Bill C-14 (Historical)

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to provide additional support to families with young children as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses. It also amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to provide a similar benefit in respect of young children under that Act. As part of the Government’s response to COVID-19, it amends the Income Tax Act to provide that an expense can qualify as a qualifying rent expense for the purposes of the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS) when it becomes due rather than when it is paid, provided certain conditions are met.
Part 2 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on a guaranteed student loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by the borrower.
Part 3 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on a student loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by the borrower.
Part 4 amends the Apprentice Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on an apprentice loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by a borrower.
Part 5 amends the Food and Drugs Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations
(a) requiring persons to provide information to the Minister of Health; and
(b) preventing shortages of therapeutic products in Canada or alleviating those shortages or their effects, in order to protect human health.
It also amends that Act to provide that any prescribed provisions of regulations made under that Act apply to food, drugs, cosmetics and devices intended for export that would otherwise be exempt from the application of that Act.
Part 6 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund
(a) to the Government of Canada’s regional development agencies for the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund;
(b) in respect of specified initiatives related to health; and
(c) for the purpose of making income support payments under section 4 of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act.
Part 7 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings and include certain borrowings that were previously excluded in the calculation of that amount. It also makes a related amendment to the Financial Administration Act.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be now read a second time and referred to a committee.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, happy new year to all my colleagues in the House and everybody who is participating in this hybrid Parliament today.

I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands, and I understand that I will need unanimous consent to be able to do this.

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

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity I will only ask those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.

There is unanimous consent. Accordingly, the House has heard the terms of the motion and, there being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, whom I am honoured and blessed to represent in this venerable House on Bill C-14.

I will be speaking specifically to some of the important measures that are included in Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.

Since the onset of COVID-19, the Government of Canada has remained steadfast in its commitment to do whatever it takes to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to help Canadian businesses weather the storm. The recently tabled fall economic statement outlined the government's actions to date and proposed new measures to support Canadians through the COVID-19 pandemic. These investments are a down payment on a growth plan of roughly three to four per cent of GDP, or between $70 billion and $100 billion over three years, to jump-start Canada's economy once the virus is under control.

Bill C-14 is an important step in the government's plan. It would urgently move forward with measures from the fall economic statement that would provide immediate assistance to families with young children, students and businesses, and measures that would help protect the health and safety of Canadians.

For example, the bill would ensure that Canadians whose Canada emergency response benefit claim has been delayed could receive the income support that they are eligible for after the end of this year. This bill would also amend the Food and Drugs Act to help prevent and alleviate future drug shortages by allowing the government to make regulations to require that pertinent information on potential shortages and activities related to food, drugs and other items be provided to the Minister of Health, when necessary.

The fall economic statement also moves forward with a plan to set new national standards for long-term care, in recognition of the tragic deaths from COVID-19 that we saw in the spring, in the fall and right now. It seeks to establish a $1 billion safe long-term care fund that would help provinces and territories protect seniors and our most vulnerable. In particular, Bill C-14 would provide funding of up to $505.7 million over the coming months to support long-term care facilities, including funding to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection, outbreaks and deaths in supportive-care facilities.

Our federal government also recognizes that the emotional and mental health effects of the pandemic on Canadians will continue as we face the second wave and public health measures continue to be in place. Indeed, half of Canadians report that their mental health has worsened during COVID-19. Bill C-14 would provide funding to improve vital access to virtual care and mental health tools. This would include important investments to bolster distress centres and provide further support for the Wellness Together Canada portal, which connects Canadians to peer-support workers, social workers, psychologists and other professionals to help address mental health and substance use issues. These investments would help ensure that Canadians have the mental health support they need when they need it the most.

In addition to the $505.7 million for long-term care, this bill would provide funding of up to $395.6 million to support a range of initiatives to help Canadians cope during the pandemic and to continue our fight against the virus, including the following: mental health and substance use programming, innovative approaches to COVID-19 testing, virtual care and mental health tools, medical research, treatments and therapeutics, vaccine funding and development, border and travel measures, and isolation sites.

As the members of the House know well, the spring saw many challenges, as everything shut down across the country to reduce the spread of the virus. Suddenly, kids were out of school, day cares were closed and many families with young children had to find temporary alternatives to their regular child-care arrangements. These challenges often meant higher, unanticipated costs for Canadian families with children.

Our federal government is committed to helping the many families who have been struggling with a wide range of expenses as a result, from providing care to buying tools for at-home learning, such as books and computers, and often more costly temporary child-care arrangements.

That is why the federal government is proposing, through Bill C-14, to provide immediate relief for low- and middle-income families with young children who are entitled to the Canada child benefit or CCB. For these families, we are proposing to provide up to $1,200 in 2021 for each child under the age of six. This would represent an almost 20% increase over the existing maximum annual CCB payment and would have a meaningful impact on families in need of this support during the pandemic.

This support would automatically be delivered to families who are entitled to the CCB, and have a net income at or below $120,000, through four tax-free payments of $300. Families entitled to the CCB who have a net income above $120,000 would receive four tax-free payments of $150, for a total benefit of $600. The first of these payments would be made within a week or two of the passage of Bill C-14, as I understand, with subsequent payments occurring in April, July and October of 2021.

This temporary assistance would directly benefit about 1.6 million families and about 2.1 million children during a period when families are still grappling with the financial impacts they are facing as a result of this pandemic.

We must also recognize how young people continue to suffer from economic impacts due to COVID-19. When the pandemic struck, many students had to leave school. Internships and summer jobs became scarce as Canadians did the right thing and stayed at home. The government is working to ensure that the pandemic does not derail the futures of students. We are determined to take a number of measures to help youth continue in their careers and in their schools.

In addition to proposed measures from the fall economic statement that would provide more opportunities for young people to gain work experience, our government is also proposing support to ease the financial burden on recent graduates. This important measure, which has received praise from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, would bring $329.4 million in relief to up to 1.4 million Canadians who are looking for work or are in the early stages of their careers.

It would also help graduates from low- and middle-income families, who tend to have higher overall debt levels, as well as recent graduates with disabilities, given that 37% of borrowers who identified as a person with disabilities participated in the repayment assistance plan of the Canada student loans program in 2017-18.

In conclusion, it is clear that Canadians need our support to weather the storm as we continue to fight against COVID-19. That is why I implore all hon. members to join me in swiftly passing Bill C-14 to enable the government to move forward with implementing these important measures from the fall economic statement, to protect the health and safety of Canadians, to support students and recent graduates, and to help families with young children in need.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred specifically to something. She said that what the government has been making over almost the last year has been “a down payment on a growth plan”.

That is so telling. There were two choices at the beginning of this. It was about investing in Canadians and giving them the supports and tools they needed to get through this pandemic so we could come out in a better position than if we had not. The alternative was to essentially let everybody fend for themselves.

Can the member comment as to how she thinks things would have been had the government not taken these very important steps to invest in Canadians? How much better off will we be as a result of this work?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we are introducing these bills and big spending packages, sometimes it is easy, in the way we speak, to forget that COVID-19 is still strong in this country and we are still battling it very strongly.

The number one thing we need to keep doing is to continue to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In fighting this pandemic, we need to ensure there is enough support for our long-term care facilities, enough support for our families, enough support for our youth, enough support within Health Canada and all the different regions, and enough support for our businesses. We are not going to be able to move forward into a strong economic recovery otherwise. If we did not spend this investment, we would not be able to move forward and restart our economy in a successful way.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The raise hand function on Zoom, with the updated software, does not appear to work. I have been attempting to intervene. I think a number of other members have as well. Therefore, that needs to be fixed.

I would have liked to ask the hon. member a question.

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

The hon. member is correct because I did not see any raised hands.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish the hon. member a happy new year.

The provisions in Bill C-14, as the hon. member mentioned, provide about $100 a month for lower-income families of support for children, yet we know the average costs now for programs for early childhood education run about $2,000 a month.

My question is very simple. Why are the supports so small for families that are really struggling to make ends meet through this pandemic? Why has the government not actually put into place recommendations that have come from child care advocates across the country to invest vigorously and robustly $2 billion into helping to build the foundation for a national child care system?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also want to wish the hon. member a happy new year.

I think the hon. member knows that we have spent almost $400 billion in supports to help not only Canadian families and workers, but also businesses through this pandemic. The measure that he is referring to is with regard to the additional dollars we are providing, totalling up to $1,200 for each child under the age of six, for the next year. It represents a 20% increase over the maximum annual CCB payment. This is to provide some additional support.

If I can go through the $381 billion we have already spent and the amount of money we have set aside for child care to support families in a number of different ways, the government has shown time and time again that we will step up when we need to. We will be there for families. We will have the backs of families. If this is not enough, then we will come back with even more funding and more supports as time goes on.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really hope we can get the issue in Zoom resolved as soon as possible so members have the opportunity to raise their hands virtually.

It is great to be back in the House after our recess. We have important work to continue to do on behalf of Canadians. I am very much looking forward to being part of that. It is good to see my colleagues again, in person and virtually.

My remarks today touch primarily on three issues: long-term care, child care supports for Canadians and the supports we have seen to provincial and territorial partners throughout this pandemic as well as what we should anticipate from this government moving forward.

First, I want to acknowledge the fact this has been a very difficult year for Canadians right across the country. Indeed, it is going to be difficult throughout the winter as well. People are making tough decisions right now about what they need to do to get through this pandemic. To understand and know that we are all in this together and that their federal government is there to support them I think is reassuring for many Canadians.

As we get through this, I really hope we quickly see things start to get better now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, with the vaccines being distributed not just in our country but indeed throughout the world.

I want to talk about long-term care and other supportive care facilities and how this government has been responding to that.

We know the majority of people who had fallen quite ill and passed away as a result of COVID-19 were residents of long-term care facilities. One of the most alarming issues for me when I started to see data coming out of these facilities back in the spring, summer and into the fall was the disconnect between the different levels of long-term care facilities and how successful they were at containing the virus.

We have discovered in Ontario that there are three different levels of long-term care facilities: those owned by municipalities, and in Ontario each municipality is required to own at least one long-term care facility; not-for-profit long-term care facilities; and for-profit facilities. Those that were owned by municipalities did a much better job of containing COVID. Those that were not-for-profit long-term care facilities did almost as good as the municipalities. Unfortunately the for-profit long-term care facilities seemed to have the most fatalities and number of outbreaks and, as a result, saw the most strain. That is not to say that all for-profit long-term care facilities are going to experience these larger problems. Many out there have done things very effectively and should be complimented on that. However, many, unfortunately, were not as successful. Therefore, we have to get to the root of why that happened and why there are gaps, in particular, in the standards of care for our most vulnerable.

Since the beginning, this government has worked with the provinces and territories to fight the outbreaks in long-term care homes. For example, it helped provide PPE, contact tracing and direct assistance through the Canadian Red Cross. Despite the fact long-term care facilities are regulated by the provinces, the federal government acknowledged it had a lead role to play in helping the provinces get through it.

Therefore, the government proposed investments in the fall economic statement, such as: $1 billion allocated to establish a safe long-term care fund that will help provinces and territories protect people in long-term care and support infection, prevention and control; $6 million over two years to the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement to expand its long-term care initiative; $1 million to engage with third parties to help identify resources to conduct readiness assessments in long-term care facilities and facilitate training on infection, prevention and control; and $2.4 million over three years for Health Canada to increase its capacity to be able to support and undertake policy initiatives, as was the commitment in the Speech from the Throne.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government indicated that it wanted to move toward developing national standards when it came to long-term care. This is not to say that the federal government wants to impede on the jurisdiction of provinces, but as with other legislation, like the building code, the federal government sees a role in helping to establish some of those objectives and standards that exist so they can be adopted across the country if provinces and territories see the need to adopt them. As we have seen with the national building code, most provinces have adopted it. My understanding is that only two provinces in the country, Ontario and Quebec, have their own building codes. Therefore, national standards, although not to be imposed upon provinces, can be there for provinces to use as a resource in order to establish best practices.

The other item I will talk about, as I indicated earlier, is with respect to early childhood learning and child care. We know that this pandemic has created very difficult and challenging times for child care providers. Indeed, their jobs are much more difficult than they were before. It has made the work of over 200,000 early childhood educators and child care workers across the country uncertain. People are uncertain about their jobs and what the child care system will look like moving forward. Now is the time to make long-term, sustained investments so every Canadian family has access to affordable, high-quality child care for their children.

In the fall economic statement, a first step laid the groundwork for a Canada-wide child care system in partnership with our provinces and territories, which ultimately take the lead on this very important issue. Also being proposed are investments in 2021-22 of $420 million for provinces and territories to attract and retain early childhood educators. There is a growing need for childhood educators. There is uncertainty. The government sees a role in providing that certainty and ensuring that Canadians who are interested in early childhood education see that there will be work for them as we come through this pandemic.

Finally, I want to talk about the supports for provinces and territories. Quite a bit has been said over the last year about supports. I am extremely proud to be part of a government that has been there for Canadians through supporting our provinces, but it has not ended and it will not end yet. For 2020-21, $85 billion of support has been provided to provinces and territories throughout the country, and there is more to come.

What is being proposed with respect to the fiscal stabilization program is indexing the payment of $60 per capita, which was set out in 1987, to a total economic growth per person of $170 per person, which is nearly triple. The capital continues to grow with economic growth per person in future years. The higher cap will apply to claims for 2019-20 and onward.

This federal government has been there for Canadians directly through programs like the CERB and various other programs throughout this pandemic. It has been there to support provinces and territories by giving them the resources they need to successfully take care of Canadians. Indeed, it is there to ensure they can help develop policy to make a better Canada, a Canada that has quality of life moving forward. As we come out of this, we need to learn from things such as what has been happening in long-term care facilities to ensure we develop policies that will improve the quality of life for everybody.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that for-profit care centres were a big problem. Here in my city, just down the street from me, there was a for-profit care centre that actually had to disallow public health care workers from coming in because they were only given two sets of gloves and two masks for a full month. They had no PPE.

I would like to understand how he can blame for-profit care centres when PPE was nowhere near available.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I said, and I am sure the member was listening very closely to my comments, was that at least in Ontario, in the way the data is coming out, people were more likely to die as a result of COVID-19 in a for-profit facility compared with a municipally run or not-for-profit facility. Then I qualified that by saying this was not the case for all for-profit facilities, but is a trend within them.

My intention was not to try to attack one particular sector in long-term care, but rather to identify, using data, where the problems are so we can use that information to develop good policy to improve the quality of life for Canadians.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He talked about seniors, families and workers, among other things. My question is on students, who are suffering during the pandemic from a mental health and financial perspective.

The bill would suspend interest on Canadian student loans. Since Quebec administers its own loans and bursaries program, I wonder if what is being suggested here includes a compensatory transfer to Quebec on a per capita basis for post-secondary students.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a member for Ontario, and in Ontario students primarily tap into OSAP, the Ontario secondary loan program, and they can also get a federal component of that. What we are referring to in this document is just the federal component of it, not the provincial part of it.

The member raises a good question and a good point, and this is something that I think should come up in the finance committee when the fall economic statement is delivered so its members can discuss it and make sure we are giving the best opportunity for students and young people to be successful. At the end of the day, we are all depending on that and we all want to see students successful. Making sure they have the tools and resources from the government to do that is to everybody's benefit.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish the member a happy new year.

He spoke at quite some length about early childhood education and child care, but there is a problem with the bill. The government is building up the fall economic statement and saying it is moving to put into place early childhood education. We know it requires an investment of $2 billion this year to set that foundation, yet the government did not do that. At the same time, it is providing about $100 a month per child to lower-income families, but we know those families are paying $2,000 a month for early childhood education and child care.

At a time when families are struggling and really trying to have the wherewithal to take care of a myriad of things, including keeping a roof over their heads and putting food on the table, the government, through a variety of federal institutions, provided $750 billion to Canada's big banks this year in liquidity supports.

How does that jibe with this critical need to put in place national child care? Why is the government spending $750 billion to support Canada's banks and not providing supports to Canadian families?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member asked this question of my colleague as well. She indicated that there are many different supports going out to Canadians, and if we look at one in isolation, it is not going to be helpful.

To the member's point, when it comes to child care, it is about working with our provincial and territorial partners. These have to be collaborative solutions. We are not going to do it all on our own. We need to work with them, and that is what I talked about in my speech.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, if this pandemic has taught us anything, it is to be prepared for the unexpected, to anticipate risks before they metastasize so that we can protect ourselves and secure our future.

Today, I rise in the House of Commons to draw the attention of members to a growing risk of danger to our families, our businesses and our entire country. It is the risk of the $8.6 trillion of household, corporate and government debt that is quickly accumulating on the shoulders of Canadians. This amount equals 387% of our GDP, a record ratio that is higher than the ratios in many countries that have in the past experienced devastating debt crises.

