Yes, I wish to speak to amendments 14 and 16. Amendment 14, however, is consequential to amendment 16 passing. Amendment 16 prevents this from commencing until parenting support services have been established by the Welsh Government. As was clear during the committee's evidence sessions, present Welsh Government support programmes for parents have insufficient coverage. For example, the capacity and reach of the Healthy Child Wales programme came under question on its role in awareness raising, with health representatives acknowledging that universality had not been achieved, with 53.2 per cent of children in Wales reported as being contacted. Furthermore, existing parenting support is often only available as part of a targeted programme in specific areas, such as Flying Start, and even the children's commissioner noted that much more is needed to support parents to find alternatives to disciplining their children. Now, the Deputy Minister mentioned the 'Parenting: Give it Time' campaign as part of proposals on a wider package of support for children and their parents. However, the Deputy Minister was challenged on this fact, that this is an online campaign only, and could only respond that the mapping exercise she will undertake. Consequently, it should be remembered that this Bill will affect all parents. Therefore, the Deputy Minister needs to assure the committee and the public that universal support will be provided before the removal of the defence occurs.

Thank you, Chair. I've listened to what stakeholders and committees have said about the importance of ensuring sufficient time is available prior to the change in the law to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment during Stage 1. As a result, I have brought forward amendments in this group to provide certainty around the date for the change in the law. My amendment 7 will remove the power to commence this core provision of the Bill by Order of the Welsh Ministers and ensure that the defence of reasonable punishment is abolished at the end of a two-year period beginning the day after Royal Assent. That was done to give certainty on the length of time. Up to then, we'd always said 'up to two years'—well, we're giving two years. This certainty will allow key partners, including the police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service, to plan for changes to guidance, training and data-collection systems more effectively. It'll also provide a focus for our awareness-raising campaign. My amendment 8 in this group has the consequence of removing the power to make transitional provision, which is replaced by my amendments 3 and 6, and we discussed those in the previous group. I've listened to the arguments put forward by Suzy Davies and Janet Finch-Saunders for the amendments in this group that they have tabled. These amendments are all about making the commencement of the Bill conditional on something else happening, whether it's waiting for the revision of Crown Prosecution Service guidance, or the establishment of a pathway for diversion from the criminal justice system, or for the provision of parenting support services. And, really, I don't think that we should be going down that road. As I set out in my letter of response to the Stage 1 report from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we've got good working relations with the CPS through the strategic implementation group, and we work very closely with them. But the CPS are an independent body, as Suzy Davies has said in her contribution, not answerable to Welsh Ministers or this legislature, and it's not appropriate for a Minister or the National Assembly to seek to influence the CPS guidelines. We're discussing the issues with the CPS in the implementation group. And, in fact, I think that these amendments—Suzy's amendments in particular—wouldn't just seek to influence the CPS, but would actually give power to a non-devolved body on the way that we legislate in Wales. So, I don't think we should make it conditional on those guidelines being decided. I think you have to rely on the fact that we have got this very good relationship, very close working relationship. And I know they did give evidence to your committee, I believe, the CPS. And I think legislating to effectively give a non-devolved body a power to commence, or not, Assembly legislation would be highly unusual and would raise great uncertainty, I think, if we did go down that track, because I think this is very important Welsh legislation, which does have broad support across the Assembly. And I don't think we should allow non-devolved bodies to be the final arbiters of commencement of our legislation. So, I don't support those amendments. I think the CPS is entirely independent of Government, and must be entirely independent of Government, and will make its own decisions about how and when it will revise its guidance. In addition, you suggest we allow the UK Government to have a say in when Welsh legislation is commenced in an area that was specifically devolved to the Assembly. The test applied by the proposed amendments as to when commencement could lawfully occur is uncertain. If these amendments passed, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to judge when section 1 could be commenced. This contravenes what stakeholders and committees have asked for, and raises huge uncertainty, which potentially jeopardises the Bill. And I want to assure you again, not only do we have good working relations with the CPS, but also very good working relationships with the police, who are, of course, the other non-devolved body who have great involvement and interest in these issues. The work we do in these groups should not affect the timing of the Bill's commencement. In fact, it's the other way round. My amendment to provide a two-year period between Royal Assent and commencement means these groups can plan their work to a known timescale and deliver in good time before the law comes into force. And then, when it comes to parenting support, the committee knows that I've committed to reviewing the existing provision of parenting support, and work is already under way through the parenting expert group on this very issue. I have already said I will expand the age range of the 'Parenting: Give it Time' campaign, and I think—. I know Janet Finch-Saunders has made the point that it is an online facility. It is very widely used. It is a very successful tool. But, of course, the universal services are also there. For example, the universal service of the health visitors is absolutely crucial, and that is a service that is for every child. And, of course, the health visitors welcome this legislation very strongly. And the expert group is considering what it'll recommend for the future, and it needs the time to be able to do that, to support the Bill as well as to support parenting more widely. So, as I said, I think these are important points that you have raised, but I don't think they are appropriate. So, I therefore urge the committee not to support amendments 9 and 10, nor 13, 14 and 15.


Thank you, Chair. I've listened to what stakeholders and committees have said about the importance of ensuring sufficient time is available prior to the change in the law to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment during Stage 1. As a result, I have brought forward amendments in this group to provide certainty around the date for the change in the law. My amendment 7 will remove the power to commence this core provision of the Bill by Order of the Welsh Ministers and ensure that the defence of reasonable punishment is abolished at the end of a two-year period beginning the day after Royal Assent. That was done to give certainty on the length of time. Up to then, we'd always said 'up to two years'—well, we're giving two years. This certainty will allow key partners, including the police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service, to plan for changes to guidance, training and data-collection systems more effectively. It'll also provide a focus for our awareness-raising campaign. My amendment 8 in this group has the consequence of removing the power to make transitional provision, which is replaced by my amendments 3 and 6, and we discussed those in the previous group. I've listened to the arguments put forward by Suzy Davies and Janet Finch-Saunders for the amendments in this group that they have tabled. These amendments are all about making the commencement of the Bill conditional on something else happening, whether it's waiting for the revision of Crown Prosecution Service guidance, or the establishment of a pathway for diversion from the criminal justice system, or for the provision of parenting support services. And, really, I don't think that we should be going down that road. As I set out in my letter of response to the Stage 1 report from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we've got good working relations with the CPS through the strategic implementation group, and we work very closely with them. But the CPS are an independent body, as Suzy Davies has said in her contribution, not answerable to Welsh Ministers or this legislature, and it's not appropriate for a Minister or the National Assembly to seek to influence the CPS guidelines. We're discussing the issues with the CPS in the implementation group. And, in fact, I think that these amendments—Suzy's amendments in particular—wouldn't just seek to influence the CPS, but would actually give power to a non-devolved body on the way that we legislate in Wales. So, I don't think we should make it conditional on those guidelines being decided. I think you have to rely on the fact that we have got this very good relationship, very close working relationship. And I know they did give evidence to your committee, I believe, the CPS. And I think legislating to effectively give a non-devolved body a power to commence, or not, Assembly legislation would be highly unusual and would raise great uncertainty, I think, if we did go down that track, because I think this is very important Welsh legislation, which does have broad support across the Assembly. And I don't think we should allow non-devolved bodies to be the final arbiters of commencement of our legislation. So, I don't support those amendments. I think the CPS is entirely independent of Government, and must be entirely independent of Government, and will make its own decisions about how and when it will revise its guidance. In addition, you suggest we allow the UK Government to have a say in when Welsh legislation is commenced in an area that was specifically devolved to the Assembly. The test applied by the proposed amendments as to when commencement could lawfully occur is uncertain. If these amendments passed, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to judge when section 1 could be commenced. This contravenes what stakeholders and committees have asked for, and raises huge uncertainty, which potentially jeopardises the Bill. And I want to assure you again, not only do we have good working relations with the CPS, but also very good working relationships with the police, who are, of course, the other non-devolved body who have great involvement and interest in these issues. The work we do in these groups should not affect the timing of the Bill's commencement. In fact, it's the other way round. My amendment to provide a two-year period between Royal Assent and commencement means these groups can plan their work to a known timescale and deliver in good time before the law comes into force. And then, when it comes to parenting support, the committee knows that I've committed to reviewing the existing provision of parenting support, and work is already under way through the parenting expert group on this very issue. I have already said I will expand the age range of the 'Parenting: Give it Time' campaign, and I think—. I know Janet Finch-Saunders has made the point that it is an online facility. It is very widely used. It is a very successful tool. But, of course, the universal services are also there. For example, the universal service of the health visitors is absolutely crucial, and that is a service that is for every child. And, of course, the health visitors welcome this legislation very strongly. And the expert group is considering what it'll recommend for the future, and it needs the time to be able to do that, to support the Bill as well as to support parenting more widely. So, as I said, I think these are important points that you have raised, but I don't think they are appropriate. So, I therefore urge the committee not to support amendments 9 and 10, nor 13, 14 and 15.

