill C-83, and say that the “least restrictive environment” should not apply to mass murderers and child killers like Paul Bernardo and Terri-Lynne McClintic.
The other thing that I would like the member who is replying to this question to say is whether the Prime Minister has agreed to issue a directive to require all mass murderers to remain in maximum security for their entire sentence. That should be done so that this does not happen again, so that we are not having this discussion and revictimizing families again.
This should be a principle that every person in this House agrees to, and it is the government's job. The government has the responsibility and the capacity to do this. The buck stops with the government.
Those are the three things I would like to hear: that mass murderers should remain in maximum security prisons for the duration of their sentence; that the government will repeal the “least restrictive environment” provision that it put forward and passed; and that the government will issue a directive to require all mass murderers to remain in maximum security for the entirety of their sentence, so that we do not have another family of a victim of a child killer or mass murderer being revictimized.
497 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:46:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to rise tonight to speak about this incredibly important issue and thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for bringing it forward.
The discussion around the revictimization of families and loved ones who have been impacted by crime is incredibly serious and something our government takes incredibly seriously. I remember the debate of both instances the member opposite referred to. It is incredibly painful not only for the families and loved ones of the victims, but for all Canadians who saw those dark times. Those crimes have really impacted so many people across this country. That is precisely why we made changes, to ensure that the sentences for the people who commit these heinous crimes reflect that, so they are not out to commit crimes again.
The decisions to reclassify and transfer offenders, which goes specifically to the question here today, are taken independently by the Correctional Service of Canada, CSC. Its mandate is to help maintain the safety and security of our communities by managing the correctional institutions of offenders in their care. It is important to acknowledge that these operational decisions are not taken by elected officials. Our job as members of this House is to continue to push for best practices, like my colleague mentioned, and to increase transparency in our criminal justice system. That is why earlier this summer our government issued new ministerial directives to establish additional information-sharing procedures in cases involving high-profile offenders. The new directive instructs that, “Prior to transferring a high-profile offender to any reduced security level, the Commissioner of CSC or their delegate will notify the Minister of Public Safety, formally and directly.”
Additional efforts will be taken to ensure that CSC takes a trauma-informed approach that considers victims in these cases of transfers and security classifications. This can be facilitated, for example, by providing registered victims with the opportunity to share uploaded victims' statements for consideration during the security classification and transfer decision-making processes. What this means is enhanced engagement opportunities for victims to share important input throughout the offender's sentence. It means that the needs of victims and their families will be taken into account, and that CSC will place extra emphasis on the need to not retraumatize those who are most vulnerable.
While elected officials do not make the operational decisions, it is important for us as legislators and the public at large to know why these decisions are made. To that end, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada has shown her willingness to listen to Canadians' concerns over these additional reviews of high-profile cases when needed. These reviews are undertaken by committees with external representatives. We take this incredibly seriously and want to ensure that victims are at the forefront of these decisions.
474 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:50:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a common theme among Liberal responses. After eight years of the Liberals being in government, they say it is not their job. That is what the member opposite is saying here. The reality is the buck stops with the government. It and Parliament write the directives and rules under which these decisions are made.
Now, five years since Terri-Lynne McClintic, the families of Paul Bernardo's victims have been revictimized because the government put forward legislation to put mass murderers in the least restrictive environment and refused to issue a directive to ensure that mass murderers stay in maximum-security prisons.
I will ask again. Does the member opposite agree, can she just say she agrees, that mass murderers should stay in maximum-security prisons, and that the provisions around a least restrictive environment the Liberals put forward and voted on in Bill C-83, as they apply to mass murderers and child killers, be repealed?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:51:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I will say and what I will reiterate is that the offenders of these violent and heinous crimes absolutely deserve these severe consequences. I will just point out, because I think we want to take this subject incredibly seriously and as legislators we need to be responsible, that some of the information being shared is not actually correct. In fact, that member sat around the cabinet table when these same directives existed, but what we have done is change them to ensure that victims are at the forefront.
The member opposite raised fair criticisms, unfortunately they were criticisms of her government as well, but we take the matter incredibly seriously, and that is precisely why the minister ordered new directives to put families, victims and loved ones at the forefront, and to ensure that the retraumatization of these heinous crimes is not done again.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:52:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is nothing more disingenuous than a government implying it has delivered on the requests of constituents when the reality is anything but.
Prior to the summer break, I rose on behalf of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, small businesses across the country and called on the government to extend the repayment deadline for the CEBA loans. These are the Canada Emergency Business Account loans, which these businesses took out during the pandemic to help during an extraordinarily difficult time. Many of these businesses did not recover as fully as they had expected to, and they were faced with the additional costs of inflation and a tight labour market.
A few weeks ago, I received some excited texts from business owners who had read on social media that the government had indeed extended the terms of the CEBA loans and the regional relief and recovery fund loans for small businesses. Of course, a few minutes later, when they had had a chance to read the fine print, they realized with disappointment that what the government had done was something very incremental and not at all what had been asked for by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and thousands of small businesses, including businesses in northwest B.C., the area I am proud to represent.