Before our eyes glaze over, though, I want to remind members that a debt crisis is not just something that bankers and financial analysts talk about in the Report on Business from The Globe and Mail or on BNN. Research by reputable academic institutions shows that in the case of a financial crisis, house prices can drop by a third; stock markets, meaning people's savings, can drop by half; the economy can drop by 9%; and unemployment can rise seven percentage points.

Here is the human toll of that. The University of Calgary published a study recently showing that there is a two percentage point increase in suicides for every one percentage point increase in unemployment. Imagine the human cost of 7% unemployment. More data is now showing an inextricable link between opioid abuse and unemployment. Depression and homelessness result from these types of crises.

What is the nature of the risk? How serious is it? How likely are we to face it? We have to look to history. In their now-legendary book This Time is Different, Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Professor Ken Rogoff wrote about what they call eight centuries of folly. They studied debt crises in 66 countries across five continents. As they write in their opening, “Each time, the experts have chimed, ‘this time is different’—claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters.” With this breakthrough study, they found definitively that experts are wrong.

They lay out five standard leading indicators for a forthcoming financial crisis. I will go through them very quickly: first, falling economic output; second, a large debt buildup; third, rising household leverage; fourth, asset inflation; and fifth, large current account deficits. Do these five standard leading indicators apply to us?

Let us start with the first one: falling output. Last year, in 2020, our GDP dropped 5.5%, blowing a more than $100 billion hole in our economy. That is a massive reduction in our economy, and it means that we have $100 billion less to service our debts. On the first test, from This Time is Different, we do have falling economic output. It does not matter who is to blame. It does not matter that it was COVID that caused it. What matters is the math, and the math does not lie.

Let us move on to the second standard leading indicator: debt buildup. The amount of debt that a country can shoulder depends on the income that it produces to service that debt. According to the great Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith, “All crises have involved debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale in relation to the underlying means of payment.” That underlying means of payment, of course, is GDP, so let us look at the size of our debt and how much it has grown.

Since the beginning of 2015, our total debt, public and private, has gone from $6.1 trillion to $8.5 trillion, a nearly 40% increase in our debt. During that time, our GDP has only grown by 13%.

In other words, our debt levels are growing almost three times as fast as our GDP, the underlying means of payment. We have now reached a level of debt to GDP of 387%, as I said earlier, but I did not tell you that it is an all-time record and nearly twice the size of the typical ratio over the last 60 years in Canada.

Here is some more staggering information: The debt-to-GDP ratio of Greece when it had its massive sovereign debt crisis 10 years ago was 330%. In the United States, during the great financial crisis that came out of the mortgage bubble, their debt was 375% of GDP. In other words, our debt levels in Canada today are higher than they were in the United States and Greece when they massive, iconic and devastating debt crises in the recent past. Therefore, we need now to pay heed as to why we think we can avoid the same thing. The only difference between them then and us now is that interest rates are low, but they will not stay that way forever.

What is the composition of our debt? Where does it come from? The answer is threefold: it is government, corporate and household debt.

Let us start with government debt. This year for the first time on record, Statistics Canada shows that the gross debt of all levels of government in Canada is bigger than the GDP. It just exceeded 100%, 100.3%, to be precise, in the third quarter of 2020. That has never happened before. Our debt levels are higher than they were in the 1990s when we had our own miniature near default of the federal government. That time it was 92%, so our debt levels are higher than ever before when it comes to government.

Before the government rises to claim that we have the lowest debt in the G7, as a share of GDP, that is just wrong. The only reason that Finance Canada calculates it that way is that uses the assets of the CPP and the QPP to deduct from our overall net debt level without using the corresponding liabilities those funds must pay. As a result, if one were to ignore that and look at our gross debt, we have higher debt levels than both Germany and, I believe, France in the G7. That means we do not have the lowest debt levels in the G7 and cannot be worry-free and fool ourselves that our sustained buildup of government debt is not a problem.

This year has seen a spectacular and never-before-seen increase in that debt. Our fiscal deficit is $381 billion. That is almost seven times bigger than the previous all-time average and equals 17% of our GDP. Let us put that into perspective.

In World War I, our deficit-to-GDP ratio was 8%. In the Great Depression, it was 6%. In the great global recession it was 4%. In other words, our deficit as a share of the economy and adjusted for inflation is currently twice what it was at its peak in World War I, three times what it was at its peak in the Great Depression and four times what it was in the great global recession. Only in the Second World War was it bigger, and our ancestors, when they came back from the war, immediately began repaying that debt, running the biggest surpluses ever in 1947, and then increasing the size of our economy elevenfold in the two-and-a-half decades that followed, which allowed them to pay it off quickly. Nobody is suggesting that we will come anywhere near to those kinds of surpluses or growth rates in the post-COVID era, which means that our debt situation is arguably more ominous for the country than it was even back then. Thus, on that criterion, the second standard leading indicator of a sustained buildup of debt, Canada meets that criterion as well.

We move on to household debt levels. Canada has the highest level of household debt as a ratio of disposable income in the G7. In fact, recently, our level of household debt grew to bigger than the entire Canadian economy, again setting records. These ratios mean that our households are carrying more debt than our economy can reasonably be expected to support.

According to the president and CEO of CMHC, “Canadians are among world leaders in household debt. Pre-COVID, the ratio of ... debt to GDP for Canada was at 99 per cent.... These ratios are well in excess of the 80 per cent threshold above which the Bank of International Settlements has shown that national debt intensifies the drag on GDP growth.” In other words, an international body like the Bank for International Settlements says that countries should not go above 80%, and yet pre-COVID we were at nearly 100%. Since that time, debt levels have risen even higher.

That is the third criterion for a forthcoming debt crisis, rising household leverage. Now we move onto the next one, which is asset inflation.

In Canada today, the assets that Canadians own in the country are worth 17 times the size of the Canadian economy. The historic average is 12 times. In other words, our asset values are quickly outpacing our economy. That cannot go on for long, because, of course, assets can only be purchased out of the income generated in the economy. Those assets break down into two parts: financial assets and real estate assets, more or less.

With financial assets, we look at the S&P/TSX, the broadest index in the country. Until a few years ago, the market value of that index had never exceeded the size of our economy. It was always smaller than GDP. That changed in the last 24 months, and has suddenly rocketed up to 120%, according to Rosenberg Research, a leading economic research firm. That one index is now worth 120% of GDP. That has never happened before. The companies in that index need to generate their profits from the economy, and therefore the value of the stocks on the index cannot get completely out of touch with the ability of the economy to generate income and support those stock prices.

Then we move on to real estate, where prices are up $65,000 this year. Can members imagine that in a year when our economy has lost over $100 billion in economic output and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their paycheques and been forced into their homes that somehow we found all of this money to buy real estate? In fact, from the beginning of 2019 to mid-2020, the inflation of our assets in this country has been worth more than our entire economy. There has been $2.7 trillion of asset inflation in an economy worth just over $2 trillion. That would be like someone making more money every year from the appreciation of their house than the salary they take home from work.

It would be nice if it could happen forever and we could simply float on a bubble up to prosperity, but we know that in the end our assets are only worth what we can afford to pay for them. Can Canadians afford the real estate they have right now? Members can ask RBC and the CMHC. The CMHC says that for a home to be affordable for a family, the family should not have to spend more than 30% of its income on housing. According to RBC, the average right now is 50%. That means that for the average person to afford the average house, 20 percentage points more from their family budgets has to go to housing. That is with record low interest rates. When rates rise, those payments will only become more expensive.

Do we have asset inflation in Canada? We have it like we have perhaps never seen before. Asset inflation is the fourth leading indicator of a forthcoming debt crisis.

This brings us to the final leading indicator that these Harvard economists developed through studying 800 years of history of debt crises, which is current account deficits.

To oversimplify this for the purpose of saving us some time, current account deficits are basically the amounts someone buys in excess of what they sell. In essence, Canada buys imports and sells exports. The truth is that we buy a lot more from the rest of the world than we sell to it.

Since 2015 to the present, Canada has run current account deficits of approximately $300 billion. In other words, we bought $300 billion more from the world than we sold to it, and we borrowed to make up the difference. How else would we do it? If we buy more than we are selling, there are only two ways to do it: we drain our savings or we rack up debt. We have been doing a little of both, but most of all, we have been adding debt. The result is that we are taking on more and more obligations for our prior consumption.

I would like to say that all of this debt has been used to invest in productive assets like factories, software, patents and other things that will generate income to pay off that debt, but the evidence shows that the overwhelming preponderance of the new debt has been going to immediate consumption. In fact, data from after the government's programs came in, programs that I believe were meritorious and had to happen, showed that much of the money leaked out of the country because, as Canadians, we were all buying or importing things from abroad more than we were producing and sending abroad. That means that last year we were again running a large trade deficit and adding to our overall debt load in the process.

In the months of April and May 2020, Canadians borrowed an extra $80 billion from foreigners according to David Dodge, who published a recent piece on this for the Public Policy Forum. He specifically asked how long it will be possible for Canadians, for our country, to borrow from the world in order to buy from the world before the world gets tired of lending us money. The bottom line is that we have a large and consistent current account deficit, the second largest in the G7, second only to Japan's. That is an unavoidable problem that we will need to confront because the world is not going to view our economy as a charity case. The lenders of the world will expect to be paid interest on all of the debt that we carry forward.

In fact, the only way to pay off that debt is to generate powerful incomes. Unfortunately, since 2012, Canada has exported more investment than it has brought in by a net amount of $800 billion. In other words, we are sending our investment to productive assets in other parts of the world while they are sending us debt. They get factories, software, patents or pipelines, and we get large-scale debt. That is the fifth measurement of whether or not a debt crisis will strike, and we can say definitively that with our $300 billion in current account deficits the last five years, Canada indeed meets this standard leading indicator that is necessary to trigger a debt crisis.

There are five indicators and we check every single box. What can we do about it? The answer is that we need to unleash the power of our productive economy to clear the way for job creation.

This is red tape week. Let us eliminate the red tape that prevents businesses from hiring. Let us approve large-scale projects like the Teck Frontier mine in Alberta, or the LNG facility in Saguenay. These are tens of billions of dollars in economic activity. Let us make this the fastest place in the world to get a construction permit. Right now we rank 34th out of 35 OECD nations on that. Let us be the fastest place to build a factory or build a pipeline or some other economic infrastructure that pays wages and can reimburse our debts and support our prosperity. Let us change the tax and regulatory rules that get in the way of first nation communities trying to develop commerce and resources on their reserves. Let us remove the penalties for low-income people to get off social assistance so that they can get back to work. Let us allow our newcomers as immigrants use their qualifications by giving them permits to work in fields they are qualified in, like the professions and the trades. Let us replace what has become a credit card economy with a paycheque economy, and in that way alone, we will secure our future.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Happy new year, Madam Speaker. I am happy to be back in the House.

I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for his lesson on the economy and on debt financing. It is quite clear from the tenet of what he is proposing or certainly saying that the situation we are in is untenable. Certainly in all the investments we made in Canadians in the past year, there was a choice to be made. On this side of the House, we decided to invest in Canadians, and he is deriding us for accumulating debt.

I want the member for Carleton to comment on the fact that we have invested too much in Canadians. Why did we accumulate debt? It was to help Canadians weather this storm and weather the worst pandemic we have faced as a nation during our lifetimes.

The government has brought forward a lot of programs, including the CERB, the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy, the mortgage deferral payments, the support for indigenous communities, the CEBA loans, the regional relief and recovery fund, and the billions of dollars of transfers provided to the provinces to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. Which program would he have not brought forward?

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

Before I return the floor to the hon. member for Carleton, I would like to talk to those members who have raised the question of the hand function that does not appear to be working in Zoom. We have asked the staff to work toward resolving the issue.

As an interim solution, I would suggest that members who wish to ask a question during questions and comments turn on their cameras and physically raise their hands. The table officers will keep a list of those who wish to intervene.

I would also ask members who do not wish to speak to turn off their cameras, to make it easier to identify those who do wish to speak. I thank hon. members for their co-operation.

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked what we would have done differently. First, we would not have gone into this crisis having already added $100 billion of debt before the very first case of COVID-19. That is the first thing. The Liberal government inherited a balanced budget and blew through $100 billion of debt before COVID-19 even arrived on the scene.

Second, we would have ensured that the COVID crisis would not have spun out of control here in Canada the way it did, because we would have closed the border. We told the Liberals and we are on the record as saying we would have closed the border. They had military intelligence in December telling them of the risk, yet they let 60,000 people come into this country from China between December and March, causing the disease to spread quickly.

We would have approved rapid testing more quickly so that Canadians could get back into their jobs safely. We would have procured vaccines on a priority basis, rather than leaving us at the back of the pack. All of these things would have saved a fortune.

Finally, what would we do differently going forward? When we come out of the COVID crisis, we would unleash the engine of free market productive economic growth that produces paycheques for people, rather than shutting down the economy by blocking enterprises, as the Liberal government has done in project after project. We also reject their proposal to make all the COVID spending permanent. In this bill, they have asked for an increase in the debt limit of another $700 billion. That is irresponsible.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the deficit and the kind of plan he would implement.

I would like him to comment on the aerospace industry, which we believe should be strengthened and supported. How does he see that sector, which seems to have been abandoned entirely, fitting into the economic recovery plan?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party clearly supports the aerospace sector. I am a little surprised to hear the Bloc Québécois is of the same opinion, because the aerospace sector uses fuel. Airplanes run on fuel. To my knowledge, there is not a single airplane that can fly without fuel. Furthermore, petroleum products represent the lion's share of our exports.

We support all industries. Our aerospace sector has the ability to compete globally. This would also mean that our airplanes would be fuelled by the cleanest and most ethical oil, oil from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish my hon. colleague a happy new year.

He spoke a lot about debt. I want to speak with him about people who have been left behind: people with disabilities, seniors, students, and indigenous people. Although, like the member, we need to certainly watch spending, I do not think it should be on the backs of people.

I want to ask the member about paying for the debt. The Conservative government, when it has been in power, has fought to support its corporate friends. I want to know if the member agrees with me that one of the ways we can pay for the debt is by fighting against tax havens and tax loopholes and going away from the Conservatives' tradition of helping their rich friends.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, that is a complete falsehood. Conservatives have spoken out against corporate welfare. We were the first party to stand in the House and insist that the wage subsidy not go to paying dividends. I warned, on the floor of this House of Commons, the then finance minister, Bill Morneau, that if he did not ban it, corporations would use the wage subsidy to pay dividends to executives and wealthy shareholders. He ignored me, and that is exactly what they did. We, on this side, were the ones who spoke out against it. We are the party that opposes corporate welfare.

However, the member asked about these tax revenues that they want to generate by closing loopholes and shutting down, as we call them in French, the “paradis fiscaux”. Of course we agree that everybody should pay their own fair share, but I find that when these left-wing governments take office, although they always claim that rich people will pay, rich people never end up paying, and it ends it being the middle class and the working people who get the full bill.

The current government cannot produce a single, solitary shred of evidence that it is raising any new money from the rich. Yes, the Liberals raised the rate, but there is not one annual filing from Revenue Canada that shows it generated a nickel in new revenue. The poor will end up paying for—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be back here in 2021. Let us hope we have a much better year than 2020.

My colleague and friend from Carleton laid out a very well-reasoned argument about what is going on and how our government is continuing to leave Canadians behind.

The Liberal government continues to try to pit us against working Canadians in saying we want to leave people behind. There is nothing further from the truth.

Here is my question. Does the member see a plan by the current finance minister and government, because we know there has not been a plan put forward in over 600 days for how we are going to get Canadians back to work, how we are going to secure the future for Canadians going forward, and how we are going to get 600 people at Evraz steel in Regina back to work in the pipeline sector? That is the question I have for my hon. colleague.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

That is a good question, Madam Speaker. The reality is we have to secure the future by moving to a paycheque economy from a credit card economy.

The credit card economy that the government wants to create would permanently lock in annual spending increases forever and add another $600 billion of debt. That is what the Liberals are seeking authorization for in this bill: to raise the national debt to $1.8 trillion. That is the credit card economy. It only ends in tears.

The paycheque economy is one in which we unleash the power of enterprise to build pipelines so that the steelworkers in the member's riding can actually get jobs making the steel that goes into that pipe and the energy sector workers can get full global prices for their oil, rather than letting the Americans continue to rip us off. It means unleashing the construction of the Teck Frontier mine, for which the permit could still be approved, or expediting the approval of the LNG, a $14-billion project in Saguenay that could put thousands of Quebeckers permanently to work exporting clean, green Canadian natural gas that will lower global emissions by displacing dirty foreign coal.

This is the kind of free enterprise agenda that would produce paycheques, and paycheques alone will secure our future.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish you, my colleagues and all staff of the House of Commons a happy new year.