Thank you very much, and thank you very much, Deputy Minister, as well. I'm disappointed that you haven't seen what's behind Janet Finch-Saunders's final amendment there, actually. Maybe it's something we'll raise again with you at Stage 3, or maybe in the conversations that we have between now and then. But I want to go back to amendments 10 and 15 that I've raised and your assertion that we're giving, or attempting to give, power to the CPS here. We are not. This amendment is drafted very specifically and in full knowledge that we have no legislative competence in this area. And this is why I go back to where my contribution to this started, and it's your choice to try and resolve the problem of—or, sorry, to try and protect children's rights through the medium of a change to the criminal law rather than the many opportunities that were available to you through the civil law and over which you would have had complete competence. This Bill—and, actually, you've said a couple of times in your response today that it's important that it's commenced on a certain date. My argument is: it shouldn't be commenced at all unless you are absolutely certain about how it is likely to affect the parents who will now be captured by the removal of the defence. And, while I claim no mischief on the part of the CPS or the police—obviously I don't—there is nothing you can do that would prevent the CPS, should they wish to do it, or indeed the police with their own guidelines, putting in place something that is wholly disproportionate to the offence that is now being released by the removal of a defence. And, because of that, I ask you to consider, or balance, actually, two important things here: one is the rights of the child, obviously at the forefront of your argument on this, which I would argue could be completely and safely protected through the use of civil law on this occasion; and, actually, the rights of the child again to have a good relationship with parents over whose future they will have no say—or at least you cannot allow them to have any say in how those parents might be treated in terms of sentencing. The relationship between parents and children obviously is different in every family, but that's something you ought to protect in what you're trying to do here, and by leaving it open, as you say, to completely different—sorry, undevolved, two undevolved authorities to make decisions about how that relationship could be affected deeply worries me. I know this isn't going to stop your Bill going forward, but I really want you to consider my arguments and how you might try and address them at Stage 3, because leaving, effectively, the delivery of your policy objectives to somebody over whom you have no control, despite your great relationship with them, should worry us all as a legislature. Thank you.


Thank you, Chair. I've listened to what stakeholders and committees have said about the importance of ensuring sufficient time is available prior to the change in the law to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment during Stage 1. As a result, I have brought forward amendments in this group to provide certainty around the date for the change in the law. My amendment 7 will remove the power to commence this core provision of the Bill by Order of the Welsh Ministers and ensure that the defence of reasonable punishment is abolished at the end of a two-year period beginning the day after Royal Assent. That was done to give certainty on the length of time. Up to then, we'd always said 'up to two years'—well, we're giving two years. This certainty will allow key partners, including the police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service, to plan for changes to guidance, training and data-collection systems more effectively. It'll also provide a focus for our awareness-raising campaign. My amendment 8 in this group has the consequence of removing the power to make transitional provision, which is replaced by my amendments 3 and 6, and we discussed those in the previous group. I've listened to the arguments put forward by Suzy Davies and Janet Finch-Saunders for the amendments in this group that they have tabled. These amendments are all about making the commencement of the Bill conditional on something else happening, whether it's waiting for the revision of Crown Prosecution Service guidance, or the establishment of a pathway for diversion from the criminal justice system, or for the provision of parenting support services. And, really, I don't think that we should be going down that road. As I set out in my letter of response to the Stage 1 report from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we've got good working relations with the CPS through the strategic implementation group, and we work very closely with them. But the CPS are an independent body, as Suzy Davies has said in her contribution, not answerable to Welsh Ministers or this legislature, and it's not appropriate for a Minister or the National Assembly to seek to influence the CPS guidelines. We're discussing the issues with the CPS in the implementation group. And, in fact, I think that these amendments—Suzy's amendments in particular—wouldn't just seek to influence the CPS, but would actually give power to a non-devolved body on the way that we legislate in Wales. So, I don't think we should make it conditional on those guidelines being decided. I think you have to rely on the fact that we have got this very good relationship, very close working relationship. And I know they did give evidence to your committee, I believe, the CPS. And I think legislating to effectively give a non-devolved body a power to commence, or not, Assembly legislation would be highly unusual and would raise great uncertainty, I think, if we did go down that track, because I think this is very important Welsh legislation, which does have broad support across the Assembly. And I don't think we should allow non-devolved bodies to be the final arbiters of commencement of our legislation. So, I don't support those amendments. I think the CPS is entirely independent of Government, and must be entirely independent of Government, and will make its own decisions about how and when it will revise its guidance. In addition, you suggest we allow the UK Government to have a say in when Welsh legislation is commenced in an area that was specifically devolved to the Assembly. The test applied by the proposed amendments as to when commencement could lawfully occur is uncertain. If these amendments passed, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to judge when section 1 could be commenced. This contravenes what stakeholders and committees have asked for, and raises huge uncertainty, which potentially jeopardises the Bill. And I want to assure you again, not only do we have good working relations with the CPS, but also very good working relationships with the police, who are, of course, the other non-devolved body who have great involvement and interest in these issues. The work we do in these groups should not affect the timing of the Bill's commencement. In fact, it's the other way round. My amendment to provide a two-year period between Royal Assent and commencement means these groups can plan their work to a known timescale and deliver in good time before the law comes into force. And then, when it comes to parenting support, the committee knows that I've committed to reviewing the existing provision of parenting support, and work is already under way through the parenting expert group on this very issue. I have already said I will expand the age range of the 'Parenting: Give it Time' campaign, and I think—. I know Janet Finch-Saunders has made the point that it is an online facility. It is very widely used. It is a very successful tool. But, of course, the universal services are also there. For example, the universal service of the health visitors is absolutely crucial, and that is a service that is for every child. And, of course, the health visitors welcome this legislation very strongly. And the expert group is considering what it'll recommend for the future, and it needs the time to be able to do that, to support the Bill as well as to support parenting more widely. So, as I said, I think these are important points that you have raised, but I don't think they are appropriate. So, I therefore urge the committee not to support amendments 9 and 10, nor 13, 14 and 15.

Thank you very much, and thank you very much, Deputy Minister, as well. I'm disappointed that you haven't seen what's behind Janet Finch-Saunders's final amendment there, actually. Maybe it's something we'll raise again with you at Stage 3, or maybe in the conversations that we have between now and then. But I want to go back to amendments 10 and 15 that I've raised and your assertion that we're giving, or attempting to give, power to the CPS here. We are not. This amendment is drafted very specifically and in full knowledge that we have no legislative competence in this area. And this is why I go back to where my contribution to this started, and it's your choice to try and resolve the problem of—or, sorry, to try and protect children's rights through the medium of a change to the criminal law rather than the many opportunities that were available to you through the civil law and over which you would have had complete competence. This Bill—and, actually, you've said a couple of times in your response today that it's important that it's commenced on a certain date. My argument is: it shouldn't be commenced at all unless you are absolutely certain about how it is likely to affect the parents who will now be captured by the removal of the defence. And, while I claim no mischief on the part of the CPS or the police—obviously I don't—there is nothing you can do that would prevent the CPS, should they wish to do it, or indeed the police with their own guidelines, putting in place something that is wholly disproportionate to the offence that is now being released by the removal of a defence. And, because of that, I ask you to consider, or balance, actually, two important things here: one is the rights of the child, obviously at the forefront of your argument on this, which I would argue could be completely and safely protected through the use of civil law on this occasion; and, actually, the rights of the child again to have a good relationship with parents over whose future they will have no say—or at least you cannot allow them to have any say in how those parents might be treated in terms of sentencing. The relationship between parents and children obviously is different in every family, but that's something you ought to protect in what you're trying to do here, and by leaving it open, as you say, to completely different—sorry, undevolved, two undevolved authorities to make decisions about how that relationship could be affected deeply worries me. I know this isn't going to stop your Bill going forward, but I really want you to consider my arguments and how you might try and address them at Stage 3, because leaving, effectively, the delivery of your policy objectives to somebody over whom you have no control, despite your great relationship with them, should worry us all as a legislature. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Suzy. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 9?