The most attractive part of the loans for small businesses that were struggling was the fact that the government had offered a significant loan forgiveness program. If small businesses took out $60,000, the maximum amount allowed under these loan programs, they were able to keep up to $20,000. That is money these small businesses could invest in improvements to their business to make them safer, to make them more efficient and to keep their doors open during some of the toughest economic times this country has seen, so we saw huge uptake of this program. Businesses were asking the government to do something that is very reasonable, which was to extend the repayment terms for that program by one year. They would still pay back the portion of the loan that they originally were required to, but because of the unique conditions of rising inflation and the tight labour market, they wanted some more time.
I think that is something that was very reasonable to expect, so it was disappointing to see that, while it did extend by one year the deadline for avoiding a 5% interest charge, when it came to the loan forgiveness portion, the most significant aspect of these small business loans, the government, and this is quite surprising, extended the deadline by three weeks. I am serious. Businesses still have to pay back the money before January of the coming year or they are going to lose up to $20,000 in loan forgiveness.
This is incredible. What the government did was not at all what small businesses had asked for, yet it is trying to take credit for helping small businesses.
What I am looking for from the parliamentary secretary this evening is, first of all, an opportunity to express the disappointment of these thousands of businesses and, second, a clear and succinct explanation, not smoke and mirrors or distraction talking about other programs, for those businesses. I am looking for an explanation of why the government refused to extend the loan forgiveness portion of the CEBA and RRRF loans.
567 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:56:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has been there to provide unprecedented support to Canada's small businesses across the country. That is why, at the onset of the pandemic, we launched the Canada emergency business account program. This is in addition to critical and much-needed supports like the Canada emergency rent subsidy, which helped more than 200,000 businesses pay their rent, and the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which kept nearly half a million Canadians employed.
CEBA provided $49 million in support to nearly 900,000 businesses. Let me say that again: The CEBA loan supported over 900,000 small businesses in neighbourhoods across the country. It kept their lights on and helped workers remain employed. CEBA offered interest-free, partially forgivable loans up to $60,000 to eligible small businesses. The program was designed to allow for a rapid deployment of credit to a wide range of recipients, because although the Conservatives may have forgotten about the pandemic, Canadians certainly remember how challenging those days were.
Early last year, to support hard-working business owners as they continue to recover from the pandemic, our government announced that the CEBA repayment deadline for partial forgiveness would be extended by one year. The repayment deadline to receive forgiveness of up to $20,000 and avoid interest payments for all eligible CEBA loan holders was initially extended from December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2023. Since then, the government has heard and responded to calls for greater flexibility in the face of ongoing economic challenges.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, I know very well how the COVID-19 pandemic has presented many unique challenges for Canadian businesses. I know my colleagues also have been hearing about the difficulties our small businesses face. That is why, on September 14, 2023, the Prime Minister announced several changes to the CEBA program, aimed at supporting economic recovery and offering greater repayment flexibilities to small businesses.
We have extended the deadline for partial forgiveness, allowing businesses additional time to repay or refinance their CEBA loans and take advantage of the partial forgiveness. Businesses that repay by January 18, 2024, or submit a request for refinancing by this date and successfully refinance their CEBA loans prior to March 28, 2024, will benefit from partial forgiveness. Additionally, the deadline for CEBA loan holders that elect to not repay or refinance by the partial forgiveness deadline will have their term loans extended by one year, from December 31, 2025 to December 31, 2026.
These steps will provide those who are unable to secure refinancing, or generate enough cash flow to repay their loans by the forgiveness deadline, an additional year and to continue repayment at a low interest rate. Only interest payments for these term loans will be required until the full principal is due on December 31, 2026. Small businesses asked for more flexibility, and we listened. Our government will continue to have the backs of Canadians and Canadian businesses every step of the way. We are focusing on growing our economy and building a stronger, more resilient Canada for everyone.
526 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 7:00:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is incredibly frustrating. I asked for a clear and succinct explanation of why the government did not extend the loan forgiveness by an additional year, which is what small businesses and small business advocates were asking for. Instead, he read into the record the government's decision in detail, which I think I had just summarized.
I will ask the parliamentary secretary one more time: Why did the government refuse to extend the full loan forgiveness until the end of 2024, and instead gave small businesses only three extra weeks? Why did it make that decision? It is clearly not what businesses were asking for.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 7:01:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government will continue to support small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country. We have heard loud and clear that small businesses needed additional flexibility and options in these difficult times, and we are taking action to have their backs. Through these flexibilities for CEBA, we are giving small businesses additional breathing room because we know that small businesses are the hearts of our communities. Our government is also supporting small businesses through cutting credit card transaction fees, cutting taxes for growing small businesses, and helping them digitize through the Canada digital adoption program.
Moreover, we are ensuring that all entrepreneurs have the opportunities they deserve. That is why we launched the historic women entrepreneurship strategy, the Black entrepreneurship program, the 2SLGBTQI+ entrepreneurship program and targeted supports for indigenous entrepreneurs.
We will continue to support small businesses across this country.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 7:02:04 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:02 p.m.)
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