I ask the House for consent to share my time with my esteemed colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

The hon. member for Thérèse‑De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑14, which we are reviewing today, appears to build on certain measures in the economic statement the government released last November. It is very troubling, however, that, like the economic statement, this bill does not address glaring needs such as increased health care transfers and financial assistance for seniors.

There is no picture or sound, despite the fact that this unprecedented health crisis, which is turning Canadians' lives upside down, requires a strong signal from the government. “We are there for Canadians.” “We will always be there for Canadians.” These are statements we recognize and that are familiar to us, because they have been repeated so often by the Prime Minister. They are just words, however; not actions. What is missing is a concrete, tangible vision to get us through this second wave and help us address the economic recovery in the near future. What is the plan?

In terms of health, we can only repeat that the most important, most sensitive, most useful and most constructive help we could give the provinces and territories would be a tangible and significant increase in Canada health transfers. This increase should reduce the gap between the federal government's contribution and the provinces' contribution to health care, which is growing year by year.

In 2019, Quebec, the other provinces and the territories funded 40% of all health care expenditures, while the Canadian government funded only 22%. According to Conference Board of Canada data, based on the current growth rate, the federal contribution to health care will drop to below 20% by 2026.

It does not take a mathematician to understand that this recurrent deficit has a considerable impact on the provinces' ability to support and strengthen their health care systems. The federal government will probably once again tell us that it is there to support the provinces and that it has injected $19 billion, but we all know that the problem is that these amounts are not recurring.

If the government was really listening to and hearing the provinces and Quebec, it would know that they need security and predictability, not conditional piecemeal investments based on the mood of the day.

Must I remind you that thousands of front-line workers have been fighting the pandemic every day, day after day, for 11 months?

What do they need? They need us to recognize their work and support them in their efforts to treat people and save lives. How can we do that? By granting the federal transfers demanded by those who have the expertise and the responsibility for the organization and delivery of health care: the provincial governments.

These workers really do not need the government to come in once again playing games and trying to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

Today, the government announced $1 billion in assistance for the creation of a fund for long-term care facilities. The fund will come with conditions and accountability measures.

The Quebec health care system, which is currently grappling with a pandemic, does not need the additional burden of never-ending accountability measures. Quebec does not need the federal government interfering in its jurisdiction, trying to develop a new set of national standards. There are enough standards and rules already in place.

If someone needs to be accountable, it is the federal government, given its inability to develop financial self-sufficiency when it comes to the vaccine. We know, we see the delays. Apparently, in Quebec, there have been delays in the delivery of vaccines since last week. We will not be able to vaccinate people at the planned rate. When it comes to accountability, it is high time that the government told the truth about the vaccine delivery schedule.

I will say it again. Front-line workers in Quebec need two things: that the federal government increase its health care transfers and that it do so unconditionally.

Businesses and workers are suffering from the pandemic, and the government needs to respond appropriately. The Bloc Québécois has often pointed out the ineffectiveness of the Canada emergency rent subsidy.

Since last June, both the Quebec government and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have been pointing to the program’s complexity and lack of flexibility. We are therefore pleased with the adjustments to the program proposed today, even if they should have been made long ago.

In terms of specific assistance for the hardest-hit sectors, including tourism, the hotel and restaurant industry, lodging, art, culture and communications, on November 3 I told the House about the particular difficulties these sectors were facing, and provided the figures to back it up.

At the time, more than 56,000 workers had lost their jobs in these industries in Quebec alone. We now know that the situation has gotten worse, and the Bloc Québécois has been tirelessly asking for specific meaningful measures for these key economic sectors in Quebec.

The bill provides$206 million for the regional relief recovery fund, or RRRF, for businesses that are unable to benefit from other federal programs. A total of 25% of that funding should go to tourism operators.

We are pleased that the government listened to reason and responded to our many calls in that regard. However, aside from the RRRF-related announcements, we still do not have any details about what some of the other programs that were announced will look like, for example, the business credit availability program for hard-hit sectors.

How is it that, nearly two months after announcing this program, the government still cannot tell us how this program will work? The crisis is far from over and workers and business owners need targeted support.

Today, 181,000 small and medium-sized business owners plan to close for good. Over half of the 40,000 workers in the hotel industry are unemployed.

Lastly, the aerospace industry and the air transport sector have clearly been left out. Let us remember that these sectors are in crisis. In September, companies in the Quebec aerospace sector had laid off more than 4,000 of the 43,000 workers in the industry, according to the Aéro Montréal cluster. The government must take its responsibilities and develop a Canadian strategy for the aerospace industry. The Bloc Québécois has called for this on several occasions. What is the government waiting for to support workers?

In conclusion, the demands of the Bloc Québécois send a strong signal about health. Help and support for workers is a priority. We know that the transfer between the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada recovery benefit is not working. Day after day, workers face endless delays in applying for CRB support.

We experienced it with the Quebec parental insurance plan, and now with self-employed workers. It takes six to eight weeks to get an answer, and we are told that is because of the checks that need to be done. That is unacceptable. These workers are unemployed and have no income.

If the checks need to be done, then let us shorten the delays. Once again, we are seeing that the government was not ready to respond to this crisis.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville for her speech.

She spoke about health transfers. The federal government has transferred more than $20 billion during the pandemic. That is more than the existing transfers planned between the provinces and the federal government. Of course, the additional transfers need to be financed.

My question is very simple. How should the federal government finance this extra spending? Obviously, there are only a few ways to do that: either increase Canada's annual debt, raise taxes or cut programs.

I would like to know what programs the hon. member would be prepared to cut.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, is simple: It is a matter of political choice.

I already anticipated that we would be told that $19 billion has already been invested, with an additional $1 billion now, for long-term care standards. I would remind the member that these are one-time payments. Agreement after agreement, Canadian transfer payments, which are supposed to be permanent, predictable and recurrent, are being cut.

We are not asking the government to cut funding anywhere else, but rather to assume its responsibilities and give the provinces and territories their fair share of the funding allocated.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned with aspects of this bill, specifically with the debt ceiling being raised far beyond what spending projections were. I wonder if my colleague has any comments on the borrowing authority far exceeding the projected spending levels.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course we should be concerned about the debt. As parliamentarians, we must always be sensitive to the budgets presented to us. It is worth noting that I was elected over a year ago and I have yet to see a budget.

Indeed, this is a matter of some concern, but not to the point of underestimating the money the government needs to spend right now on health and to support our most vulnerable populations.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

What is happening now is that the Liberals are handing out millions of dollars to big businesses, which pass on this money to their shareholders in the form of dividends. Because of confusion over the Canada recovery benefit, workers are now being forced to repay significant amounts of money, tens of thousands of dollars in some cases. These workers were earning about $5,000 a year, so we are talking about the poorest Canadians and Quebeckers. Sadly, the Liberals have decided to target them.

Will my colleague join the NDP in calling on the government to stop going after these workers?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my political party always stands up for workers and we always will.

We supported the emergency measures when people really needed assistance. It is despicable that the government is now not prepared to implement these new programs and measures. I mentioned this in my speech.

It is disappointing to see that the government is going after people who did not even receive CERB and are now caught up in red tape, and it is equally disappointing to see people with no job and no income who have yet to receive their Canada recovery benefit.

Matters of tax fairness are always a priority for the Bloc.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, let me tell you how excited I am to be back here with you and all my colleagues to debate matters of the utmost importance in the House. I hope that everyone enjoyed these weeks off, as the coming months will bring enormous challenges.

The House will be engaged in crucial debates for the next few weeks, and the Liberal government's rather chaotic management of the COVID-19 pandemic will surely keep us busy. The Liberal government's intentions will be closely scrutinized by the opposition parties, the public and the parliamentary press, ever alert for the blunders that have been far too common with this government. All members will have to be vigilant to prevent other strategic mistakes, such as those committed intentionally or inadvertently by the government, in an extraordinary situation that requires constant rigour and leaves next to no room for error.

Madam Speaker, I hope you recharged your batteries and, above all, had the opportunity to spend quality time in lockdown with your family, no doubt to their great delight.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I are refreshed and ready to begin the winter session of the House. I would add that the entire population of Quebec already knows that, true to our commitments of the past few months, there will be no compromising on our part when it comes to defending Quebec's interests fully and completely. As we have said over and over again, what Quebec wants, the Bloc wants. Quebec makes a choice, and the Bloc makes it happen.

In the same way, our day-to-day commitment and what we have achieved so far in this Parliament mean that we can honestly say that the Quebec caucus—

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

I apologize, but apparently your microphone is not connected or is not plugged in properly. The interpreters are having a hard time hearing you. Could you please unplug it and plug it back in?

It seems to be working better now.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, our day-to-day commitment and what we have achieved so far in this Parliament mean that we can honestly say that the Bloc Québécois caucus is reliable and proud.

This strong, heartfelt preamble to the main topic of my speech will help my colleagues better understand the scope of my comments and recognize the amount of time I spent poring over Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, which was tabled in the House on December 2 by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and came before the House this morning. To summarize, this bill outlines and gives details about some of the measures announced by the federal government in the speech that the minister gave when presenting her economic statement aimed at supporting Canadians and fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

Members will recall how long the government waited before bringing this bill before the House for an in-depth study. In fact, in December, the government did everything it could to fast-track the study of Bill C‑7 on medical assistance in dying, which was being systematically blocked by the socially conservative fringe of the Conservative Party. Everyone has their own battles to fight. I will not say what I think of these petty delaying tactics that put the interests and fundamental rights of hundreds of our fellow citizens in peril. Unfortunately, these people must wait for the government to legalize a situation they have considered carefully and an important decision that they want to make calmly, rather than witness an interminable, agonizing debate dragged out for crass partisan reasons.

To return to my speech, this bill, short as it is, makes major changes to several existing laws. I hope that these changes will contribute significantly to effectively advancing the welfare of all of our constituents. The Bloc Québécois does not take this approach lightly. If the government introduces a bill that makes sense and that is in the interest of Quebeckers, we will support it. However, the government must demonstrate that the bill is neither partisan nor pandering to particular groups, which is what we have been seeing for far too long from the Liberals, even in a minority government.

As everyone knows full well, and as the Bloc Québécois reminds the House on a daily basis, the Liberal Party has in its DNA an outrageous obsession with centralization that undermines the spirit of the Constitution that it shoved down Quebec's throat in 1982. Our NDP colleagues have always blindly followed the Liberals' lead in this matter. They act like the Liberals' lackeys, always eager to gather the crumbs that their masters leave behind in exchange for an ideological promiscuity that changes with the political winds.

To get back to Bill C‑14, the government intends to amend a wide range of existing laws, enhancing them in some cases, but in an unfair way, as the Quebec governments of the past six decades would agree.

Regarding the best interests of Quebec taxpayers, most of the legislative amendments proposed by the Liberal government to the tax laws will have little or no effect on the current situation in Quebec. In fact, by amending the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the government is merely confirming the soundness and relevance of Quebec's student financial assistance program, which was established by Daniel Johnson Sr.'s government in the late 1960s. Premier Johnson was only continuing the work of the Lesage government, whose most imposing and important figures were undoubtedly Paul Gérin-Lajoie and René Lévesque.

Quebec offers one of the best student loan and bursary programs in the western world. This extraordinarily progressive approach has made our researchers, engineers, thinkers and numerous creators famous the world over, all thanks to the excellence of our university network.

Take, for example, my alma mater. The Université du Québec à Rimouski is internationally recognized for its marine acoustic research and the number of world-renowned researchers it has doing cutting-edge research on ecosystems like the unique, majestic St. Lawrence River. The same goes for Université Laval, the Université de Sherbrooke, the Université de Montréal and McGill University for medical and pharmaceutical research. Quebec ingenuity continues to grow. It is because of the student funding program developed by the Quebec government that we can be proud of the major breakthroughs in the medical research that is so important to us today.

During this devastating pandemic, I know that my counterparts in other provinces understandably envy Quebec for the prominent place that our researchers, scientists and doctors have on Canada's team.

For decades, the Quebec government has stood up to the federal government and demanded that Ottawa respect Quebec's constitutional prerogatives. The pride of a people gives rise to the significant benefits and advantages that forge a true nation.

If the government wants to make up for the weaknesses in its legislation concerning financial assistance for students in the rest of Canada, it should consider fair compensation for young Quebeckers who are treated well by Quebec, but not so well by the federal government. It is a simple matter of fairness.

Speaking of fairness, I would be remiss if I failed to mention a fundamentally unfair aspect of the government's action during the pandemic. Despite the billions of dollars in financial support that were announced and given to the Prime Minister's friends and family, we know that those who have clearly been the most unfairly and personally affected by COVID-19 are seniors, that is, our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, if we are lucky.

It is unfortunate that the government has once again failed our seniors, when they are the ones whose financial situation has seriously deteriorated because of the many protective measures put in place for them by the various levels of government. I am very concerned about the fact that, apart from a single lump-sum payment last summer, the Liberal government failed these people who came before us and literally built a society of which we can be proud. To me, that is a slap in the face to an entire generation who, it seems to me—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very familiar with Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the region the hon. member represents.

The people there are proud, but also quite eloquent. I am thinking about Guy Caron, the former MP for that riding. He was a worthy representative of that riding in the House of Commons. Every time he rose, everyone listened. He made important contributions to the debates.

I must say that I am disappointed that the hon. member chose to hurl a bunch of insults at all the other members of the House. That is inappropriate. I hope he will reflect on that and put more substance into his speech next time.

The part of his speech that I found interesting had to do with student rights. As we all know, the government refused to freeze all student loan payments. Unfortunately, there was only talk of interest rates. In this crisis, the government needs to go much further.

What are the potential repercussions of forcing students in Quebec and Canada to make student loan payments during the crisis?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the inappropriate comments of my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby.

I invite him to reflect on the fact that he sent all the municipal councils in Quebec a bill for a pan-Canadian pharmacare program, despite knowing that this is a Quebec jurisdiction. His political party has an ideological habit of encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, he decided to send this without consulting the members of Parliament who were democratically elected by the people. The member should stop lecturing us on morality and respect. We can do without a scolding from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Of course, as I mentioned in my speech, Quebec already has its own loan and bursary program. Why should it have to pay twice and do twice the work?

Again, I do not think my colleague understands. We are not the ones who invented the Constitution. What we are saying today is to play by the rules. We will talk about respect later.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague, like me, was elected in 2019. Neither I nor he, if my memory serves correct, has seen a budget by the government, yet here we have a kind of hybrid measure, with a spattering of new programming, new spending, a massive debt ceiling authority to borrow and increases.

I am wondering if the member opposite would care to comment on the fact that it has been, as I understand, around 600 days since we have seen a budget from the current government.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot and I thank him for his question. Clearly, the $382 billion deficit is unprecedented and we are in an unprecedented situation. Does that warrant spending extraordinary amounts without any accountability? The answer is no.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear on the Liberal government's spending plan presented in late November. If the plan's objective is to get the economy back on its feet after the pandemic, it will likely not succeed. The best economists have weighed in and said that the plan to balance the budget will not work. I will reiterate my colleague's comments: There must be greater transparency and a true plan for addressing this unprecedented situation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish everyone a happy new year.

We are jumping right into issues that will have a major impact on the future of all Canadian families across the country during the pandemic. I would like to start by talking about some of the impacts we have already seen. I know that my speech will be interrupted by question period and that I will finish it after that.

I would like to start by emphasizing how important it is for all parliamentarians to work together to mitigate this crisis, a crisis that is having a massive impact on every city and town in Canada and leaving no part of the country unscathed.

Just this weekend, we commemorated the sad one-year anniversary of the first COVID case in Canada. Since the identification a year ago of the first COVID case, 20,000 Canadians have died as the pandemic has ravaged this country.

I think all of us understand the importance of underscoring the incredible courage and bravery of front-line health care workers. They have gone to work often at peril of their lives, and dozens have perished during this pandemic. The impacts of COVID have been devastating, and we as parliamentarians need to underscore their courage and dedication in a time of immense tragedy, when in each and very case those health care workers were putting their lives on the line.

We are going through a pandemic that will have repercussions for years to come. I think back to the Spanish flu epidemic and the lessons we can pull out of what was such a tragic pandemic a century ago. In so many cases and in so many countries, the financial and economic repercussions of the Spanish flu, even afer the actual pandemic itself had lessened and then ceased, were felt for over a decade afterward, so my comments today are not just about what we need to do now, but also about what we need to do over the course of the next decade. This is when the financial and economic repercussions are felt.

We need to be bold. We need to take action in a way that not only brings Canadians through this pandemic, hopefully safely and with their health intact, but lays the foundation for rebuilding afterward in a way that ensures that the decade-long economic and financial repercussions that will hit so many Canadian families will actually be addressed by the federal government, and it will provide supports to communities right across the country.