Thank you very much, and thank you very much, Deputy Minister, as well. I'm disappointed that you haven't seen what's behind Janet Finch-Saunders's final amendment there, actually. Maybe it's something we'll raise again with you at Stage 3, or maybe in the conversations that we have between now and then. But I want to go back to amendments 10 and 15 that I've raised and your assertion that we're giving, or attempting to give, power to the CPS here. We are not. This amendment is drafted very specifically and in full knowledge that we have no legislative competence in this area. And this is why I go back to where my contribution to this started, and it's your choice to try and resolve the problem of—or, sorry, to try and protect children's rights through the medium of a change to the criminal law rather than the many opportunities that were available to you through the civil law and over which you would have had complete competence. This Bill—and, actually, you've said a couple of times in your response today that it's important that it's commenced on a certain date. My argument is: it shouldn't be commenced at all unless you are absolutely certain about how it is likely to affect the parents who will now be captured by the removal of the defence. And, while I claim no mischief on the part of the CPS or the police—obviously I don't—there is nothing you can do that would prevent the CPS, should they wish to do it, or indeed the police with their own guidelines, putting in place something that is wholly disproportionate to the offence that is now being released by the removal of a defence. And, because of that, I ask you to consider, or balance, actually, two important things here: one is the rights of the child, obviously at the forefront of your argument on this, which I would argue could be completely and safely protected through the use of civil law on this occasion; and, actually, the rights of the child again to have a good relationship with parents over whose future they will have no say—or at least you cannot allow them to have any say in how those parents might be treated in terms of sentencing. The relationship between parents and children obviously is different in every family, but that's something you ought to protect in what you're trying to do here, and by leaving it open, as you say, to completely different—sorry, undevolved, two undevolved authorities to make decisions about how that relationship could be affected deeply worries me. I know this isn't going to stop your Bill going forward, but I really want you to consider my arguments and how you might try and address them at Stage 3, because leaving, effectively, the delivery of your policy objectives to somebody over whom you have no control, despite your great relationship with them, should worry us all as a legislature. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Suzy. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 9?

Oh, because of the voting order—. Yes, please.


Thank you very much, and thank you very much, Deputy Minister, as well. I'm disappointed that you haven't seen what's behind Janet Finch-Saunders's final amendment there, actually. Maybe it's something we'll raise again with you at Stage 3, or maybe in the conversations that we have between now and then. But I want to go back to amendments 10 and 15 that I've raised and your assertion that we're giving, or attempting to give, power to the CPS here. We are not. This amendment is drafted very specifically and in full knowledge that we have no legislative competence in this area. And this is why I go back to where my contribution to this started, and it's your choice to try and resolve the problem of—or, sorry, to try and protect children's rights through the medium of a change to the criminal law rather than the many opportunities that were available to you through the civil law and over which you would have had complete competence. This Bill—and, actually, you've said a couple of times in your response today that it's important that it's commenced on a certain date. My argument is: it shouldn't be commenced at all unless you are absolutely certain about how it is likely to affect the parents who will now be captured by the removal of the defence. And, while I claim no mischief on the part of the CPS or the police—obviously I don't—there is nothing you can do that would prevent the CPS, should they wish to do it, or indeed the police with their own guidelines, putting in place something that is wholly disproportionate to the offence that is now being released by the removal of a defence. And, because of that, I ask you to consider, or balance, actually, two important things here: one is the rights of the child, obviously at the forefront of your argument on this, which I would argue could be completely and safely protected through the use of civil law on this occasion; and, actually, the rights of the child again to have a good relationship with parents over whose future they will have no say—or at least you cannot allow them to have any say in how those parents might be treated in terms of sentencing. The relationship between parents and children obviously is different in every family, but that's something you ought to protect in what you're trying to do here, and by leaving it open, as you say, to completely different—sorry, undevolved, two undevolved authorities to make decisions about how that relationship could be affected deeply worries me. I know this isn't going to stop your Bill going forward, but I really want you to consider my arguments and how you might try and address them at Stage 3, because leaving, effectively, the delivery of your policy objectives to somebody over whom you have no control, despite your great relationship with them, should worry us all as a legislature. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Suzy. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 9?

Oh, because of the voting order—. Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 9, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 9 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 13?


Okay. Thank you, Suzy. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 9?

Oh, because of the voting order—. Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 9, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 9 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 13?


Oh, because of the voting order—. Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 9, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 9 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 13?

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 13, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 13 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 14?


The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 9, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 9 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 13?

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 13, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 13 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 14?


The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 13, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 13 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 14?

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 14, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 14 is not agreed. Deputy Minister, do you wish to move to a vote on amendment 7?


The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 14, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 14 is not agreed. Deputy Minister, do you wish to move to a vote on amendment 7?

I move amendment 7 in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 7, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against. Amendment 7 is agreed. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 10?


I move amendment 7 in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 7, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against. Amendment 7 is agreed. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 10?

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 10, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 10 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 15?


The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 10, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 10 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 15?

The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 15, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 15 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 16?


The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 15, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 15 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 16?

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 16, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 16 is not agreed. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 8?


The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 16, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 16 is not agreed. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 8?

I move amendment 8, then, in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 8 is therefore agreed. Well, that has brought us to the end of our amendments, so can I thank the Deputy Minister and her officials for their attendance? As usual, you will be sent a transcript of the meeting to check for factual accuracy. This completes Stage 2 proceedings. Stage 3 begins tomorrow, and the relevant date of Stage 3 proceedings will be published in due course. Standing Orders make provision for the Deputy Minister to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum, taking account of the amendments agreed today. The revised memorandum will be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings. Thank you very much.


I call the meeting to order. Welcome to the seventh meeting of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. Please note that today's proceedings will be televised in the same way as a typical sitting of the House. We will proceed to ministerial announcements. I understand that there are no ministerial announcements. That's confirmed. We will now proceed to presenting petitions for a period not exceeding 15minutes. I would like to remind members that any petition presented during a meeting of the special committee must have already been certified by the clerk of petitions. Once the petition is presented, the member is asked to bring it here to the Table. Mr.Manly is the first one to be allowed to present a petition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today to present a petition that has many signatures from constituents in NanaimoLadysmith. They're calling for a ban on cosmetic testing using animals. They want us to follow the European Union model, under which the use of animals in cosmetic testing has been banned. Moving forward, they're calling for a ban on the sale and manufacture of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients in Canada.


Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today to present a petition that has many signatures from constituents in NanaimoLadysmith. They're calling for a ban on cosmetic testing using animals. They want us to follow the European Union model, under which the use of animals in cosmetic testing has been banned. Moving forward, they're calling for a ban on the sale and manufacture of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients in Canada.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I rise today to table e-petition 2466, initiated by a constituent of mine in Stittsville, a beautiful west Ottawa community. The petition has collected 827 signatures from every province and territory. It was collected by Cara, a mother from my riding who suffered an unthinkable tragedy. Her 11-year-old son Joshua drowned in a boating accident on the St. Lawrence River at Rockport, Ontario. Joshua was not wearing a life jacket. Worse, Cara's family had to wait 48 days to recover Joshua's body. Cara is now working tirelessly to amend the small vessel regulations to make it mandatory for children under the age of 14 to wear a life jacket or PFD while they are passengers in or drivers of small vessels covered under parts 2, 3, and 4 of the regulations. I support Cara's efforts, and I'm honoured to table this petition on her behalf.


Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today to present a petition that has many signatures from constituents in NanaimoLadysmith. They're calling for a ban on cosmetic testing using animals. They want us to follow the European Union model, under which the use of animals in cosmetic testing has been banned. Moving forward, they're calling for a ban on the sale and manufacture of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients in Canada.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I rise today to table e-petition 2466, initiated by a constituent of mine in Stittsville, a beautiful west Ottawa community. The petition has collected 827 signatures from every province and territory. It was collected by Cara, a mother from my riding who suffered an unthinkable tragedy. Her 11-year-old son Joshua drowned in a boating accident on the St. Lawrence River at Rockport, Ontario. Joshua was not wearing a life jacket. Worse, Cara's family had to wait 48 days to recover Joshua's body. Cara is now working tirelessly to amend the small vessel regulations to make it mandatory for children under the age of 14 to wear a life jacket or PFD while they are passengers in or drivers of small vessels covered under parts 2, 3, and 4 of the regulations. I support Cara's efforts, and I'm honoured to table this petition on her behalf.