Bill C‑14 is certainly not a bold response to the pandemic's devastating repercussions. A closer look at what is in this bill makes it clear that the government does not know how to respond boldly to all the challenges Canadians are facing.

When I look at the substance of this bill, I can see that it is a long way from meeting the expectations of Canadians going through this pandemic and taking a financial and economic hit. Overall, this bill offers a little help, and that is good. A little help is better than nothing, for sure.

It is important to say that the government could dare to do more and go much further. As the leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Burnaby South, and the entire NDP caucus have already made very clear, help is needed now. We need to look at each and every element of the bill and see what is missing.

Long‑term care is getting help, help that is clearly needed. We are seeing that the epicentre of this pandemic is in Quebec's long-term care homes and in long-term care centres across the country. In these places, we are seeing thousands of deaths resulting from a lack of rules aimed at reinforcing standards of care provided there.

Our seniors deserve better in all the services they receive. A billion is not much when we look at what the government has done since this crisis began. From the beginning, we have seen the government offer $750 billion to Canada's major banks. Government members will say that this liquidity support is not just coming from the government, but from a number of sources. The fact remains that in the few days when the pandemic hit hardest in March, the government had to act quickly, and its first act was to provide $750 billion to Canada's major banks. The government's first instinct was to say that it needed to come to the aid of Canada's banks, and it made $750 billion available to that sector.

If all the expenditures under this bill are spent, seniors will receive just under $1 billion. The ratio is 750 to one: $1 billion for Canada's seniors, who have died by the thousands during this pandemic, but $750 billion for the banking sector, which has already made $30 billion in profits since the pandemic began. What message is the government sending by throwing so much money at Canada's big banks? Is that our priority?

Meanwhile, this bill has only crumbs to offer, and that includes the Canada child benefit. Yes, $100 a month certainly helps, but what is really needed right away is a $2-billion investment to lay the foundation for a national child care system. The unemployment rate continues to rise, and economic difficulties have existed since before the pandemic. Canadian families already had, on average, the highest level of family debt among the most industrialized countries as a result of policies put in place by previous Conservative and Liberal governments. The government could have done better, much better, and been bold enough to do more than simply offer $100 a month to families struggling to keep their homes and put food on the table.

The bill also mentions student loans. The government is suspending student loan interest payments. However, students trying to get through this crisis as best they can still have to repay their student loans. Even if interest rates are lower, the amount of the loans are minimal when we think of all the difficulties they are experiencing. Just compare the amount of student loan interest that has been suspended with the $750 billion in liquidity supports given to major Canadian banks.

With respect to pharmacare, next month we will have the opportunity to vote on Bill C-213, which will establish the legal framework for pharmacare. I must say that we are seeing strong support for this bill across the country. As a Bloc Québécois member mentioned, dozens of Quebec municipalities have just expressed support for this bill, which will establish a universal pharmacare plan that all Canadians will be able to access. Unions in Quebec and across Canada are also calling for a plan that will leave no one behind.

With the pandemic, we are talking about tens of millions of people who do not have access to a pharmacare program, either because they lost their job or because they do not have access to a protection plan through their employer. Bill C‑14 could have included certain aspects that the NDP will bring forward during the vote in Parliament next month, but right now, that too is being left out.

I know that my time is nearly up, but I would like to say that the most disappointing thing about this bill, even though some aspects are rather positive, is the government's lack of ambition at a time when Canadians are going through an unprecedented crisis.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. He will have seven minutes and two seconds when we resume debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has seven minutes and two seconds remaining in his elocution.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate tomorrow on vaccine distribution will be extremely important. I know that many parliamentarians from across the country will want to participate.

Before we rose for question period, I had raised issues with Bill C-14, but not in terms of content. The content is, in a sense, a small step toward meeting the challenge of the pandemic, but what could have been in the bill and what could have been in the fall economic statement but was not is the real problem, I think, with Bill C-14. It is not the content, but what is not in there and what could have been presented. In the midst of the worst pandemic that Canada has experienced in a century and the worst economic crisis since the Second World War, one would think that in combining those two things, the fall economic statement and the bill that emerged from the fall economic statement would have met the challenges that Canadian families are facing.

Even coming into the pandemic, Canadian families were beset and burdened with the heaviest level of family debt that exists among industrialized countries. The average Canadian family has more family debt than a family in any other industrialized country. That is in part because of decisions made over the last couple of decades that have pushed Canadian families down, including the unravelling of the social safety net and the emphasis on providing perks and tax holidays to the very wealthy and the most profitable corporations, rather than making the public investments that would make such a difference in the lives of Canadians. Then the pandemic hit, and Canadians are experiencing incredible challenges.

In my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby and in every other corner of this country, Canadians are facing daily challenges to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, yet within Bill C-14 we do not see any bold attempt to meet those challenges. It is indicative, I think, that the new American president, Joe Biden, within the span of his first five hours and the executive mandates that he signed, has proven to be more proactive while using government machinery to work in the interests of the people than the current government has in five years. It is five hours versus five years. That is the real disappointment of the current Prime Minister and the current government.

What do we see in Bill C-14? Instead of investments in building a national child care program that we know Canadian families will need as a national network of universal child care as we emerge from this pandemic, hopefully in the next few months, we see scant support given to Canadian families in dealing with the crisis in long-term care. Instead of putting it under strict national standards and making sure that there is adequate funding for long-term care for our seniors, we see a small amount compared to what was given to the banking sector and no real attempt to address the crisis in long-term care.

We saw $750 billion in liquidity supports given to the banking sector through a wide variety of federal institutions within days of the pandemic hitting. Government MPs might say that this was liquidity support to help the banking sector; the banking sector so far in this pandemic has received profits of $30 billion. That should absolutely not have been the first objective of the government. There is a contrast between that $750 billion and what people with disabilities, people who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, have actually received in support. I and other members of the NDP caucus, including our leader, the member for Burnaby South, have raised this issue numerous times. It took not one or two, but half a dozen fights to get a $600 one-time payment paid to a minority of people with disabilities across the country, yet we have seen $750 billion going with alacrity to the banking sector.

We see an interest-rate holiday for students when they are struggling to pay for their student loans. During this pandemic, as I mentioned, the banking sector has had $30 billion in profits. Canada's billionaires have had over $50 billion added to their wealth in the pandemic.

However, we see a government that steadfastly refuses to put in place what the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus have called for. The vast majority of Canadians, when they are asked in public opinion, say the same thing: that we need to put in place a wealth tax. We need to put in place a pandemic profits tax. We had those measures in the Second World War. It meant that we were all in this together, and it also meant that the federal government had the wherewithal to ensure that Canadians had the investments they needed as we emerged out of the Second World War.

We brought this forward in the House along with provisions for a guaranteed livable basic income, a right to housing and universal pharmacare. Government members voted against those measures despite the fact that they were supported by the vast majority of Canadians.

Next month, parliamentarians will have a second chance on universal publicly administered pharmacare, because Bill C-213 will be voted on in less than a month. Across the country we have seen thousands of Canadians write to their members of Parliament to say, “Vote yes on Bill C-213,” above all because in this pandemic a number of Canadians have lost their drug coverage. Ten million Canadians have no access to the medications that their doctors prescribe as necessary. There will be a second chance for that, and a second chance for the government to bring forward the bold ideas that the NDP has been proposing in a budget that should be tabled this spring.

I hope that the government will repair the mistake that it made in the fall and provide the supports that Canadians need.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑14 is designed to make Canada-wide standards for long-term care a precondition for funding. I believe that this is also an idea from the NDP.

However, the Canadian Armed Forces' report on its experience in Quebec long-term care homes last spring was clear. Many standards and rules on preventing and controlling contamination and on wearing PPE are already in place, but they failed to stop the virus.

The issue is the care homes' ability to comply with and enforce the standards and rules in place. Quite simply, these rules were more difficult to follow because there is a staff shortage. The report found that long-term care homes have a serious shortage of staff with medical training. We need money, not standards.

Does the member agree that it is up to provinces to deal with standards, but if the federal government wants to do its job, it should try giving the provinces money?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of a situation that everyone has been watching for months. The number of deaths in long-term care facilities has been devastating for families across Quebec. The same conditions can be seen in many regions across Canada as well.

To resolve this chronic problem, we need standards as well as staff. We cannot play political games with this issue. The government obviously did not establish a system with the necessary standards, capacity and human resources to ensure that all seniors in Quebec and across Canada have a future that acknowledges their contributions to their communities and to the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that if we are going to get our economy moving again, a critical thing about that and getting resources to people who need them is creating jobs and opportunities to support workers and those who wish to become workers again. To that end, it was so disappointing for me to see the NDP basically cheerleading the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and all the unionized jobs that were killed when that project was ended.

I wonder if the member from the NDP could explain this, for a political party that wants to be competitive supposedly in western Canada, and that claims to speak on behalf of workers. Why would it be cheerleading for the end of a project like Keystone XL, that would have helped so many people get back to work and would have been so good for the Canadian economy?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member, I actually come from the oil and gas industry. I worked at the Shellburn oil refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia, so I know the industry well and I know that it has had countless resources. In many cases, when one looks at subsidies, oil and gas is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in Canada.

I care about energy workers because I come from that environment. What we have seen under both Conservative and Liberal governments is an utter refusal to allow the resources to energy workers to transition to a clean energy future. That is where the jobs are. We have seen President Joe Biden take leadership in that regard and we know, as the building trades and unionized workers tell us, that the clean energy industry and imports from Canada of clean energy will quadruple over the next nine years.

With that massive increase in imports from Canada of clean energy, why would we not put in place the resources so that energy workers, who have made such an enormous contribution to the energy sector, can transition to clean energy? That is where the future is. That is where the jobs are, and that is what the NDP is cheerleading: clean energy resource investments, so that we can provide the jobs to energy workers in the emerging economy of the clean energy sector of tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, the speech was for him a while ago because he began it before question period began.

I was taken by the hon. member's comments on the impacts of the Spanish flu and how long those impacts stayed with society. On a personal point, my namesake, Elizabeth Evans Stephens, was a victim of the Spanish flu. The intergenerational impacts of losing a young mother not only affected my grandmother, but my mother. This is a pandemic the likes of which we have not seen for generations, and its effects will be intergenerational.

My very strong support for the hon. member's speech goes to his points on the banking industry with its extraordinary levels of profits. It has had over $30 billion in profits through the pandemic, yet this industry is leaning on small businesses. In my area, Wilson's bus line is at risk of going under because the government programs that are on offer do not really meet its needs. Bus companies and other companies across Canada are at risk because these banks, which have been raking in profits and have had government help, seem to think they are not Canadian. They do not think they are part of our national effort to save businesses and jobs.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on what the government should be doing to ensure that the banks do not push good, essential companies such as Wilson's bus line into bankruptcy.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what is inconceivable to me. There was $750 billion given in liquidity support to the Canadian banking industry without any conditions whatsoever. We saw credit unions stepping up and lowering their interest rates to zero. We saw credit unions stepping up and providing in some cases what was required around suspending the payment of mortgages and not imposing penalties. The banking industry did not have any conditions at all imposed, and the result has been windfall profits of $30 billion and real pressure on businesses like Wilson's and others across the country.

We need to take the best practices of other countries. Other countries said that if they were providing supports, there were going to be conditions. The Canadian government stepped up within days of the pandemic hitting, and its first thought was to help the banking industry. Three-quarters of $1 trillion later, the banking industry is reaping massive profits and so many Canadians and small businesses are struggling.

Of course, with COVID, we know that the implications and the consequences will last for more than a decade. For lower-income families, the reality is the fall economic statement talks about cutbacks starting in the next fiscal year. There will be dramatic cutbacks over the next 13 months. We need the government to rethink its approach and we are willing to work with it—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one more question. The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, and also congratulate him on Bill C-213. It is a perfect example of us once again taking Liberal promises and putting them into NDP action.

I listened very attentively to his speech, and he is right. It is not so much what is in Bill C-14, but what is missing. For me, a particular issue affects the city of Langford in my riding. A start-up business, V2V Black Hops Brewing, did not have its payroll account in place before March 15. Here we are, 10 months into the pandemic, and it is still unable to qualify for the emergency wage subsidy.

Perhaps my colleague, in his role as critic for finance, and with the incredible work he has done with the member for Courtenay—Alberni, could answer the question why, after all this time, the Liberals are still excluding start-ups from accessing this important wage subsidy? So many of them are struggling. Indeed, I fear many are going to go out of business.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is an incredibly strong advocate for small businesses in his riding. I know this, and I have seen it first-hand.

This is just another example. V2V Black Hops Brewing is not getting the supports it needs. However, the federal government says the big banks that are awash in cash are the priority.

This is why the NDP caucus has been so persistent, as has the member for Courtenay—Alberni as our small business critic, and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as well as all of the NDP caucus, in ensuring that small businesses get some support. We are not there yet, but we are going to continue to push, because the government needs to be thinking of regular families and small businesses across the country, and stop its obsession with the most profitable businesses and the largest banks.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. members. Before we get to the next speaker, just a reminder, perhaps for those who are joining by video conference. Earlier in the day we had some difficulties with the raised hand function on Zoom. Administration tell us that at the moment that is working fine. Please use that same tool that we have used in the past. However, if any encounter difficulties or think they are being missed, please bring a point of order to me and we will make sure we get them recognized.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House of Commons. Whether standing in the chamber or sitting at home, it is always such a privilege to share some thoughts and ideas and try as best as I can to provide a bit of constructive criticism here and there. I like to think part of my job is to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability even coming from opposition parties. I hope to address a number of points.

First, as we all know, life has really changed over the last 12 months for all of us in a very real and tangible way. For example, I never figured I would be addressing the House of Commons via the Internet and what I am saying being recorded as if I were standing on the floor of the House.

It does not matter what one's economic social stratification is. Lives have changed profoundly because of the pandemic. We have seen so many phenomenal efforts come forward from many different sectors of our economy and society.

I want to recognize that over the last number of weeks, our holidays, whether one celebrates Christmas, Hanukkah or one of the many other different types of celebrations that often take place during the Christmas period, were really different. In my province and many other places across this land, we were not able to have gatherings, people and families coming together. However, it did not stop people from communicating.

The pandemic means there has to be physical distancing. It does not mean we have to separate that communication link to those very important relationships in our lives, whether with family or friends or in my case and in the case of many of my colleagues with our constituents.

The constituents I represent in Winnipeg North have done a fantastic job in communicating with me, whether through telephone calls, at my constituency office, through emails, letters or Zoom discussions. There are all sorts of ways in which we have been able to communicate. I do not think time would allow me to share all the feedback, ideas, recommendations and concerns that people have raised with me over the last number of months. As much as possible, they would want me to share them on the floor of the House of Commons so all parliamentarians would have a sense of what the residents of Winnipeg North are thinking. There is a higher sense of hope in the minds of my constituents today than there would have been months ago. The delivery of vaccines has been very important to them.

I listened intently to a number of comments coming from opposition members in particular. If we were to do a fair comparison, we would find Canada has done exceptionally well on that front. I say that without any reservations whatsoever. As a government, we have had numerous ministers on that particular file and they have worked exceptionally hard at ensuring Canada can be very proud of the vaccination agreements we have been able to achieve in order to protect the health and well-being of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

There are some common threads from the constituents I represent. One of the them is the desire to see, and many members will know that at times I can be somewhat partisan, governments working together. They want to see a team Canada approach toward ensuring that the health and well-being of Canadians is being dealt with as a top priority.

I know that, from the Prime Minister's office to ministers to members of the House of Commons, we have all put in that extra effort to ensure there is a higher sense of co-operation among the many different stakeholders.

When I talk about stakeholders, it goes far beyond the Government of Canada. We have to look at our communities. I think of social enterprise groups, non-profits and the many fine works they have done to ensure they contribute in a positive way. In whatever ways they can, our individual constituents have contributed. We think of our first responders, in particular our health care workers, our bus drivers and those driving taxis. These people have made a difference and have ensured we have been able to get through in such a way that we can continue on and feel that sense of optimism today. I appreciate all those individuals.

The Government of Canada, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, has ensured there is a sense of commitment coming from not only the national government, but provincial and municipal governments and even our school boards. All elected officials, as leaders in our communities, have an important role to play on this issue, and it makes a difference.

When I was back in Ottawa in late November, Manitoba was not doing that well with respect to the coronavirus. On a per capita basis, the number of new cases being reported on a daily basis toward the end of November might have been the worst in the country. It shows that if Ottawa, in support of our provinces, and the provinces make good decisions, we can in fact bring those numbers down. Today we are under 100. In fact, just over this last weekend, we saw many of the restrictions being lifted.