Seeing no further petitions to be presented, we'll continue, and we will now proceed to the questioning of ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes to allow employees who provide support for the sitting to replace each other safely. Go ahead, Mr. Scheer.


Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I rise today to table e-petition 2466, initiated by a constituent of mine in Stittsville, a beautiful west Ottawa community. The petition has collected 827 signatures from every province and territory. It was collected by Cara, a mother from my riding who suffered an unthinkable tragedy. Her 11-year-old son Joshua drowned in a boating accident on the St. Lawrence River at Rockport, Ontario. Joshua was not wearing a life jacket. Worse, Cara's family had to wait 48 days to recover Joshua's body. Cara is now working tirelessly to amend the small vessel regulations to make it mandatory for children under the age of 14 to wear a life jacket or PFD while they are passengers in or drivers of small vessels covered under parts 2, 3, and 4 of the regulations. I support Cara's efforts, and I'm honoured to table this petition on her behalf.

Seeing no further petitions to be presented, we'll continue, and we will now proceed to the questioning of ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes to allow employees who provide support for the sitting to replace each other safely. Go ahead, Mr. Scheer.

It was revealed yesterday that this government's policy was to ignore fraud. The Prime Minister's reaction was to act as if everything was normal. In fact, we've learned that over 200,000cases of suspected fraud have been identified in the benefit applications. The Prime Minister is failing our future generations. Our children and grandchildren are going to pay back billions of dollars that he's borrowing to pay tax cheats. Will the Prime Minister protect taxpayers and immediately begin a review of these 200,000cases of suspected fraud?


Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I rise today to table e-petition 2466, initiated by a constituent of mine in Stittsville, a beautiful west Ottawa community. The petition has collected 827 signatures from every province and territory. It was collected by Cara, a mother from my riding who suffered an unthinkable tragedy. Her 11-year-old son Joshua drowned in a boating accident on the St. Lawrence River at Rockport, Ontario. Joshua was not wearing a life jacket. Worse, Cara's family had to wait 48 days to recover Joshua's body. Cara is now working tirelessly to amend the small vessel regulations to make it mandatory for children under the age of 14 to wear a life jacket or PFD while they are passengers in or drivers of small vessels covered under parts 2, 3, and 4 of the regulations. I support Cara's efforts, and I'm honoured to table this petition on her behalf.

Seeing no further petitions to be presented, we'll continue, and we will now proceed to the questioning of ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes to allow employees who provide support for the sitting to replace each other safely. Go ahead, Mr. Scheer.

It was revealed yesterday that this government's policy was to ignore fraud. The Prime Minister's reaction was to act as if everything was normal. In fact, we've learned that over 200,000cases of suspected fraud have been identified in the benefit applications. The Prime Minister is failing our future generations. Our children and grandchildren are going to pay back billions of dollars that he's borrowing to pay tax cheats. Will the Prime Minister protect taxpayers and immediately begin a review of these 200,000cases of suspected fraud?

Our priority was to get money out quickly to all Canadians who needed it, and that's exactly what we've done. Millions of Canadians have received the money they so desperately needed. Having said that, I want to make it very clear, Mr.Chair: Fraud is unacceptable. We have measures in place to detect fraud. All fraudsters will be required to pay back the money they fraudulently received from the government. We're going to make sure that this is done in the coming months.


Seeing no further petitions to be presented, we'll continue, and we will now proceed to the questioning of ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes to allow employees who provide support for the sitting to replace each other safely. Go ahead, Mr. Scheer.

It was revealed yesterday that this government's policy was to ignore fraud. The Prime Minister's reaction was to act as if everything was normal. In fact, we've learned that over 200,000cases of suspected fraud have been identified in the benefit applications. The Prime Minister is failing our future generations. Our children and grandchildren are going to pay back billions of dollars that he's borrowing to pay tax cheats. Will the Prime Minister protect taxpayers and immediately begin a review of these 200,000cases of suspected fraud?

Our priority was to get money out quickly to all Canadians who needed it, and that's exactly what we've done. Millions of Canadians have received the money they so desperately needed. Having said that, I want to make it very clear, Mr.Chair: Fraud is unacceptable. We have measures in place to detect fraud. All fraudsters will be required to pay back the money they fraudulently received from the government. We're going to make sure that this is done in the coming months.

Mr. Chair, Conservatives agree that those who need help should get it, and no one is arguing that they shouldn't, but reports indicate that the Liberals have ordered public servants to turn a blind eye to 200,000 cases of suspected fraud. It's a simple question: Yes or no, did the government instruct any government department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases?


It was revealed yesterday that this government's policy was to ignore fraud. The Prime Minister's reaction was to act as if everything was normal. In fact, we've learned that over 200,000cases of suspected fraud have been identified in the benefit applications. The Prime Minister is failing our future generations. Our children and grandchildren are going to pay back billions of dollars that he's borrowing to pay tax cheats. Will the Prime Minister protect taxpayers and immediately begin a review of these 200,000cases of suspected fraud?

Our priority was to get money out quickly to all Canadians who needed it, and that's exactly what we've done. Millions of Canadians have received the money they so desperately needed. Having said that, I want to make it very clear, Mr.Chair: Fraud is unacceptable. We have measures in place to detect fraud. All fraudsters will be required to pay back the money they fraudulently received from the government. We're going to make sure that this is done in the coming months.

Mr. Chair, Conservatives agree that those who need help should get it, and no one is arguing that they shouldn't, but reports indicate that the Liberals have ordered public servants to turn a blind eye to 200,000 cases of suspected fraud. It's a simple question: Yes or no, did the government instruct any government department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases?

Mr. Chair, the priority in this situation was getting money out to the millions of Canadians who needed it as quickly as possible, but of course fraud is unacceptable. That's why we have put safeguards in place to ensure that anyone who received that money fraudulently will have to repay it.


Our priority was to get money out quickly to all Canadians who needed it, and that's exactly what we've done. Millions of Canadians have received the money they so desperately needed. Having said that, I want to make it very clear, Mr.Chair: Fraud is unacceptable. We have measures in place to detect fraud. All fraudsters will be required to pay back the money they fraudulently received from the government. We're going to make sure that this is done in the coming months.

Mr. Chair, Conservatives agree that those who need help should get it, and no one is arguing that they shouldn't, but reports indicate that the Liberals have ordered public servants to turn a blind eye to 200,000 cases of suspected fraud. It's a simple question: Yes or no, did the government instruct any government department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases?

Mr. Chair, the priority in this situation was getting money out to the millions of Canadians who needed it as quickly as possible, but of course fraud is unacceptable. That's why we have put safeguards in place to ensure that anyone who received that money fraudulently will have to repay it.

It's a yes-or-no question, Mr. Chair. Did the government give any kind of instruction to public servants in any department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases, yes or no?


Mr. Chair, Conservatives agree that those who need help should get it, and no one is arguing that they shouldn't, but reports indicate that the Liberals have ordered public servants to turn a blind eye to 200,000 cases of suspected fraud. It's a simple question: Yes or no, did the government instruct any government department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases?

Mr. Chair, the priority in this situation was getting money out to the millions of Canadians who needed it as quickly as possible, but of course fraud is unacceptable. That's why we have put safeguards in place to ensure that anyone who received that money fraudulently will have to repay it.

It's a yes-or-no question, Mr. Chair. Did the government give any kind of instruction to public servants in any department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases, yes or no?

The instruction to government officials was to get money out to those who needed it as quickly as possible. We have put measures in place to detect fraud. People who got this money fraudulently will have to repay.


Mr. Chair, the priority in this situation was getting money out to the millions of Canadians who needed it as quickly as possible, but of course fraud is unacceptable. That's why we have put safeguards in place to ensure that anyone who received that money fraudulently will have to repay it.

It's a yes-or-no question, Mr. Chair. Did the government give any kind of instruction to public servants in any department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases, yes or no?

The instruction to government officials was to get money out to those who needed it as quickly as possible. We have put measures in place to detect fraud. People who got this money fraudulently will have to repay.

Mr. Chair, it is clear that he can't answer a yes-or-no question, so we can all assume what the answer must be. In other situations, the government is saying no to people. It's letting so many Canadians down. Small business owners who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number or a business account are ineligible for the government supports. Individuals, owner-operators, and those who are earning $1 more than $1,000 are being told that they don't qualify for the emergency response benefits. Meanwhile, fraudsters are getting them. Does the Prime Minister think it's fair to tell people who are following all the rules no, while telling government officials to allow fraudulent cases to be processed?