For example, many of my constituents were limited to what they could buy at the local store. Many of those restrictions have been lifted now. Why? Because Manitobans have, as Canadians as a whole have, recognized that we all have a role to play with respect to us getting out of the current situation we are in.

That brings me back to some of the comments made by my colleagues.

The former speaker, an New Democrat, talked about the Liberals giving to the banks as if they were our first priority. That is not true. The Liberal Party does not put the banks ahead of Canadians. All one has to do is take a look at the types of actions the Government of Canada took back when action was needed.

I talk a great deal about the CERB program. The Canada emergency response benefit program embodies many of the things that a government can do to make a positive difference for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us take a look at the details of that program.

There was virtually nothing, no CERB program, in existence prior to COVID-19. With the support of world-class civil servants, of whom we should be very proud, and the fine work they do, a program was put together that ultimately served just under nine million Canadians. All of us should be very proud of that and should not be shy to talk about it.

That was the priority. At the very beginning, this government was very focused on sending a message to Canadians that we had their backs, that we would be there for them no matter where they lived in the country.

The CERB program is one of those programs that clearly demonstrates that a government cannot only talk about caring for the citizens it represents, but it can demonstrate tangible action. Hundreds of millions to billions of dollars were put through a fantastic program that came from no where and ultimately that disposable income was put into the pockets of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members should think about that.

If the government had not done that back then, what would have been the outcome? We would have had more people borrowing money because of their loss of income. We would have had people not being able to pay for basic needs such as their groceries, their rent, their mortgages or buying the things essential to them, whether a single person or families. Hundreds of millions of dollars were put into the pockets of Canadians throughout our country so they would have the disposable income to continue on.

If members will recall, back then we were telling people that we had to stay under the curve. The world pandemic was not there two years ago. It is not like we had previous knowledge on it. What we had was a very sharp learning curve for Canadians, a learning curve, for example, that we had to wash our hands for 20 seconds. If people had to cough, they should cough into their sleeves.

As we got weeks into the pandemic, health care experts were saying we needed to wear masks. Canadians, through leaders in our communities, understood they had to listen to the health care officials and started to wear masks. When we go for walks today, we see people wearing masks. Compare that to back in March, April or even May of last year. This also included the use of hand sanitizer.

These things have really made a huge difference even today. One of the reasons it has had that impact is because of actions by the national government and other levels of government working together to ensure people understood what the pandemic was all about and what we needed to do to minimize the negative impact of it.

At the end of the day, education, which was widespread on this issue, is one of the reasons why Canada is in a relatively good position today. Some provinces are affected more than other jurisdictions. There are many different factors at play. We cannot compare the Toronto international airport and the important role it plays in our society and the Brandon airport in my home province of Manitoba, even though the Brandon airport is so critically important to our local economy there, in our province and ultimately to our country.

Different provinces have different areas on which they have to focus their additional attention. There are areas on which we need to improve. The Prime Minister often talks about building back better and we have the opportunity to build back better. There are a number of good examples of that.

One of the biggest areas of concern we have today is long-term care. I believe Canadians have spoken. They recognize that the national government has a role to play in health care delivery. Many, including myself, particularly when I was a health care critic in the province of Manitoba many years ago, have advocated for this for many years. I know this might upset some of my Bloc colleagues, and possibly some of my Conservative colleagues, but I believe that the national government does have a role to play. This was demonstrated very clearly through the coronavirus.

We have a Minister of Finance who has incorporated the idea of the continuation, as the Prime Minister did back in September with the throne speech, of the importance of a national pharmacare program. That is something which Liberal members of Parliament under this Prime Minister have been proactive on since day one in 2015.

The NDP will cry that Liberals have been saying this for the last 20 or whatever number of years, but under this Prime Minister and with this group of Liberal MPs, we have seen significant action on that file. I am very proud of the efforts, whether they are those of the Prime Minister or my colleagues, in recognizing an issue that I know is so very important to my constituents. If we check Hansard, we will find that I have introduced many petitions on this issue. In fact, my daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature, has talked about the importance of a national pharmacare program.

We need to identify the provinces that are prepared to go the extra mile and work with Ottawa. We cannot just bring it in. If we are going to have the type of national pharmacare program that Canadians deserve and want, we have to work with those jurisdictions. It is going to take a coalition of sorts to continue to push this through. I can say that we are committed to that.

When we think of what actions are in Bill C-14, I have a list some of the things that we are talking about. It includes the Canada child benefit increases, long-term care issues, student loans, access to virtual care, mental health tools, substance abuse and the emergency rent program. I will stop on that one.

I ask members to think of the emergency rent subsidy program and the tens of thousands going into hundreds of thousands of jobs being saved, the millions of small businesses that have taken advantage of things like the wage subsidy program and the thousands of businesses that are taking advantage of the rent subsidy program.

This is a government that understands the important role small businesses play in our society. They are the backbone to our country. We need to be there and we have been there for small businesses. We will continue to be there for small businesses as we have been there for all Canadians.

These are the types of issues that as a government we need to be engaged in. When I listened to the critic of finance, the member for Carleton, he talked about the deficit issue and the trade deficit. Let me remind my Conservative friends that when Conservatives took office after Paul Martin there was actually a trade surplus. It was the Conservatives that turned it into a trade deficit. We have been working on that. Look at the number of trade agreements we have signed off on as a government. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on as many agreements.

In terms of the deficit, I will save that for another speech, but Canadians will do well if Liberals do not listen to the Conservatives about deficits and deficits of financing, because the Conservatives have not demonstrated any competence in that area. When I get a better opportunity to be able to expand on that point, I will. I see my time is running out, and there is so much more that I would like to talk about.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my friend from Winnipeg's comments. Just because they are not factual does not mean they are not true in his mind, so I will give him credit for that.

A couple of questions came to mind when I listened to the member from Winnipeg's speech. One thing I am wondering is what his plan going forward is. This is the economic statement, Bill C-14, where they are talking about what we can do. We can agree that we need to help Canadians as much as we can through the pandemic. However, I keep asking these questions: What are the Liberals going to do to secure the future for Canadians? How are they going to ensure there are good-paying jobs, going forward, after the programs run out?

It is time to stop looking to the past and start looking forward. The government needs to roll out a plan for Canadians to make sure there is a future for my children and for the children of members across the aisle. That is why we get into public service. We want to make sure that our children have opportunities that we did not have. I am not sure this is happening for the generation that is coming next.

What is the Liberal government's plan to secure our future and to have good-paying jobs? Can that start with the member's support of the Keystone XL pipeline and making sure the government does everything it can to have good-paying jobs in western Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I might get a chance to talk about Keystone and how important our resource industries are, particularly in western Canada. I genuinely do believe in the future and how important it is that we do what we can on that particular file.

Having said that, the member talked about what we can do now. I want to point out one of the most encouraging things, and we heard it from the minister earlier during question period, which is that six million vaccines will arrive by the end of March for a population of just over 37 million people. It is really encouraging that we are getting these numbers of vaccines and that we have many other companies outside of Pfizer and Moderna to provide them. In fact, Canadians will be able to not only to get the vaccine, but it is also going to be free for Canadians. That is something which we have been pushing for from day one.

The other thing is, of course, continuing to support small businesses. Maybe in another question, I will pick up on that point.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have to admit that it feels a little strange to see him on a screen, when it seems like he never leaves the House.

Just now, I heard him speak about his constituents wanting the federal government to do more on health. I heard him say that that is what he wants as well, and that he would like the federal government to play a role in health. We have repeated ad nauseam that health is a provincial jurisdiction. Quebec and the provinces are all calling for larger health transfers. Quebec and the provinces do not want the Liberals to interfere in the health system.

I myself would like to have a say in the activities of the Montreal Canadiens. I would like to tell them what to do, but that is not my job. I would not be good at it. Given the Liberals' failures with regard to managing the border during the pandemic and what is happening with vaccines, I am a little concerned that they also want to interfere by imposing standards on long-term care facilities.

The question that I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg North is this: Is this desire to interfere in provincial jurisdictions not a way of telling Quebec and the provinces that they are too incompetent to manage their health care systems?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Manitoba legislature prior to being a member of Parliament, and I had the opportunity to serve as a health critic there, so I have a fairly good insight in terms of the whole jurisdictional issue.

I have also been a parliamentarian for about 30 years now, and I can tell the member conclusively that the residents I represent believe the national government has a role to play in terms of health care that goes beyond just giving provinces cash. Again, some lessons that could be learned by the coronavirus or by the pandemic reinforce that fact. Whether it is looking at standards, or looking at ways in which we might be able to complement the services Canadians are getting from Ottawa, I believe that the desire is there to continue to work with provinces beyond just giving cash toward health care. I believe—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We just have a few more questions as part of this 10-minute period.

We will resume questions and comments with the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it is very odd to see this member, in particular, not in the House, as I do not even know if he usually leaves at night.

My question, based on what I heard today, concerns how many Canadians really appreciate, through this process, the public health care system that we have. However, it also identifies the very clear gap in our universal public drug plan, which we desperately need across this country. I think about how much we could save just by the collective buying. Then I look at how many years the Liberals have been promising this. It has been many, many years. This is something that comes up again and again, and there is a little step here and a little step back there.

I am wondering if this member could commit today to making sure that we see a public drug plan, as recommended by Dr. Hoskins and the advisory committee, based directly on the principles of the Canada Health Act. I think it is time, and I certainly hope this member does as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could provide a greater sense of hope. At the end of the day, I believe that this particular Prime Minister and grouping of Liberal members of Parliament have been very diligent in pushing their desire to see some form of a national pharmacare program. We have seen that in budgets and throne speeches. We have seen that virtually back in 2015 with the support through standing committees and commissions, and I do believe that there is an opportunity there. It is real and tangible for the first time in my 30 years. It has been only in these last five years that I have seen a real desire and push to try to get us to that point.

The member should remember that it is absolutely critical that we work with the provinces in order to get the type of pharmacare program that Canadians want and deserve.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the parliamentary secretary, even if it is through video conference. I can assure him that his voice reverberates off the walls in here just as it would if he were present, and he definitely gets the same reaction from across the aisle that he does when he is here in person.

He touched on a very good point at the beginning of his speech, and that is about investing in Canadians. This government took a very strong approach that was unwavering in its commitment to giving Canadians the supports they need throughout this pandemic, not just because it was the right thing to do during the pandemic, but because we know that when we come out on the other end of this, the resources Canadians had during it are going to help us rebound from it more quickly.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on how he sees that happening, given the work that has gone into this by this government, and indeed Parliament and all members of this party, in supporting the legislation that has come through this House over the last several months?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I love doing this virtually, I do especially enjoy being in the chamber itself.

Having said that, the member is right. It was so important that the government be there in a real and tangible way. I made reference to the CERB program, but we can talk about programs such as the increases for the OAS and the GIS for our seniors. We can talk about the expansion of the youth program to provide more jobs for young people during that summer period. We can talk about the one-time payment for disabilities. There is so much that the government did in order to ensure that people had the financial resources or the disposable income in order to meet their needs.

Pandemic or not, the bills do not stop coming in. The need for groceries is always going to be there, so it was important that the federal government, by working with provincial governments and municipalities, was able to make a difference by getting everyone involved, recognizing how important it was to support Canadians in Canada's middle class.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debates tonight and on Tuesday, January 26, 2021, pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to the hon. member's request to express their disagreement.

Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands moving the motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Before we continue, I would like to remind all members of the House who are participating by video conference that, earlier today, we had a problem with the raised hand function on Zoom. The problem seems to be resolved for now.

If there is a problem and the function is not working, I invite members to rise on a point of order to inform the Chair and ensure that they have an opportunity to ask a question or make a comment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to start off, I note that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

It is an honour to enter the debate on Bill C-14. It is really a do-over bill, as most of the substance of it tries to fix errors the government made last summer.

When we think of do-overs and references to repeating the same actions over and over again, what comes to mind is the classic movie Groundhog Day, in which Bill Murray lives the same day over and over again trying to learn about the situation he is in. There are some similarities here. His character in the movie is a little arrogant, a bit vain and out of touch with common people, and I think this can be used to describe the government. In the movie, the main character is trying to learn and develop to be a better person. He is trying to learn from average, mainstream people, or the Tim Hortons crowd, we could say.

When I talk to the residents of Saskatoon—University, a lot of them are concerned about COVID. However, they are also concerned about what comes after it when their bills will come due.

I think the most important aspect of the bill for future generations, for my kids and their kids, is the part that mentions the debt cliff and the overall debt of our country. Right now it is being pushed to $1.8 trillion. That is an outstanding sum of money and it is troubling. When I tried to figure out what $1.8 trillion is, my calculator could not do the calculation. I did not know this until last weekend, but a standard calculator only goes up to eight digits, so I had to work it out on paper.

This do-over bill talks about increasing the debt ceiling or debt cliff, and I will again reference the classic movie Groundhog Day in a second. What is $1.8 trillion? If someone were to start on the Atlantic coast of Canada and walk to the Pacific coast and then back again, dropping a loonie for every foot they walked, that would not be $1.8 trillion. Someone would have to jump into the Atlantic ocean and swim to Iceland, while dropping a loonie as they swam every foot. That is an outstanding amount of money that future generations are going to have to pay back.

We know the Liberals will increase taxes, and the racking up of credit card debt during the pandemic is going to haunt future generations to come. Referring back to Groundhog Day, this makes me remember one scene where a truck is going over a cliff, while Bill Murray is with the groundhog, and it lands. One bystander commented that he may be okay and then the truck explodes.

We knew before the pandemic that the Prime Minister likes to spend money. We talked about the $20-billion deficit in the 2015 campaign, and what did we get? Before COVID hit Canada, we were in rough shape. Maybe some Canadians saw similarities to that movie. Maybe they were thankful we had a Conservative government before the Liberal government and were not in such bad shape because of that. Maybe people thought we would be okay because it was only $20 billion. However, then COVID hit, and kaboom.

We are talking about $1.8 trillion, a reckless amount of money. Future generations are not going to have opportunities because of reckless spending. The bill is trying to fix the problems caused when the Liberals rushed through bills last summers for increased spending. There were obviously errors in how those bills were drafted because we have to do over a lot of those measures, which can be found in Bill C-14.

I believe Canadians are starting to realize that we are in uncharted territory with this amount of debt and the decisions that are going to come down the road. My colleagues spoke previously about how Canadians do not have to worry, because the government took on the debt so they would not have to, but we know it is a fallacy to think that this is going to help Canadians. I am very fearful of what will happen when interest rates start to creep up. We have been printing money to pay for the spending, and there will come a day, with inflationary pressures, when interest rates will have to be raised. To service the debt right now is going to be a burden for not just the next generation but the next and the following generation.

I have another quote that is a little telling from that movie when Bill Murray was complaining about things that people say not to do. “You make choices and live with them”, he says. “I'm not gonna live by their rules anymore.... Don't drive on railroad tracks.” The passenger says, “That's one I happen to agree with.” There are some similarities. Most Canadians are realizing that governments need to be there to help out Canadians when their jobs evaporate because of restrictions due to COVID. The government should be there to act, but with the shotgun approach and the fire hydrant approach of spreading taxpayers' dollars across Canada, there is going to be a bill to be paid. I believe most Canadians realize that we cannot carry on at the clip that we have been without some serious consequences.

Some of the consequences we are seeing are on the cost of living. Canadians who have gone to the grocery store in the last couple of weeks have noticed, and when I went on the weekend, I was surprised that the cost of everything is up. This is going to disproportionately affect Canadians the most who cannot afford it. Vulnerable Canadians are going to see more and more of their dollars going to living expenses, and I am fearful of what that means. In past Liberal campaigns, they promised no new taxes, that taxes would not be increased, that the carbon tax would not be increased. Then we heard different plans they have for increasing taxes, which will have a multiplicative effect on groceries, because we know we have to transport groceries to all parts of Canada. As we increase those costs, what does it mean?

As for the carbon tax, today in Saskatoon it was -35°C, and there is no alternative to natural gas for heating my home. The Liberal government is going to crank up the carbon tax, which will take more money out of consumers' pockets and will have a spiralling effect on our economy. Where does that leave us? Also, once we are through this pandemic and start paying back this massive amount of generational theft that has taken place, taxes are going to be increased, and the net result is going to be less opportunity for the next generation. It is a matter of time before the credit card bill is due and those dollars will have to be paid back.

I will end with a prediction of what is to come, quoting again from the movie, if we carry on with this reckless spending and not realize that our actions have consequences. I will give a winter prediction: “It's gonna be cold...it's gonna be gray...and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life.”

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks. I respect him as an individual, though I disagree wholeheartedly with the substance of his speech. He has criticized the government's response on the basis that this legislation is a do-over, and I will let him know that I would do over the supports we have extended to families and businesses 100 times out of 100.