It's a yes-or-no question, Mr. Chair. Did the government give any kind of instruction to public servants in any department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases, yes or no?

The instruction to government officials was to get money out to those who needed it as quickly as possible. We have put measures in place to detect fraud. People who got this money fraudulently will have to repay.

Mr. Chair, it is clear that he can't answer a yes-or-no question, so we can all assume what the answer must be. In other situations, the government is saying no to people. It's letting so many Canadians down. Small business owners who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number or a business account are ineligible for the government supports. Individuals, owner-operators, and those who are earning $1 more than $1,000 are being told that they don't qualify for the emergency response benefits. Meanwhile, fraudsters are getting them. Does the Prime Minister think it's fair to tell people who are following all the rules no, while telling government officials to allow fraudulent cases to be processed?

Mr. Chair, Canadians well know that this is an unprecedented situation, one in which we had to get help to as many Canadians as possible as quickly as possible. That is exactly what we did. We continue to work very hard to fill gaps for people who should get money but haven't been able to, and, as I said, we have strong measures to counter fraud. Anyone who got this money fraudulently will have to repay it.


The instruction to government officials was to get money out to those who needed it as quickly as possible. We have put measures in place to detect fraud. People who got this money fraudulently will have to repay.

Mr. Chair, it is clear that he can't answer a yes-or-no question, so we can all assume what the answer must be. In other situations, the government is saying no to people. It's letting so many Canadians down. Small business owners who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number or a business account are ineligible for the government supports. Individuals, owner-operators, and those who are earning $1 more than $1,000 are being told that they don't qualify for the emergency response benefits. Meanwhile, fraudsters are getting them. Does the Prime Minister think it's fair to tell people who are following all the rules no, while telling government officials to allow fraudulent cases to be processed?

Mr. Chair, Canadians well know that this is an unprecedented situation, one in which we had to get help to as many Canadians as possible as quickly as possible. That is exactly what we did. We continue to work very hard to fill gaps for people who should get money but haven't been able to, and, as I said, we have strong measures to counter fraud. Anyone who got this money fraudulently will have to repay it.

Mr. Chair, when these programs were first designed, the Prime Minister said that he acknowledged that there were problems and that they would be fixed later. Well, here we are in May, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are being told no for purely technical and bureaucratic reasons. Will the Prime Minister make the simple changes to allow business owners who don't happen to have a business bank account, who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number and individuals who are ineligible for the emergency response benefit because they've been paid by family members through dividends to qualify, or is he going to continue to let hundreds of thousands of Canadians down during this pandemic?


Mr. Chair, it is clear that he can't answer a yes-or-no question, so we can all assume what the answer must be. In other situations, the government is saying no to people. It's letting so many Canadians down. Small business owners who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number or a business account are ineligible for the government supports. Individuals, owner-operators, and those who are earning $1 more than $1,000 are being told that they don't qualify for the emergency response benefits. Meanwhile, fraudsters are getting them. Does the Prime Minister think it's fair to tell people who are following all the rules no, while telling government officials to allow fraudulent cases to be processed?

Mr. Chair, Canadians well know that this is an unprecedented situation, one in which we had to get help to as many Canadians as possible as quickly as possible. That is exactly what we did. We continue to work very hard to fill gaps for people who should get money but haven't been able to, and, as I said, we have strong measures to counter fraud. Anyone who got this money fraudulently will have to repay it.

Mr. Chair, when these programs were first designed, the Prime Minister said that he acknowledged that there were problems and that they would be fixed later. Well, here we are in May, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are being told no for purely technical and bureaucratic reasons. Will the Prime Minister make the simple changes to allow business owners who don't happen to have a business bank account, who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number and individuals who are ineligible for the emergency response benefit because they've been paid by family members through dividends to qualify, or is he going to continue to let hundreds of thousands of Canadians down during this pandemic?

Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, we moved extremely rapidly to get help and support to millions of Canadians. That was the priority, and that's what we've been doing for the past two months. As we've said, we will continue to tweak and improve the programs to make sure that more people who need help will get it. We are working the best we can, as fast as we can, to help those millions of Canadians who need support.


Mr. Chair, Canadians well know that this is an unprecedented situation, one in which we had to get help to as many Canadians as possible as quickly as possible. That is exactly what we did. We continue to work very hard to fill gaps for people who should get money but haven't been able to, and, as I said, we have strong measures to counter fraud. Anyone who got this money fraudulently will have to repay it.

Mr. Chair, when these programs were first designed, the Prime Minister said that he acknowledged that there were problems and that they would be fixed later. Well, here we are in May, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are being told no for purely technical and bureaucratic reasons. Will the Prime Minister make the simple changes to allow business owners who don't happen to have a business bank account, who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number and individuals who are ineligible for the emergency response benefit because they've been paid by family members through dividends to qualify, or is he going to continue to let hundreds of thousands of Canadians down during this pandemic?

Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, we moved extremely rapidly to get help and support to millions of Canadians. That was the priority, and that's what we've been doing for the past two months. As we've said, we will continue to tweak and improve the programs to make sure that more people who need help will get it. We are working the best we can, as fast as we can, to help those millions of Canadians who need support.

You have time for about a 15-second question, Mr. Scheer.


Mr. Chair, when these programs were first designed, the Prime Minister said that he acknowledged that there were problems and that they would be fixed later. Well, here we are in May, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are being told no for purely technical and bureaucratic reasons. Will the Prime Minister make the simple changes to allow business owners who don't happen to have a business bank account, who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number and individuals who are ineligible for the emergency response benefit because they've been paid by family members through dividends to qualify, or is he going to continue to let hundreds of thousands of Canadians down during this pandemic?

Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, we moved extremely rapidly to get help and support to millions of Canadians. That was the priority, and that's what we've been doing for the past two months. As we've said, we will continue to tweak and improve the programs to make sure that more people who need help will get it. We are working the best we can, as fast as we can, to help those millions of Canadians who need support.

You have time for about a 15-second question, Mr. Scheer.

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister indicated that he would support Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO only as a non-state observer. Of course, that designation does not exist. Participants of the WHO are either states or NGOs. Will the Prime Minister support Taiwan's participation as a state observer?


Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, we moved extremely rapidly to get help and support to millions of Canadians. That was the priority, and that's what we've been doing for the past two months. As we've said, we will continue to tweak and improve the programs to make sure that more people who need help will get it. We are working the best we can, as fast as we can, to help those millions of Canadians who need support.

You have time for about a 15-second question, Mr. Scheer.

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister indicated that he would support Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO only as a non-state observer. Of course, that designation does not exist. Participants of the WHO are either states or NGOs. Will the Prime Minister support Taiwan's participation as a state observer?

The Right Honourable Prime Minister has 15 seconds or less, please.


You have time for about a 15-second question, Mr. Scheer.

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister indicated that he would support Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO only as a non-state observer. Of course, that designation does not exist. Participants of the WHO are either states or NGOs. Will the Prime Minister support Taiwan's participation as a state observer?

The Right Honourable Prime Minister has 15 seconds or less, please.

Mr. Chair, we will continue with our one China policy, but we have always advocated Taiwan's meaningful inclusion in international bodies where it makes sense to do so, and that includes at the WHO.


Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister indicated that he would support Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO only as a non-state observer. Of course, that designation does not exist. Participants of the WHO are either states or NGOs. Will the Prime Minister support Taiwan's participation as a state observer?

The Right Honourable Prime Minister has 15 seconds or less, please.

Mr. Chair, we will continue with our one China policy, but we have always advocated Taiwan's meaningful inclusion in international bodies where it makes sense to do so, and that includes at the WHO.


The Right Honourable Prime Minister has 15 seconds or less, please.

Mr. Chair, we will continue with our one China policy, but we have always advocated Taiwan's meaningful inclusion in international bodies where it makes sense to do so, and that includes at the WHO.

Thank you very much, Mr.Chair. On Friday, students in Quebec and Canada will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit, which is a good thing. This program was necessary, particularly because the number of students who won't be able to get back their jobs from last year is much higher than the number of jobs that might be available to these young people. There are also issues of duration. We don't know how long these jobs will remain unavailable. People talked about a risk to being in the labour market and meeting the needs of the labour market. On April29, the Deputy Prime Minister made a formal commitment to ensure that these programs are accompanied by work incentives for youth and all CESB recipients. So that everyone knows what they're getting into, I'd like to know whether the employment incentives that will accompany the Canada emergency response benefit will be known by Friday.