The member has complained about the debt. What he fails to realize is that leading economists would tell him that a virus created the cost to the economy. The government was left with the choice as to how we should respond to it. We chose to be there for Canadians so they could put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. We chose to be there for businesses so they could keep their doors open and workers on the payroll. When I talked to the Tim Hortons crowd that he referred to, they were worried about keeping their kids in school, whether they would have jobs to go to and whether they could feed their families. The measures we put in place served those ends and served them thoroughly. I would repeat these measures at every opportunity.

When the measures included in this legislation are designed to support families and businesses and protect the health and well-being of Canadians, is he going to vote for this legislation?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the main difference between what he believes and what is reality is that there are families who are hurting because of the restrictions put on their abilities to provide for their families. I do not think there is a parliamentarian who would not agree with the statement that governments do have a role in helping those people.

I believe some of the measures the Liberals rushed out the door with very little protection against abuse were in fact abused. No one is disparaging any family that needed an extra hand to keep that roof over their head and a jug of milk in the fridge, but supports rolled out without any means to test if there was actual employment are just ripe for abuse. It is concerning.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1970s, the federal government used to cover about 50% of health care spending. Today, it covers about 22%. On the one hand, the federal government is stifling the health care system in Quebec and the provinces, and on the other, it is interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as long-term care and lots of other sectors.

What does the hon. member think? Does he agree that health transfers to Quebec and the provinces should be increased? This is a unanimous request from the premiers.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct that the federal government has mismanaged the health file from day one. The major issue right now is the lack of vaccines across Canada, and that is squarely on the federal government, which has not done its work. It brags about how many vaccines it has secured, but it never released the time periods. We are talking two-plus years.

We have shortages across Canada. Right now in Saskatchewan, 102% of the vaccines delivered are in people's arms. That is where the failure of the federal Liberal government is. It is in not securing enough vaccines for Canada.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand where this member is coming from. Just about every measure he is talking about in criticizing the spending was done through unanimous consent of this House. The members on the other side, including all the Conservative members, voted in favour of all this spending.

Why did the member who is so critical of this spending vote in favour of it?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if members remember back, last year we had the one bill. It was $60 billion, and we had six hours of debate. This was before government prorogued Parliament. A lot of the problems with the Liberal government come from going back, and that is why the do-over bill of Bill C-14 is meant to fix some of the errors.

I wonder what the outcome would be if we actually had proper debate on these outstanding numbers we have been racking up.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today on Bill C-14, which, among other things, increases the ceiling for the government's borrowing authority from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion. This would enable the government to drive the country an additional $700 billion into debt.

Even prior to the pandemic, the government's finances were already like a ship lost at sea with no fiscal anchors. For context, between 1867 and 2020, the accumulated federal debt was just over $700 billion. Over the past year, it has exceeded $1.1 trillion, or 50% over our accumulated debt since Confederation. This is a staggering number never seen before.

Canadians desperately need the government to have a plan to get Canada’s fiscal house back in order when the COVID crisis subsides. It goes without saying that the government would have been in a far stronger position to weather this storm if it simply had not broken its promise in 2015 to balance the budget by 2019.

With respect to interest rates, I recall vividly a time when interest rates were very high. In fact, my first home mortgage in 1989 had an interest rate of 12.75%. That was a good rate at the time. The former governor of the Bank Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer both confirmed in finance committee testimony that interest rates will inevitably go up. Interest rate increases are an existential threat to the federal government’s ability to fund programs, like the COVID programs and others, into the future.

If interest rates go up by even one percentage point, that will cost $11 billion; a 5% interest rate rise would cost $55 billion. I say to the Minister of Finance, please heed these warnings. We must be ready. We do not want to be in the same position as Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien were in the mid-90s, when they had to slash health care transfers.

Our economy cannot recover without small businesses being successful, and right now across the country they are hurting, including in my home province of Manitoba. According to the CFIB, 2.4 million jobs are at risk nationally and 181,000 businesses are at risk of closing their doors forever. In Manitoba it estimates that there are an estimated 5,601 businesses at risk, which represents over 102,000 jobs in Manitoba out of a population of 1.3 million people, and 16% of Manitoba businesses are actively considering winding down or declaring bankruptcy. These job losses are from across all sectors.

While public health restrictions have been necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19, they came with a massive price. This recent data shows the devastating impacts they have had on small businesses and the families they support. If these businesses do not survive, Canada’s economic recovery will be much more difficult.

In saying this, I am not arguing against the need for extraordinary measures, but rather to highlight the desperate need for a recovery plan as soon as possible. Not only have small businesses been devastated, but so have charities. Canadian charities need to be an effective partner in any recovery plan. My bill, the supporting Canadian charities act, would give the charitable sector the boost it needs by making the proceeds of sale of private shares and real estate exempt from the capital gains tax if donated to a qualified charity within 30 days.

This common sense measure could have been in place six years ago, but the Liberals tossed it aside from the 2015 budget when they formed government. If this measure had been in place, charities would have received hundreds of millions of dollars more and would have been better positioned to respond to the pandemic and be prepared for the recovery.

With regard to vaccines, they are critical to reopening the economy. Acquiring vaccines and getting them to provinces must be the federal government’s top priority. Only 1.46% of Canadians have been vaccinated. In contrast, Israel has vaccinated 22.34% of its citizens; the UAE is at 14.1%; and the U.K. is at 4.19%. Canada ranks at least a distant number 11 in the world for per capita vaccinations. The government has put Canadians at the back of pack with their mismanagement of the rollout.

Canada will receive zero doses of the Pfizer vaccine this week. How can provinces come up with vaccination plans without certainty of delivery? Why did the Prime Minister wait until last week to even pick up the phone and speak to the CEO of Pfizer? We cannot secure jobs, our economy, and our future without vaccines. Where is the plan?

With respect to the aviation industry, it is critical national infrastructure. This debate is not just about regional routes; it is about all routes and all jobs. It is about positioning our economy for a full and robust recovery and securing our future.

On Saturday, I spoke with Joseph. Joseph is a 31-year-old pilot. He and his partner live in my riding and have a two-year-old son, who was playing with Lego when I called. After several years of flying, he got his dream job last February flying 737s for WestJet. On May 4, he was grounded because of the pandemic. He fears he may never get back to the work he loves and just cannot make ends meet on available government assistance.

Joseph and his family and thousands of aviation workers in his situation are counting on us to get this right. The government has said that the purpose of this bill is to “provide assistance to families with young children, support students, and invest in resources to protect the health and safety of Canadians.” I cannot think of a better way to do this than to provide aviation workers, many of whom have young families, just like Joseph, with a plan to protect their livelihoods.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, travel and aviation workers have been dramatically impacted in such a negative way. With international travel being shut down and domestic travel slowing to a snail's pace, aviation workers and their livelihoods have been grounded. They were assured for months by the government that help was coming. They were assured that talks with airlines and other industry stakeholders were ongoing to develop a plan. They were told to just wait and be patient. Even after hundreds of aviation workers demonstrated on the Hill in October, pleading for help, all they have heard are crickets from the government.

With the situation in the aviation industry getting worse by the day, aviation workers and their families cannot wait any longer. Where is the plan? Where are the assurances that these jobs will not be eliminated and that travel adviser commissions will be protected? Where are the assurances for travellers to get full refunds on tickets which were cancelled due to COVID-19? Why is rapid testing not in place at airports? Pilots, flight attendants, baggage personnel, mechanics, independent travel advisers and many others are still waiting for this long-promised plan. Let us not forget it is aviation workers who continue to play crucial roles in the distribution of vaccines and PPE across the country. They are there for us, but the government is simply not there for them.

While emergency measures in this bill are worthy of consideration, what I do not support is rubber-stamping continued runaway deficits. Combining a $700 billion increase in borrowing authority with these measures into one bill is just simply bad governance. An increase of the debt limit sufficiently to allow for the government to fund the COVID emergency spending through to the end of the next fiscal year would make sense. However, anything further must be contingent on a fiscal anchor and must have parliamentary and committee scrutiny. Such a vast spending authority needs to be considered separate and apart from these important supports.

To put this in perspective, the $700 billion increase in spending authority being requested over the next three years is equivalent to the total $700 billion debt of Canada accumulated between 1867 and 2020. It is a staggering amount as I have said. The government's borrowing authority should be debated in a separate bill to ensure there is appropriate parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. We should not be providing the government carte blanche to spend as it sees fit, without end and in the absence of such oversight.

On this side of the House, the Conservatives are focused on taking actions to get as many people back to work in every part of Canada and every sector as quickly as possible. We are ready to do whatever it takes to get Canada working again, but we must ensure that taxpayer dollars are treated with respect.

As the official opposition, we are committed to ensuring the government's spending supports Canadians when they need it the most while being focused on responsible fiscal management for the years to come. We need to secure the future for all Canadians.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, at the start of my hon. colleague's speech, he mentioned the former Bank of Canada governor talking about interest rates. As I understand it, the former governor of the Bank of Canada was more concerned about deflation and the impact on jobs.

Certainly the member had talked a lot about the debt being at formerly $700 billion and now $1.1 trillion. However, in the same breath, he also talked about businesses and the need to protect workers and employees. Would he not agree that the $400 billion that has been added to that debt has been focused on supporting Canadians to avoid the economic scarring of the economy? Will he admit that this is certainly what the government's focus has been since day one?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I spoke to the former governor in the finance committee. I asked him if and when interest rates would go up. Although he did say that we were in a deep hole, he said that as we came out of the recovery, interest rates would certainly go up. It is in Hansard, it is on the record, and the member can read it for himself. They can go up. I have experienced it myself. The government will have huge difficulty managing when that happens.

In terms of protecting businesses, the Conservatives, by and large, have supported the emergency programs that have been rolled out, and certainly they have been very valuable. The sad part about the emergency programs is that they could have been far better, far more effective and, frankly, more timely if the Liberal government had simply let us examine them with proper scrutiny through committee meetings, but that was not the case. These bills were brought forward and basically rammed through Parliament, which is unfortunate. It led to many mistakes, one of which, by the way, Bill C-14 would correct by announcing that people do not have to pay their rent before they can claim the rent subsidy. That could have been fixed months ago if we had just had some reasonable opportunity for oversight.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

It is a pleasure to be virtually in the House, from my home in Surrey, British Columbia, to speak to Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement. It contains so many incredible and important initiatives, everything from COVID recovery for Canadians and Canadian businesses to social equality to climate change. The thread that joins all these issues together is that we all make a positive impact in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast now and into the future.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about some of the many important aspects of the economic update that are of particular interest to my riding of Surrey Centre. I will address some of these areas where individuals and businesses continue to struggle: support for Canadians and businesses as we continue to face the pandemic; creating opportunities and support for youth; and economic development in British Columbia.

Continued support for individuals and businesses throughout the COVID-19 pandemic will be vital for Canadians as we face what will likely be some challenging months ahead. With cases continuing to rise across the country and provinces and territories taking steps to reduce the spread, we continue to see limits on gatherings and restrictions on some businesses in their operations. Support like the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada child benefit, the extension of the Canada emergency wage subsidy and emergency business accounts remain as important as ever.

I continue to hear from constituents in Surrey Centre who need these benefits. They support our government in whatever it takes to ensure that Canadians have the support they need to get through these challenging times. From Surrey Centre restaurants like Bozzini's to the AP Group sawmill that employ over 80 employees, these businesses were able to survive and continue to employ their workers despite the challenges faced by COVID-19, all due to the federal support measures like the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy, to name a few.

Creating opportunities for youth is a topic that is deeply important to the Surrey Centre Constituency Youth Council. The youth involved in my council and youth across the country are very concerned about the impact of COVID-19 and their futures. Many feel they have missed out on chances for learning in the classroom, connecting with peers and lost opportunities for employment. Those who have just entered the job market have had a particularly challenging time to find meaningful work.

While not part of the bill, I want to take the opportunity to highlight the Canada summer jobs program and the impact it has in our communities. The funding delivered by Canada summer jobs is highly desired by organizations and businesses in Surrey Centre to help them create positions for youth that they would otherwise not have the means to provide. Just as important, youth across Canada also rely on these positions each year, including some members of my office's youth council.

The proposed increase of 40,000 jobs for Canada summer jobs across the country for 2021-22 is very welcome news. This means that 120,000 youth will have access to positions created just for them.

In addition to the Canada summer jobs, the fall economic statement also proposes 45,300 job placements for young people through the youth employment skills strategy. Together these initiatives will provide more than 160,000 employment opportunities for Canadian youth, positions that will help them gain valuable experience and develop their skills for future employment opportunities as they enter the job market.

However, while we wait for the additional Canada summer jobs and opportunities, the bill would bring some debt relief to millions of student loan borrowers who have struggled to pay their bills this year, some as a result of entering the job market during COVID, job loss or reduction in hours due to the pandemic. We will achieve this through eliminating the federal interest on Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans for 2021-22. This will mean $329 million of relief to Canadian student loan borrowers.

Finally, I would like to highlight the regional development agencies across the country. So far these agencies have made $1.5 billion in support available to businesses through the regional relief and recovery fund. Introduced in April, the regional relief fund is providing significant support through Canada's regional development agencies to small businesses that are unable to access other pandemic support programs.

The regional relief and recovery fund has supported 14,700 businesses and protected more than 100,000 jobs so far.

The additional $500 million proposed for the regional development agencies will bring the total support available to more than $2 billion for businesses and entrepreneurs in need of assistance.

Western Economic Diversification Canada, which has served all of the western provinces from Manitoba to B.C. for the last 30 years, has been providing support for businesses, innovators and non-profits by promoting the development and diversification of western Canada's economy and advancing the interests of the west in national economic policy, programs and projects.

We know, however, that western Canada is not a homogeneous region. British Columbia and the Prairies have different economic needs. The proposed new regional development agency for British Columbia has caught the attention of small and medium-sized businesses in Surrey. They know the value of the regional development agencies, and specifically the important support provided by the regional relief and recovery fund. This new RDA would tailor support even further to the specific needs of British Columbia businesses, and allow Western Economic Diversification to do the same and focus on the specific needs of the Prairies. This would help programs like the regional relief and recovery fund create even more impact in the regions they serve.

A new B.C. development agency would help diversify businesses in Surrey that are in the clean tech, health science, forest product, agri-tech and logistics sectors that fuel the economy in B.C. This new RDA would be able to see what is imperative to our local economy and help increase productivity and create more jobs.

These, and many of the other proposed initiatives in the fall economic statement, would be of great help to the millions of Canadians who have been struggling. The quicker we get these programs in place, the quicker they will benefit the Canadians who need them most.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments. A couple of Liberal colleagues have talked about how important small businesses are to the Canadian economy. However, I remember that in 2017, before the pandemic, there was a lot of talk about the Liberals bringing forward tax increases on small businesses across the country. I believe they were even called tax havens for some people.

I want to ask the member this. Going forward, can we ensure that we will make the economy stronger and that we will secure our future recovery by ensuring small businesses have every ability to succeed and hire more people after the recovery instead of labelling them as tax cheats and raising taxes on them?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has not read or seen the facts. Since the Liberal government came into power in 2015, we have lowered the small and medium-sized business tax rate by almost 3%. We probably have the lowest tax rate in North America, but definitely the lowest this country has ever seen. It went from almost 12% down to 9% during this time, all to support and help small businesses.

During this pandemic, small businesses were given $40,000 interest free, then an additional $20,000 interest free, of which $20,000 is forgivable after two-plus years once it is paid back. I would say this has saved hundreds of thousands of businesses from some of the pains of the pandemic.

In addition, we have given them a wage subsidy so they can continue their support. I recall that, at the beginning of the pandemic, employers said they did not want to lay off their employees. Their business was down, but they had good employees they wanted to support themselves. We gave them that opportunity. This government will always be there for small businesses and the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He praised the merits of some of these programs, which are not under federal jurisdiction, but we know the story well. I would like him to answer a simple question about a program he must be familiar with, because it was his government that decided to set it up. We are still waiting for that to happen. I am talking about the credit program for the hardest-hit sectors, which was announced in the economic update on November 30. There is still nothing to this day. Normally, when an economic update is released, it is because there is a plan. There is currently no program.

When will there be a plan to support the industries that are currently being hit hard, particularly tourism, aerospace, arts and culture?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been front and centre, and our ministers responsible for these areas have been taking a very active look and taking feedback from all sectors.

We completely recognize that the hospitality and tourism sectors have been probably hit the hardest in this country, and a lot needs to be done to help and support them during this time. Many of the businesses are taking advantage of the wage subsidy, the emergency rent subsidy and small business loan programs, but more needs to be done. Our government is committed to that. In the days and weeks ahead, our government will hopefully be announcing and enacting some of those relief methods so that we can support our tourism and hospitality sectors, and most of all support the workers and the people who are behind them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about one thing that I was surprised to see missing from Bill C-14.