Mr. Chair, we will continue with our one China policy, but we have always advocated Taiwan's meaningful inclusion in international bodies where it makes sense to do so, and that includes at the WHO.

Thank you very much, Mr.Chair. On Friday, students in Quebec and Canada will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit, which is a good thing. This program was necessary, particularly because the number of students who won't be able to get back their jobs from last year is much higher than the number of jobs that might be available to these young people. There are also issues of duration. We don't know how long these jobs will remain unavailable. People talked about a risk to being in the labour market and meeting the needs of the labour market. On April29, the Deputy Prime Minister made a formal commitment to ensure that these programs are accompanied by work incentives for youth and all CESB recipients. So that everyone knows what they're getting into, I'd like to know whether the employment incentives that will accompany the Canada emergency response benefit will be known by Friday.

I thank the hon. member for understanding the importance of supporting students who, for the most part, won't be able to get the summer jobs they were counting on. Young people don't just want to earn money; they also want to gain work experience. That's why we're setting up programs, including Canada summer jobs, but also another program with 76,000new jobs for young people in important sectors, so that young people can also get jobs. We will continue to work with youth and employers to ensure that gaps in the labour market are addressed, while ensuring that youth are well-supported.


Thank you very much, Mr.Chair. On Friday, students in Quebec and Canada will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit, which is a good thing. This program was necessary, particularly because the number of students who won't be able to get back their jobs from last year is much higher than the number of jobs that might be available to these young people. There are also issues of duration. We don't know how long these jobs will remain unavailable. People talked about a risk to being in the labour market and meeting the needs of the labour market. On April29, the Deputy Prime Minister made a formal commitment to ensure that these programs are accompanied by work incentives for youth and all CESB recipients. So that everyone knows what they're getting into, I'd like to know whether the employment incentives that will accompany the Canada emergency response benefit will be known by Friday.

I thank the hon. member for understanding the importance of supporting students who, for the most part, won't be able to get the summer jobs they were counting on. Young people don't just want to earn money; they also want to gain work experience. That's why we're setting up programs, including Canada summer jobs, but also another program with 76,000new jobs for young people in important sectors, so that young people can also get jobs. We will continue to work with youth and employers to ensure that gaps in the labour market are addressed, while ensuring that youth are well-supported.

That's very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question at all. People in the fishing, tourism and agricultural sectors, as well as municipalities and, from the very beginning, of course, the Government of Quebec, more generally, have expressed fears that job gains will cause people to lose their benefits and discourage them from going to work. The only way to avoid that is to ensure that people keep more money as they work more. That is the principle. In fact, we propose that over the $1,000no-penalty limit, half of the earnings be exempt from penalty. Is this something that could be considered? Since it's been two weeks since the commitment was made and it's urgent, can we act now? The emergency shouldn't last eight months.


Thank you very much, Mr.Chair. On Friday, students in Quebec and Canada will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit, which is a good thing. This program was necessary, particularly because the number of students who won't be able to get back their jobs from last year is much higher than the number of jobs that might be available to these young people. There are also issues of duration. We don't know how long these jobs will remain unavailable. People talked about a risk to being in the labour market and meeting the needs of the labour market. On April29, the Deputy Prime Minister made a formal commitment to ensure that these programs are accompanied by work incentives for youth and all CESB recipients. So that everyone knows what they're getting into, I'd like to know whether the employment incentives that will accompany the Canada emergency response benefit will be known by Friday.

I thank the hon. member for understanding the importance of supporting students who, for the most part, won't be able to get the summer jobs they were counting on. Young people don't just want to earn money; they also want to gain work experience. That's why we're setting up programs, including Canada summer jobs, but also another program with 76,000new jobs for young people in important sectors, so that young people can also get jobs. We will continue to work with youth and employers to ensure that gaps in the labour market are addressed, while ensuring that youth are well-supported.

That's very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question at all. People in the fishing, tourism and agricultural sectors, as well as municipalities and, from the very beginning, of course, the Government of Quebec, more generally, have expressed fears that job gains will cause people to lose their benefits and discourage them from going to work. The only way to avoid that is to ensure that people keep more money as they work more. That is the principle. In fact, we propose that over the $1,000no-penalty limit, half of the earnings be exempt from penalty. Is this something that could be considered? Since it's been two weeks since the commitment was made and it's urgent, can we act now? The emergency shouldn't last eight months.

Mr.Chair, young people need money, but they also need work experience. This is an unprecedented situation, which is why we're working with seasonal industries and the different regions to make sure they have a sufficient workforce in their situation. Students can be part of it, but at the same time we must provide the necessary support for those who can't find a job. That's why we continue to work with the industries involved to ensure that they have a sufficient workforce while we support students.


I thank the hon. member for understanding the importance of supporting students who, for the most part, won't be able to get the summer jobs they were counting on. Young people don't just want to earn money; they also want to gain work experience. That's why we're setting up programs, including Canada summer jobs, but also another program with 76,000new jobs for young people in important sectors, so that young people can also get jobs. We will continue to work with youth and employers to ensure that gaps in the labour market are addressed, while ensuring that youth are well-supported.

That's very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question at all. People in the fishing, tourism and agricultural sectors, as well as municipalities and, from the very beginning, of course, the Government of Quebec, more generally, have expressed fears that job gains will cause people to lose their benefits and discourage them from going to work. The only way to avoid that is to ensure that people keep more money as they work more. That is the principle. In fact, we propose that over the $1,000no-penalty limit, half of the earnings be exempt from penalty. Is this something that could be considered? Since it's been two weeks since the commitment was made and it's urgent, can we act now? The emergency shouldn't last eight months.

Mr.Chair, young people need money, but they also need work experience. This is an unprecedented situation, which is why we're working with seasonal industries and the different regions to make sure they have a sufficient workforce in their situation. Students can be part of it, but at the same time we must provide the necessary support for those who can't find a job. That's why we continue to work with the industries involved to ensure that they have a sufficient workforce while we support students.

Unfortunately, the spirit of it doesn't seem to have been understood. I doubt that, even in the best-case scenario, the government will be able to get all the jobs needed in a timely manner for all these young people to decide to go ahead. So, first of all, there will be a shortage of jobs. Second, people aren't crazy. If they earn less by working than they earn by not working, all the good faith in the world won't solve the problem. Can we make sure that people keep more money in their pockets as they work more? I think we can have a clear answer, given the timeframe. People are going to start registering for the program on Friday. The principles are good, but a clear answer would be good too.


That's very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question at all. People in the fishing, tourism and agricultural sectors, as well as municipalities and, from the very beginning, of course, the Government of Quebec, more generally, have expressed fears that job gains will cause people to lose their benefits and discourage them from going to work. The only way to avoid that is to ensure that people keep more money as they work more. That is the principle. In fact, we propose that over the $1,000no-penalty limit, half of the earnings be exempt from penalty. Is this something that could be considered? Since it's been two weeks since the commitment was made and it's urgent, can we act now? The emergency shouldn't last eight months.

Mr.Chair, young people need money, but they also need work experience. This is an unprecedented situation, which is why we're working with seasonal industries and the different regions to make sure they have a sufficient workforce in their situation. Students can be part of it, but at the same time we must provide the necessary support for those who can't find a job. That's why we continue to work with the industries involved to ensure that they have a sufficient workforce while we support students.

Unfortunately, the spirit of it doesn't seem to have been understood. I doubt that, even in the best-case scenario, the government will be able to get all the jobs needed in a timely manner for all these young people to decide to go ahead. So, first of all, there will be a shortage of jobs. Second, people aren't crazy. If they earn less by working than they earn by not working, all the good faith in the world won't solve the problem. Can we make sure that people keep more money in their pockets as they work more? I think we can have a clear answer, given the timeframe. People are going to start registering for the program on Friday. The principles are good, but a clear answer would be good too.

Beginning Friday, students will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit. When they apply, they'll all be directed to a job bank that we've set up to make sure they know what jobs are available to get not only the money they need, but also the experience they need for their future, while helping our society in this crisis. I know we're going to be able to count on young people.


Mr.Chair, young people need money, but they also need work experience. This is an unprecedented situation, which is why we're working with seasonal industries and the different regions to make sure they have a sufficient workforce in their situation. Students can be part of it, but at the same time we must provide the necessary support for those who can't find a job. That's why we continue to work with the industries involved to ensure that they have a sufficient workforce while we support students.