As the member knows, in order for a small business to qualify for the Canada emergency wage subsidy, it had to have a payroll account in place before March 15 of last year. More than 10 months later, many start-ups still cannot qualify for that important wage subsidy. I am sure he has small businesses in his riding that are going through similar problems.

Why have the Liberals so far neglected to pay attention to start-ups so that they can qualify for the wage subsidy, given that we are now 10 months into this pandemic with no end in sight in the immediate future?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has stated, we have been helping small businesses. We have been giving them wage subsidies and support, but these are businesses that were already established and had people working for them. Therefore, the benchmark is from what they were earning before they took a reduction in revenue or sales. It is based on that.

I am well aware that some restaurants started operations post-pandemic, and they are facing challenging times. I will urge the Minister of Finance and other ministers to find ways to support them so that they can also survive this difficult time.

I thank the member for his question. I will take it to heart and make sure that we can do something about that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on Bill C-14, which aims to ensure that Canadian families, workers and businesses that continue to be impacted by COVID-19 receive the assistance they need via some of the measures our government detailed in the 2020 fall economic statement.

I know all parliamentarians, my colleagues, will continue to ensure we have the backs of Canadian families by providing them with the support they need as we all deal with COVID-19.

I wish to take a moment to thank the residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the City of Vaughan, who have heeded the requests from public health officials over the past year to do what is right: wear a mask, socially distance and now stay home. Together we will get through the pandemic. On behalf of all citizens, I wish to express our gratitude to the essential and front-line workers who have our backs. I thank them for what they do day in and day out.

As an economist by profession and a participant in the global financial markets for over 20 years, and who worked through the tech bubble and the global financial crisis, I was frankly not surprised by the magnitude of the impact of COVID-19. It was an exogenous shock that, as referred to in economic terms, froze the Canadian and global economy for a period of time.

With that, since day one, our government has been laser focused and will continue to be there for Canadian workers, entrepreneurs, families and students. Measures such as the Canada emergency response benefit assisted nearly nine million Canadians who one day were gainfully employed, providing for their families and building their futures, and the next day had their workplaces shut down, or even worse, found their jobs gone.

Our focus remains to help and support these Canadians. The CEBA and the Canada emergency wage subsidy have helped hundreds of thousands of businesses, including hundreds of businesses in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. The wage subsidy, in one month alone, supported nearly 4.5 million Canadian workers. It has been remarked upon as the key mechanism to maintain attachment between employers and their employees so we can ensure a faster recovery for our economy. We know for a fact that the Canadian labour market is recovering faster from COVID-19 than that of the United States. We do not want permanent scarring to occur in the Canadian labour market, and the CEWS is such an important program to ensure recovery in employment levels as we move into recovery from the pandemic.

In April 2020, according to Statistics Canada, the initial widespread COVID-19 economic shutdown directly affected 5.5 million Canadian workers, including three million who lost their jobs and 2.5 million who were employed but experienced COVID-related absences.

We are seeing a recovery. We know we have much work to do. December 2020's Labour Force Survey recorded 1.1 million Canadian workers who remain impacted by COVID, including 636,000 who lost their jobs due to the impact of COVID. This level of lost jobs is much greater than what was experienced during the financial crisis. Again, we know much work must be done to get our economy back to full employment and all Canadians working again.

As stated in the Speech from the Throne, our government has committed to create over one million jobs, restoring employment to pre-COVID levels. As parliamentarians, in the interim we must again ensure that Canadian workers and families continue to have the support they need. The recovery benefits, including the Canada recovery benefit, the sickness benefit and the caregiving benefit, along with enhanced flexibility in the employment insurance system, are ensuring that Canadian families do not have to choose between putting food on their tables or paying rent. We will have their backs.

Bill C-14 will provide for the implementation of a number of measures from the fall economic statement that will assist Canadian families and students and ensure help for Canadian businesses through the Canada emergency rent subsidy. I know from my friends across the aisle in the official opposition that support for families with children is also a priority.

In 2015, our government promised we would strengthen the middle class and those working hard to join it. The Canada child benefit was at the centre of this promise. This measure has lifted hundreds of thousands of children and their families out of poverty and continues to provide tax-free monthly material assistance to those families in Canada who need it most. In my riding alone, over 15,000 children receive the CCB every month. Nearly $60 million annually in tax-free assistance is being delivered to Vaughan—Woodbridge families.

Bill C-14 will provide for immediate and temporary relief for families we know are impacted by COVID-19, with up to $1,200 in 2021 for each child under the age of six for low- and middle-income families entitled to the Canada child benefit. This would apply to families with net incomes below $120,000. For those above, the payment would be $600.

This measure is anticipated to benefit 1.6 million families and, with that, 2.1 million children. I ask my colleagues from all parties to join in ensuring that the assistance to these families and children occurs in a timely manner.

Bill C-14 also includes direct measures to ensure we assist small business owners impacted by COVID-19, with direct and timely payments to cover rent and associated expenses. The measures will ensure that small business owners are able to receive assistance on a timely basis ex ante to help them cover the rent payable.

We know that the Canada emergency rent subsidy is assisting hard-hit businesses to pay for rent and related expenses. The CERS provides direct and easy access to rent and mortgage support from September 27, 2020, until June 2021 for qualifying organizations. The program is revamped. We consulted and listened, and provide payments directly to renters rather than having them go through their landlords. For small businesses shut down by a public health order, the rent subsidy will cover up to 90% or up to $75,000 in monthly expenses. Bill C-14 would formalize the current administration of the rent subsidy, which includes, again, rent payable. This is very important.

To date, total approved applications are nearly 240,000, with a value of funds distributed to hard-working entrepreneurs across this country of nearly $1 billion.

We know that young people continue to suffer disproportionately from the economic impacts of COVID-19, particularly on the unemployment front. Bill C-14 would assist students by easing the financial burden of student debt during the recovery and, with that, eliminating the interest repayment on the federal portion of Canada's student loans and the Canada's apprenticeship loans for 2021-22. The measure would help 1.4 million Canadians, providing over $300 million in savings to students.

We have students' backs, and I am glad to say that we are vastly expanding the Canada summer jobs program, with approximately 120,000 job opportunities this year versus 80,000 in a prior year. This is great news for youth in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Canada as we continue to recover from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before I finish up my remarks today on Bill C-14, which I hope moves through the House quickly to assist families and businesses throughout our country, I note that much has been written about where our economy and our future are going, not only in Canada but also around the world. I read something over the holidays and it continues to strike me as something very important. It is from an International Monetary Fund series written by very well-known economists, authors and thinkers. We want to rebuild. We want to build a more inclusive society and we want to strengthen our social fabric. I will read a quote from an article I read that struck me as being at the core of this. It is from Ian Goldin, entitled “Rethinking Global Resilience”:

The devastation caused by COVID-19 compels us to redouble our efforts to create a fairer and more inclusive world. This requires that we address the threats that endanger our lives and exacerbate inequality, poverty, and climate change. Building a resilient and sustainable future requires action by all of us, from the individual level up to the global level. International cooperation is vital not only between governments, but through civil society, business, and professional collaboration. The networked problems of our time are amenable to networked solutions. We must use this crisis to build new and stronger bonds, in our communities, in our countries, and globally.

It is obviously great to be back here in Parliament, but we must continue to assist Canadians impacted by COVID-19. We must continue to have their backs.

The federal government is working with and listening to many stakeholders, some here in my riding. I have spoken to many small business owners, and I know how grateful they are for the Canada emergency business account. I know how much the Canada emergency response benefit made a difference in the lives of many citizens, particularly the many people who lost their jobs for no other reason than COVID-19.

This was not an economic recession caused by the capitalist or market system. This was caused by an exogenous event, and our government reacted strongly and continues to provide the help that Canadians from coast to coast to coast need. We have sectors that are in rough shape, including hospitality and tourism. We need to assist those sectors. They will gradually be assisted as the economy opens up, with the rollout of the vaccine.

I am going to end there. Again, it is great to be back, and I look forward to answering questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I think my colleague is missing a key point here. I agree that what was done needed to be done, and I am sending out a householder talking about all the ways that those on this side of the floor helped make those programs significantly better than they were and helped get them out the door much faster than they were coming out the door.

The unfortunate thing my colleagues does not seem to understand is that small businesses can only carry on under this kind of an environment for so long before they no longer exist. We are hitting a key point in time for our country when the government needs to be stimulating the economy, not just keeping people breathing in the midst of things. They want to go back to work.

Why are the Liberals choosing to ignore our biggest resource in this country at a time when even Jerry Dias says that we will need oil in this world for at least another 40 years? We are the ones with the best product and the best environmental standards in the world, so why are we choosing to sit down and give this opportunity to the rest of the world, killing the wealth and prosperity in this nation?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I was very glad to see how quickly we were able to get funds to Canadians who had lost their jobs because of COVID-19. Within two to three business days, Canadians received the Canada emergency response benefit, and firms having business accounts received the CEWS.

In the city I live in and the riding I represent, we have over 13,000 SMEs. I work with and know so many of them, and I listen to their concerns. Believe me, their concerns are always brought to individuals I work with within our party and within the minister's offices to improve and strengthen programs. That is what Canadians expect. Canadians expect us to co-operate. They expect all levels of government to work together, because we know we are all in this together and we are only going to get out of this together.

I thank the hon. member for her comments, but I would say our government has acted swiftly and very prudently. We will continue to have the backs of Canadian workers and businesses as they continue to be impacted by COVID-19.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I thank him for thinking of the health care providers who are taking care of people with COVID-19.

I want to talk about self-employed workers and small businesses in particular. There are programs out there right now. However, Karine Dufour, one of my constituents, told me today that it takes a very long time to get a response to a grant application and that the CRA's checks are onerous.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always imperative to assist Canadians as quickly and as efficiently as possible via the Canada Revenue Agency. I know the public servants of the Canada Revenue Agency have been working day and night, since the pandemic began, to assist Canadians in this very unique and extraordinary period of time globally.

The call agents strive to do their best with the information they are provided. If there is a specific case the member wishes to bring up that needs assistance, she can please send it over to the minister's office and to my office. We will be more than happy to assist.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the member in the past speak at length about the government's ability to put $100 billion out the door for workers, but what he has not talked about is the $750 billion in liquidity supports it gave to big banks and Bay Street.

When we proposed a wealth tax, why did the hon. member bend over backwards and contort himself to defend big corporations against having this debt placed on the backs and burdens of households here in Canada?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Vaughan is home to over 13,000 businesses, and I know how hard these entrepreneurs work to create jobs, whether they employ a hundred people or thousands of people. I understand how important they are and how much risk-taking they do, day in and day out, to ensure we have a strong economy and remain competitive.

I will always stand on the side of job creators and will always stand on the side of workers. I am glad to see the investment that General Motors is making in our country in Oshawa and the recent announcement with Unifor. In Ingersoll, we will always stand with job creators and will always stand with the workers developing great products and services.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Centre.

Canadians can be forgiven for thinking that this government has been developing a way of protecting Canadians from the virus from scratch. We are constantly being told that this is an unprecedented situation, a one-of-a-kind happening and no one could have planned for this. We are being told how hard this government has worked night and day to keep us safe during this never-before-seen viral contagion sweeping the globe.

Our Minister of Health has regularly changed recommendations and restrictions, causing confusion and frustration for Canadians everywhere. She said that it could not be helped, and that we learn something new every day. In actual fact, quoting King Solomon from the Book of Ecclesiastes, “there is nothing new under the sun.”

I contest that farmers have been tackling the challenge of deadly viruses in their crops and herds for a millennia. I myself have dealt with viral outbreaks on the farm. As a matter of fact, one of the very first big challenges we faced in business was a viral infection in flowers. As with COVID-19, there was no cure, and we were forced to cull the crop and start over. This early tragedy informed my understanding and, quite frankly, the understanding of industry and government on how to best tackle and control viral outbreaks.

Let me give a concrete example, which has been happening in every province across our great country for years in response to what science has told us about viral outbreaks.

Every greenhouse vegetable grower has protocols in place to ensure that viruses are not transported into their facility. They know the danger they face once a virus gets inside. There are devastating economic consequences, so when one enters the facility, one is first asked to simply sign in, just like we are doing now in restaurants. It is an easy but effective way to quickly track a source of infection when it happens. One is then given a gown to wear over one's clothes so that a pathogen is not brought in that way. At every door, there are foot baths to ensure that a pathogen is not brought in on one's shoes. Hand sanitizer stations are everywhere.

After that, years ago, the federal government mandated floral growers to install complicated tracking and tracing systems for all plant cuttings. These cuttings originate from places around the globe and arrive in Canada on airplanes by the millions daily. The system enables a farmer to pinpoint where in the greenhouse a cutting came from, where it is at any given time during production and even tracks which customer it is eventually sold to.

Every step of the way is tracked so that, should a virus outbreak occur, farmers and government can go back and find the source, and work to isolate and eradicate the problem. These are tried, tested and effective methods that farmers have been using for years to ensure the safety of their own crops and those of neighbouring farmers.

This is the science that our government is well aware of. In fact, it has regulated farmers for many decades to ensure that they maintain a robust monitoring system that protects the crops of Canadian farmers day after day and year after year. However, with this enormous body of scientific knowledge at our fingertips, and systems and processes that have been functioning very well in the agriculture sector for years, we find ourselves watching our economy being burned to the ground because this government chose to politicize the entire pandemic response procedure rather than follow the science.

Where a farmer will lock his doors to uninvited visitors during an outbreak, our health officials said that it would be racist to restrict entry into the country. Where a farmer keeps gallons of hand sanitizer in stock at all times, our national emergency stockpile cupboards were bare. Where a farmer tracks and traces millions upon millions of plants arriving per year, our health officials have no live health data tracking system in place. Where a farmer tests water, tissue and soil samples on the spot, our finance minister declared rapid tests no better than snake oil.

It is clear that the real science was ignored and politics took priority when it came to our COVID response, which has cost regular, hard-working Canadians their jobs, their mental health, their businesses, their retirement savings and their lives.

Here we are today to debate the new measures for more COVID support. These measures were only necessary because this government dawdled on rapid tests and vaccines. Because of its failures, Canadians will be among the last on the globe to be able to return to normal. My question is this: Is it reasonable for us to believe that these new measures will do what they say they will?

We keep hearing that we are all in this together, which is clearly not the case. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of jobs that were not affected, such as those in the public sector, which represents a whopping 35% of Canadians.

Elite politicians are the ones who are least impacted financially, yet they continue to fail those who are most impacted. The bulk of the damage is being shouldered by small business entrepreneurs and those with the least amount of wealth in the community. This bill still does not begin to recognize that fact. These new spending authorities request $700 billion in additional borrowing limits, as well as a $100-billion slush fund. As opposed to helping those most impacted, these dollars appear to be earmarked for special pet projects of the ideologically obsessed Liberal government.

Thousands of women in the travel sales industry have been without an income since March. The highly affected sector support program, which the Liberals announced with great fanfare many months ago, is nowhere to be seen. Single mothers, many primary breadwinners for the family, cannot buy groceries to put on the dinner table. They cannot wait any longer. Where is that support?

I am seeing small business owners in my riding hanging on by a thread. They did not qualify for the first disastrous rent relief program because, let us face it, it was fixed to help a Liberal insider get in on the action.

I am going to hazard a guess that the elite politicians who are crafting these policies have never started a small business. They have never had to borrow from family to make payroll. They have never worked a second job so they could afford the plexiglass dividers they need to be able to open or reopen their restaurant during a pandemic.

The Prime Minister and the finance minister are lessons in Canadian political elitism. They constantly assure us that transparency, and science-based and best-practice approaches are the only way they do business. Do they think we do not see that there has been no budget tabled and that they have cancelled audits for themselves, but are pushing hard for auditing the books of small businesses? What sort of due diligence was done in hiring the governor general? Did no one even make a call to check her references?

In this bill, the Liberals are proposing COVID supports that will give them further opportunity to spend without oversight, because they say that during a pandemic they need to have the ability to act fast and save our citizens. However, there is nothing in this bill to suggest they will do anything differently than they have done up to now.

Canadians are ready to be the solution. Many households have been saving up throughout this pandemic. They are excited to get back to travelling, working and doing business without government handouts.

Canada has been the best place in the world to live. It has always been a land of opportunity like no other. We will need to leverage our assets to the maximum and make sure our economy is firing on all cylinders if we are going to weather this storm. The government should have had all the tools and expertise it needed right from the beginning. What went wrong when, rather than those of flowers or animals, it was human lives at stake? The Liberal government is so ideologically possessed that science and common sense took and continue to take a back seat.