Unfortunately, the spirit of it doesn't seem to have been understood. I doubt that, even in the best-case scenario, the government will be able to get all the jobs needed in a timely manner for all these young people to decide to go ahead. So, first of all, there will be a shortage of jobs. Second, people aren't crazy. If they earn less by working than they earn by not working, all the good faith in the world won't solve the problem. Can we make sure that people keep more money in their pockets as they work more? I think we can have a clear answer, given the timeframe. People are going to start registering for the program on Friday. The principles are good, but a clear answer would be good too.

Beginning Friday, students will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit. When they apply, they'll all be directed to a job bank that we've set up to make sure they know what jobs are available to get not only the money they need, but also the experience they need for their future, while helping our society in this crisis. I know we're going to be able to count on young people.


Unfortunately, the spirit of it doesn't seem to have been understood. I doubt that, even in the best-case scenario, the government will be able to get all the jobs needed in a timely manner for all these young people to decide to go ahead. So, first of all, there will be a shortage of jobs. Second, people aren't crazy. If they earn less by working than they earn by not working, all the good faith in the world won't solve the problem. Can we make sure that people keep more money in their pockets as they work more? I think we can have a clear answer, given the timeframe. People are going to start registering for the program on Friday. The principles are good, but a clear answer would be good too.

Beginning Friday, students will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit. When they apply, they'll all be directed to a job bank that we've set up to make sure they know what jobs are available to get not only the money they need, but also the experience they need for their future, while helping our society in this crisis. I know we're going to be able to count on young people.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, one of the most devastating outcomes of this COVID-19 crisis has been the impact on seniors. Eighty per cent or more of the deaths during COVID-19 have been seniors living in long-term care homes. The military had to be called in. Out of 14 countries, Canada has been deemed the worst in its care of seniors. Despite all this, the Prime Minister has said recently that he doesn't feel it's the federal government's responsibility to find a solution. How can he say to families reeling with loss that it's not the federal government's responsibility to play a role in solving this problem?


Beginning Friday, students will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit. When they apply, they'll all be directed to a job bank that we've set up to make sure they know what jobs are available to get not only the money they need, but also the experience they need for their future, while helping our society in this crisis. I know we're going to be able to count on young people.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, one of the most devastating outcomes of this COVID-19 crisis has been the impact on seniors. Eighty per cent or more of the deaths during COVID-19 have been seniors living in long-term care homes. The military had to be called in. Out of 14 countries, Canada has been deemed the worst in its care of seniors. Despite all this, the Prime Minister has said recently that he doesn't feel it's the federal government's responsibility to find a solution. How can he say to families reeling with loss that it's not the federal government's responsibility to play a role in solving this problem?

Mr. Chair, perhaps the fact that the NDP no longer has many seats in Quebec has caused it to forget the importance of respecting the Constitution and the areas of jurisdiction of provincial versus federal governments. We will be there to work with the provinces as they deal with challenges in their long-term care facilities. We are there as a partner, but we, on this side of the House, will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and be there to support them in fulfilling those responsibilities.


Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, one of the most devastating outcomes of this COVID-19 crisis has been the impact on seniors. Eighty per cent or more of the deaths during COVID-19 have been seniors living in long-term care homes. The military had to be called in. Out of 14 countries, Canada has been deemed the worst in its care of seniors. Despite all this, the Prime Minister has said recently that he doesn't feel it's the federal government's responsibility to find a solution. How can he say to families reeling with loss that it's not the federal government's responsibility to play a role in solving this problem?

Mr. Chair, perhaps the fact that the NDP no longer has many seats in Quebec has caused it to forget the importance of respecting the Constitution and the areas of jurisdiction of provincial versus federal governments. We will be there to work with the provinces as they deal with challenges in their long-term care facilities. We are there as a partner, but we, on this side of the House, will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and be there to support them in fulfilling those responsibilities.

Everyone across Canada has just heard this Prime Minister double down on the idea that he doesn't feel it's his responsibility, despite the fact that the Canadian military had to go into long-term care homes. There is a role that the federal government can play. Both Liberal and Conservative federal governments have been consistently, for decades, cutting transfers to health care. They can increase those transfers to ensure long-term care is adequately funded. We could also ensure that there's a national care guarantee, working with provinces to ensure that we are meeting the best standards. We could increase workers' pay. We could ensure that there's no more profiting off the backs of seniors when it comes to long-term care. Will the Prime Minister commit to some of these care guarantees?


Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, one of the most devastating outcomes of this COVID-19 crisis has been the impact on seniors. Eighty per cent or more of the deaths during COVID-19 have been seniors living in long-term care homes. The military had to be called in. Out of 14 countries, Canada has been deemed the worst in its care of seniors. Despite all this, the Prime Minister has said recently that he doesn't feel it's the federal government's responsibility to find a solution. How can he say to families reeling with loss that it's not the federal government's responsibility to play a role in solving this problem?

Mr. Chair, perhaps the fact that the NDP no longer has many seats in Quebec has caused it to forget the importance of respecting the Constitution and the areas of jurisdiction of provincial versus federal governments. We will be there to work with the provinces as they deal with challenges in their long-term care facilities. We are there as a partner, but we, on this side of the House, will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and be there to support them in fulfilling those responsibilities.

Everyone across Canada has just heard this Prime Minister double down on the idea that he doesn't feel it's his responsibility, despite the fact that the Canadian military had to go into long-term care homes. There is a role that the federal government can play. Both Liberal and Conservative federal governments have been consistently, for decades, cutting transfers to health care. They can increase those transfers to ensure long-term care is adequately funded. We could also ensure that there's a national care guarantee, working with provinces to ensure that we are meeting the best standards. We could increase workers' pay. We could ensure that there's no more profiting off the backs of seniors when it comes to long-term care. Will the Prime Minister commit to some of these care guarantees?

It will come as exactly no surprise to the vast majority of Canadians that the Liberal Party will always stand up for the Constitution of Canada. We respect the Constitution. We respect areas of provincial jurisdiction. As I have said from the very beginning of this crisis, we will be there to help the provinces as they manage the challenges they're facing. The federal government does have a role to play, and it is a role to support the provinces in doing the things they need to do during this unprecedented time. We will continue to be there.


Mr. Chair, perhaps the fact that the NDP no longer has many seats in Quebec has caused it to forget the importance of respecting the Constitution and the areas of jurisdiction of provincial versus federal governments. We will be there to work with the provinces as they deal with challenges in their long-term care facilities. We are there as a partner, but we, on this side of the House, will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and be there to support them in fulfilling those responsibilities.

Everyone across Canada has just heard this Prime Minister double down on the idea that he doesn't feel it's his responsibility, despite the fact that the Canadian military had to go into long-term care homes. There is a role that the federal government can play. Both Liberal and Conservative federal governments have been consistently, for decades, cutting transfers to health care. They can increase those transfers to ensure long-term care is adequately funded. We could also ensure that there's a national care guarantee, working with provinces to ensure that we are meeting the best standards. We could increase workers' pay. We could ensure that there's no more profiting off the backs of seniors when it comes to long-term care. Will the Prime Minister commit to some of these care guarantees?

It will come as exactly no surprise to the vast majority of Canadians that the Liberal Party will always stand up for the Constitution of Canada. We respect the Constitution. We respect areas of provincial jurisdiction. As I have said from the very beginning of this crisis, we will be there to help the provinces as they manage the challenges they're facing. The federal government does have a role to play, and it is a role to support the provinces in doing the things they need to do during this unprecedented time. We will continue to be there.

I am glad to hear the Prime Minister is no longer trying to hide behind jurisdiction. We know that in long-term care homes, the for-profit long-term care homes have been the site of the worst conditions, where the greatest number of seniors have died. Will the Prime Minister join us in committing to remove profit from the long-term care system? Vulnerable seniors should not be subject to the profits of a company willing to cut services, staffing and quality of care instead of ensuring that seniors get the best care possible.


Everyone across Canada has just heard this Prime Minister double down on the idea that he doesn't feel it's his responsibility, despite the fact that the Canadian military had to go into long-term care homes. There is a role that the federal government can play. Both Liberal and Conservative federal governments have been consistently, for decades, cutting transfers to health care. They can increase those transfers to ensure long-term care is adequately funded. We could also ensure that there's a national care guarantee, working with provinces to ensure that we are meeting the best standards. We could increase workers' pay. We could ensure that there's no more profiting off the backs of seniors when it comes to long-term care. Will the Prime Minister commit to some of these care guarantees?

It will come as exactly no surprise to the vast majority of Canadians that the Liberal Party will always stand up for the Constitution of Canada. We respect the Constitution. We respect areas of provincial jurisdiction. As I have said from the very beginning of this crisis, we will be there to help the provinces as they manage the challenges they're facing. The federal government does have a role to play, and it is a role to support the provinces in doing the things they need to do during this unprecedented time. We will continue to be there.

I am glad to hear the Prime Minister is no longer trying to hide behind jurisdiction. We know that in long-term care homes, the for-profit long-term care homes have been the site of the worst conditions, where the greatest number of seniors have died. Will the Prime Minister join us in committing to remove profit from the long-term care system? Vulnerable seniors should not be subject to the profits of a company willing to cut services, staffing and quality of care instead of ensuring that seniors get the best care possible.

I think it has become clear for all Canadians that we need to improve the care offered to our seniors right across the country. We cannot look at these numbers we are seeing and these tragedies hitting so many families and not want to see us as a country do better. That is why we of course recognize that we will work with other orders of government, particularly the provinces in whose jurisdiction this area rests primarily, to support answering these questions for the long term on how we improve the way Canada supports our elders. This is something really important that we will be there for.


It will come as exactly no surprise to the vast majority of Canadians that the Liberal Party will always stand up for the Constitution of Canada. We respect the Constitution. We respect areas of provincial jurisdiction. As I have said from the very beginning of this crisis, we will be there to help the provinces as they manage the challenges they're facing. The federal government does have a role to play, and it is a role to support the provinces in doing the things they need to do during this unprecedented time. We will continue to be there.

I am glad to hear the Prime Minister is no longer trying to hide behind jurisdiction. We know that in long-term care homes, the for-profit long-term care homes have been the site of the worst conditions, where the greatest number of seniors have died. Will the Prime Minister join us in committing to remove profit from the long-term care system? Vulnerable seniors should not be subject to the profits of a company willing to cut services, staffing and quality of care instead of ensuring that seniors get the best care possible.

I think it has become clear for all Canadians that we need to improve the care offered to our seniors right across the country. We cannot look at these numbers we are seeing and these tragedies hitting so many families and not want to see us as a country do better. That is why we of course recognize that we will work with other orders of government, particularly the provinces in whose jurisdiction this area rests primarily, to support answering these questions for the long term on how we improve the way Canada supports our elders. This is something really important that we will be there for.

At the CHSLD Herron in Dorval, 31seniors died in one month. The residents were left without food, dehydrated and without care, and those with COVID-19 symptoms were not isolated from the others. Families pay between $3,000 and $10,000 a month for their loved ones to be at the centre. How can the Prime Minister think that he doesn't have a role to play in finding a solution to this devastating problem?


I am glad to hear the Prime Minister is no longer trying to hide behind jurisdiction. We know that in long-term care homes, the for-profit long-term care homes have been the site of the worst conditions, where the greatest number of seniors have died. Will the Prime Minister join us in committing to remove profit from the long-term care system? Vulnerable seniors should not be subject to the profits of a company willing to cut services, staffing and quality of care instead of ensuring that seniors get the best care possible.

I think it has become clear for all Canadians that we need to improve the care offered to our seniors right across the country. We cannot look at these numbers we are seeing and these tragedies hitting so many families and not want to see us as a country do better. That is why we of course recognize that we will work with other orders of government, particularly the provinces in whose jurisdiction this area rests primarily, to support answering these questions for the long term on how we improve the way Canada supports our elders. This is something really important that we will be there for.

At the CHSLD Herron in Dorval, 31seniors died in one month. The residents were left without food, dehydrated and without care, and those with COVID-19 symptoms were not isolated from the others. Families pay between $3,000 and $10,000 a month for their loved ones to be at the centre. How can the Prime Minister think that he doesn't have a role to play in finding a solution to this devastating problem?

Mr.Chair, all Quebeckers and even all Canadians were stunned to learn of the tragedy at the Dorval CHSLD. We were very happy, as citizens, when the Government of Quebec reacted firmly and asked many questions in connection with this situation. We will support the Government of Quebec in its efforts to find answers and, most importantly, to ensure that, in the long term, the country will better support seniors in all regions.


I think it has become clear for all Canadians that we need to improve the care offered to our seniors right across the country. We cannot look at these numbers we are seeing and these tragedies hitting so many families and not want to see us as a country do better. That is why we of course recognize that we will work with other orders of government, particularly the provinces in whose jurisdiction this area rests primarily, to support answering these questions for the long term on how we improve the way Canada supports our elders. This is something really important that we will be there for.

At the CHSLD Herron in Dorval, 31seniors died in one month. The residents were left without food, dehydrated and without care, and those with COVID-19 symptoms were not isolated from the others. Families pay between $3,000 and $10,000 a month for their loved ones to be at the centre. How can the Prime Minister think that he doesn't have a role to play in finding a solution to this devastating problem?

Mr.Chair, all Quebeckers and even all Canadians were stunned to learn of the tragedy at the Dorval CHSLD. We were very happy, as citizens, when the Government of Quebec reacted firmly and asked many questions in connection with this situation. We will support the Government of Quebec in its efforts to find answers and, most importantly, to ensure that, in the long term, the country will better support seniors in all regions.


At the CHSLD Herron in Dorval, 31seniors died in one month. The residents were left without food, dehydrated and without care, and those with COVID-19 symptoms were not isolated from the others. Families pay between $3,000 and $10,000 a month for their loved ones to be at the centre. How can the Prime Minister think that he doesn't have a role to play in finding a solution to this devastating problem?

Mr.Chair, all Quebeckers and even all Canadians were stunned to learn of the tragedy at the Dorval CHSLD. We were very happy, as citizens, when the Government of Quebec reacted firmly and asked many questions in connection with this situation. We will support the Government of Quebec in its efforts to find answers and, most importantly, to ensure that, in the long term, the country will better support seniors in all regions.

Mr. Chair, how many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?


Mr.Chair, all Quebeckers and even all Canadians were stunned to learn of the tragedy at the Dorval CHSLD. We were very happy, as citizens, when the Government of Quebec reacted firmly and asked many questions in connection with this situation. We will support the Government of Quebec in its efforts to find answers and, most importantly, to ensure that, in the long term, the country will better support seniors in all regions.

Mr. Chair, how many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?

Thank you, Mr.Chair. I'd like to start by quickly saying that a total of 7.7million Canadians have received the Canada emergency response benefit, which is absolutely essential for


Mr. Chair, how many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?

Thank you, Mr.Chair. I'd like to start by quickly saying that a total of 7.7million Canadians have received the Canada emergency response benefit, which is absolutely essential for

How many emergency response benefits have been sent out to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?


Mr. Chair, how many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?

Thank you, Mr.Chair. I'd like to start by quickly saying that a total of 7.7million Canadians have received the Canada emergency response benefit, which is absolutely essential for

How many emergency response benefits have been sent out to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?

Mr.Chair, I see that the pace will allow me to give a little bit of information for each question. As we said at the outset, there will be mechanisms


Thank you, Mr.Chair. I'd like to start by quickly saying that a total of 7.7million Canadians have received the Canada emergency response benefit, which is absolutely essential for

How many emergency response benefits have been sent out to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?

Mr.Chair, I see that the pace will allow me to give a little bit of information for each question. As we said at the outset, there will be mechanisms


How many emergency response benefits have been sent out to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?

Mr.Chair, I see that the pace will allow me to give a little bit of information for each question. As we said at the outset, there will be mechanisms


Mr.Chair, I see that the pace will allow me to give a little bit of information for each question. As we said at the outset, there will be mechanisms


We're working very hard to ensure the integrity of the mechanism while at the same time taking important steps to help Canadians.


We're working very hard to ensure the integrity of the mechanism while at the same time taking important steps to help Canadians.

How many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?


We're working very hard to ensure the integrity of the mechanism while at the same time taking important steps to help Canadians.

How many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?

A total of 7.7million Canadians have received the Canada emergency response benefit, and the agency is ensuring the integrity of the system.


We're working very hard to ensure the integrity of the mechanism while at the same time taking important steps to help Canadians.

How many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?

A total of 7.7million Canadians have received the Canada emergency response benefit, and the agency is ensuring the integrity of the system.

He's now claiming that it's all 7.7 million? That's crazy. The department is reported to have given out 200,000. Is 200,000 the correct number of cheques that have been sent out to people whose applications have been red-flagged as fraudulent, yes or no?