We have been plagued by this pandemic for a year. Clearly, what we are doing is not working. Our economy has ground to a halt and cases continue to rise. The government has failed to provide the provinces with viable alternatives to lockdowns. It has failed to create an effective national tracking and tracing program. It has failed to procure enough rapid tests to allow businesses to open confidently. It has gone all in on playing the waiting game until everyone is vaccinated, and it could not even get that right.

Now the government is using this opportunity to force its ideology down Canada's throat, requesting that Parliament allow it to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to experiment with a reimagined economy. Canadians are tired of this credit card economy. They want a paycheque and the dignity that comes with providing for their own family. Canadians need leadership that is focused on Canadian resources, productivity and ingenuity, not a brave new world.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned partisanship and ideology. Her speech was certainly filled with a lot of partisanship.

I have a couple of different questions for her. She can choose which one she would like to answer.

She mentioned some of the criticism of the government's response. I think this government has been mindful that of course there are areas where we could have done better. That is the nature of what has transpired. I would believe some of her assertions, if the rest of the world were not also going through the pandemic. What would she say about the rest of the world going through lockdowns, the other G7 countries around the world that are going through the same thing we are in this global fight?

She talked about elite politicians. Does she see herself in that, or is she labelling a few of our colleagues in the House?

Finally, with respect to government handouts, does she not believe we had a moral and ethical obligation to support Canadians through this pandemic?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we could have done so much better than we did if we had followed the kind of protocols that farmers follow. Had our emergency stockpile not been empty, we could have ensured that seniors care homes had exactly what they needed. We could have protected them with PPE. We did not have anything in the cupboard.

Honestly, regarding the tracking and tracing system, we are hearing from many different medical professionals that this is so, so late in coming. We do not need it just for a pandemic, we actually also need it for a better health care system.

These are things that, as I say, CFIA is used to doing. I do not know what happened at PHAC, but CFIA is very used to doing all of these things. I would love to see us make sure that protocols that work on the farm are also working for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things to note is that the responsibility for the lockdown measures falls under provincial governments, and yes, I know we are all tired of that. We certainly want to come out of the lockdowns as quickly as possible.

When it comes to the cost of living that so many Canadian families are dealing with, and my colleague from British Columbia did mention how important our health care system is, one of the biggest costs comes with prescription medication and dental care.

I just wonder if the hon. member would lend her support to seeing the federal government play more of an active role in that, so that Canadian families are not hit by those extraordinary costs when it comes to looking after their oral health and their pharmaceutical needs. Will she join with the NDP in pushing for those initiatives so that we can give those struggling working families a break from those kinds of health care costs?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, right now our top priority should be our senior care homes. We need to make sure that we have proper funds going to protect them, to create this iron band around our long-term care facilities. That is for me. That is why I am here. I am very passionate about seniors, and that is what I am going to be focusing on.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member used the term “reimagined economy”, and I could not help but think of the conspiracy theory about the global reset and everything that is going on with that.

Could the member just confirm for me and this House that she was not trying to create a link between a “reimagined economy” and the conspiracy theories surrounding the global reset that are out there?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member might be able to tell me if the $700-billion credit increase that we are looking for is not actually for a plan to buy Facebook. That is the value of Facebook. I had to laugh when I saw that number. A $700-billion increase to credit is just crazy. I am sorry.

[An hon. member]

Yes or no. You try answering that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask the question. I would ask both sides not to go back and forth.

Resuming debate, we have the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today virtually to speak to Bill C-14 on Robbie Burns Day, a second act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19.

I really do not need to speak to the detriment COVID has placed not only on Canada but on the rest of the world. The ways in which we have had to change the way we eat, sleep, learn, work and visit have been turned upside down for nearly a year. At this point, it seems like there is no end in sight. It is frustrating beyond belief, and the damages are real and significant.

Bill C-14 would implement certain measures announced in the 2020 fall economic statement regarding the most pressing items. This would include increasing the Canada child benefit; eliminating interest on Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans for at least one year; amending the Food and Drugs Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations to seek additional information from companies about food, drug and medical devices to, for example, assess the safety of these products; as well as amending the Borrowing Authority Act.

I think we can all agree that government investment and spending has been absolutely necessary to help Canadians through this pandemic. Canadians largely continue to be left without a plan, a timeline or a guarantee of what the future might look like as we head out of this pandemic.

We first must recognize that there will be no economic recovery without a solution to this health crisis. As the rest of the world continues to receive vaccines and a return to a sense of normalcy in respective countries, Canada has fallen behind, not only in the past few weeks but since the inception of COVID-19. We continue to ask for rapid testing and whether it will become available for working in spaces for the vulnerable population like long-term seniors' homes and caregiver settings.

Today I have listened to the government say that it is all under control and that we have have minor setbacks. I have to emphasize that purchase orders are not a measure of performance; vaccines in arms are. As of Sunday, Canada has administered 816,557 vaccine doses. In comparison, the U.S. had administered over 20 million. On a per capita basis, the U.S. has so far inoculated 5.2% of its population. We stand at 1.1%.

Our country remains shut down, just like it was at the beginning of the pandemic. This is exclusively a responsibility of the federal government with vaccines and rapid testing. We were originally expected to receive vaccines in the next few weeks. Prime Minister Trudeau has said that Pfizer has promised to deliver four million doses by the end of March—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the hon. member that he is not to mention parliamentarians by their last name.

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

My apologies, Madam Speaker.

It is clear that there is no plan for the vaccine rollout just as there is no plan to get the economy back on track.

Rapid testing has been available in Europe for months and the U.S. approved take-home tests back in 2020. We are not even running in the same race.

As we discuss the bill to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020, I want to first focus on the amendment to the Borrowing Authority Act and the Financial Administration Act to increase the maximum borrowing authority of the government.

The $1 trillion question is becoming a $1.8 trillion question. How is the federal spending going to position our country for post-pandemic success? Amidst this never before seen federal stimulus spending, where is our strategic economic vision for the future? How will this affect generations yet to come?

The debt-to-GDP ratio will rise from 31% last year to 56% next year. That is below the 66% ratio that led to a near default in 1996, but we are getting awfully close. The Bank of Canada projects that business investment will grow at .08% over the next two years, failing to recover to 2019 levels until at least 2023. Consumption will grow at 4.7%, five times faster than investment. Consumption and government spending will represent about 80% of the economic growth for the next two years, while investment and exports will be less than zero.

The government has announced $100 billion infrastructure spend over the next 10 years. The problem continues to be, however, that no matter how much it announces or how amazing the results will be, Canadians continue to be left in the dark as to what is the plan for how their money is going to be spent. Spending that does not improve productivity, lower costs or create opportunities for additional revenue will just continue to put us on a debt spiral.

In the face of this insurmountable debt, Canada's finance minister spoke about unlocking preloaded stimulus, fuelled by Canada's savings to tackle this debt. The fact is that in a country of 37-odd million, with an average household savings of $852 per year, this is not exactly what I would call a cure-all for the economic situation in which we have found ourselves.

On the other hand, we are a vast country, one of abundant resources, world-class institutions, providing cutting-edge research, and technology industries producing innovative solutions to everyday issues. If we are going to service this more than $1 trillion debt, we are going to have to dig far deeper than our own pockets and work with all that we have and all that this country can offer.

Canada fell out of the top 10 ranking of the world's most competitive economies. We have fallen near the bottom of our peer group on innovation, ranking 17th. We have the highest unemployment rate in the G7.

With a country of our size and the sparsity of population we have, there is no way that we can rely on our internal economy to lead us to recovery. Canada will need massive growth and exports to fuel any kind of recovery. Spending in infrastructure should be predominantly focused on those things that improve productivity, competitiveness and access to markets. Private sector innovation is what is going to lead us into the future and provide us with the technology we need to shift to both global sustainability and reinstate us as one of the world's economic leaders.

In 2019, mineral fuels, including oil, accounted for 22% of our country's total exports, the number one exported product. We have the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world and the third-largest exported, primarily to the U.S., which now is of huge concern because of the Keystone decision.

Now is not the time to restrict export growth, but rather see an expansion of our capabilities in all sectors, including oil and gas. There is a market opportunity for resources, which are extracted both ethically and to an ever-improving environmental standard. The world wants more of what Canada produces. Canada is home to incredibly strong industries in minerals, agriculture, forestry, pulp, paper and all forms of energy production, such as tech, aerospace, fisheries, to name a few.

The world faces a confluence of changes and technology advantages that are fundamentally altering the relationship between individuals, economies and society.

Innovations in a diverse set of fields, including robotics, genetics, AI, sustainable energy and traditional sectors, are all individually imperative to economic recovery. These innovations, just as we have come to rely on in a pandemic, will be evermore important to lead us out of it. Prioritizing innovation today is a key to unlocking post-pandemic growth; the quality and the quantity of our research and development, ensuring that IP that is developed in Canada stays in Canada; policies that encourage new employees and employees to come to Canada to help support these industries; and, most important, tax policy that encourages entrepreneurial growth and expansion rather than penalizes it. If ever Canada were in a position that we needed to grow and grow our exports and support our entrepreneurs and businesses, this is now the time.

I look forward to the government putting forward a budget that will actually demonstrate how we are going to do this and how we can ensure future generations have the same opportunities that many of us have had today.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in closing, my colleague mentioned that we were here to seek a better future for generations. Bill C-14 would raise the debt ceiling. Therefore, I do not understand.

Could the hon. member enlighten me how raising that ceiling would impact future generations?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reality here is that we are going into an enormous debt that future generations are going to be faced with paying it back. It will have a massive impact to future generations. That is why I tried to outline in my intervention the importance of growing our economy.

For all the stories we have heard about creating programs that will create short-term stimulus inside of the country, we absolutely have to be focused on external exports. That is where the opportunities will come for future generations. That is where the opportunities will come for my kids and my grandkids. That is what we should be focusing on in the future.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, going back to that last question, if the hon. member really wants to answer, I do not think it as simple as saying that we are raising the debt ceiling and therefore it is a massive burden on future generations. What if we did not do anything? What if we did not support Canadians during the last 10 months? What would that do to future generations? I am sure the member can appreciate that argument.

Many times in the House today I have heard the Conservatives talk about the increasing amount of debt that Canada has had to take on over the last 10 months in order to support Canadians, but they voted for it every step of the way. They voted for it in quite often what was unanimous consent motions brought before the House. They had the opportunity to say no, but they kept saying yes.

Could the member explain to the House why he voted previously in favour of all of this spending if he did not think it was a good idea?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the member had listened closely to what I said in my intervention, he would have heard that we were supportive, absolutely, because we had to do something. The greater question is where we go from here. The greater question on this bill with its debt ceiling is what the government will spend the money on going into the future.

We have supported the existing programs, but there is talk of phenomenal spending: $100 billion into potential infrastructure spending with no clear plan on how it will be utilized. The programs, to a certain extent, were effective. However, we can only look at this one metric: We had the second-greatest spending of the G7 and we still have the highest unemployment rate. To me, that is not a judge of performance.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with my hon. colleague's assertion that we need to be thinking about how we are going to stimulate our economy in the recovery from this pandemic. I am not sure that I agree with all of his prescriptions for doing that, and I wonder if my colleague is familiar with the recent study out of the London School of Economics that examined 50 years of corporate tax cuts in 18 different jurisdictions and found that they had very little impact on either employment or job growth. That is my first question.

My second question is that I did not hear him mention the need for us to fulfill our climate commitments. I wonder if my colleague would agree that that is going to be a very important component of the economic recovery from COVID-19.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with that exact report, and so I will take that under advisement and I will have to read through it. I do think that tax increases are not necessarily an impetus for economic growth. Of course, we are going to have to do whatever we do hand in hand with a solid climate strategy to make sure that we responsibly develop our resources and grow our economy at the same time.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend, the member for Toronto—Danforth. It is an honour for me to join members in the House of Commons virtually today and speak on our government's commitments to support vulnerable Canadians. I want to specifically focus on long-term care.

Let me begin by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional lands of many indigenous peoples, most recently the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

The second wave of the pandemic has caused a surge in COVID-19 cases. Today, in Ontario there were a staggering 1,958 positive cases and 49 additional deaths, 29 of them in long-term care homes. While personal sacrifices have been made to help flatten the curve, including cancelling celebrations, postponing special milestones and staying physically distanced from our loved ones, we must continue to do our part to help each other every day.

Every action that reduces the burden on our front-line and essential workers keeps Canadians safe and brings us closer to the end of this difficult chapter. With the arrival of two safe and effective COVID vaccines, we have seen the first signs of light. To date, our government has distributed over 1.1 million vaccines to provinces and territories, with millions more on the way. Securing the world's most diverse vaccine portfolio has ensured that all Canadians who want a vaccine will get one.

I want to take a moment to reflect on the Canadians who are presently fighting this virus. We all know people who have been infected and have done everything in their power to bravely battle COVID-19. I think about my dear friend who is in the hospital right now and his family. Last night, we held a prayer service for his recovery and the recovery of all those struggling with this virus. He is a fighter. I know he will pull through these dark days and come home soon. I want to thank those who are caring for him at the Lakeridge Health in Ajax and all the front-line and essential workers who are, at this moment, away from their families and helping us fight the pandemic, including those at the Tony Stacey Centre for Veterans Care, the Ehatare Retirement and Nursing Home, Altamont Care Community and Extendicare Rougevalley in Scarborough—Rouge Park.

We do not know when this crisis will be behind us, but we know that we will get through it the way Canadians always have: together. While Canada has done relatively well in handling the pandemic, our systemic failure within our long-term care homes is a national shame. I recognize and acknowledge that the long-term care homes are a provincial responsibility. In some respects, it is easy for us to say this and point fingers. Truth be told: no one cares about jurisdiction. Canadians want action and rightfully so. Decades of neglect have eroded the fragile foundations of these facilities. An absence of accountability and apathy toward oversight has shifted the culture from one of long-term care to one of long-term crisis.

The long-term care system was not broken by COVID-19; it was built this way. If we do not act, we will repeatedly fail Canadian after Canadian after Canadian. Since last March, 3,376 people have died in long-term care homes, including 11 staff in Ontario alone. This includes 80 residents and one staff member in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park. I suspect there may be more.

During the peak of the first wave, provincial governments requested logistical support from the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to read some of the haunting findings of the Canadian Armed Forces personnel during their time in our long-term care facilities in Ontario.

Upon arrival at the Altamont care home in Scarborough Rouge Park, Canadian Armed Forces personnel identified that many of the residents had been “bed bound for several weeks”, with no evidence of residents being moved to a wheelchair for parts of the day, repositioned in their beds or washed properly. Most residents were reported as not having three meals a day, with the facility itself described as having insufficient wound care supplies and often no PSWs on site for the evening shift.

Similarly deplorable living conditions were identified by the Canadian Armed Forces members stationed at Orchard Villa, Eatonville Care Centre, Hawthorne Place Care Centre and Holland Christian Homes Grace manor in Ontario.

We know that the crisis in homes is not limited to these five facilities. I would like to thank my fellow colleagues, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge, the member for Etobicoke Centre, the member for Brampton North, as well as the member for Humber River—Black Creek, for their continued advocacy to push the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to do more to protect the most vulnerable.

COVID may be the primary cause of death, but irregularities in staffing levels, precarious rates of pay for primary care workers, insufficient hours of direct care for residents, the disaggregation of data, poor incident management planning, inconsistent financing and lack of modernization to reflect the changing needs of residents are equally egregious factors that have contributed to this senseless loss of life.

Therefore, how do we move forward? Erecting iron rings or permanently placing military personnel in these facilities is not a long-term solution to the crisis of care. For the short term, we must do everything in our power to protect Canada's most vulnerable. I call upon Premier Ford to call in the military. We are in this together and we have seen the effectiveness of our men and women in uniform at these facilities. We cannot allow the system to continue failing our seniors. We cannot stand by without exhausting all options. What we can do is send in the army, and we need the premier to make this request.

Our government will continue supporting provinces and territories in whatever capacity necessary to ensure that we overcome the crisis of care together. We should be ashamed of ourselves for normalizing substandard living conditions for any Canadian, but especially those incapable of caring for themselves. When we were too young to feed ourselves, it was these women and men who fed us. When we were not able to bathe ourselves, it was these women and men who bathed us. When we were too sick to care for ourselves, it was these men and women who watched over us. These are the men and women who fought for us and our freedom. We cannot repay them for their lifetime of service, but right now, when they need us most, we are failing them. We must do better.

In November, I joined advocates and Canadians for national long-term care standards on Parliament Hill for a special tribute to the thousands who have died due to COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care. Families and friends laid thousands of pairs of shoes on the front lawn to honour the memories of their loved ones. As the shoes stood silently, the air was filled with an unmistakable sense of heartbreak, anger, grief and tremendous loss.

As legislators, it is our job to represent the voices and will of the public. The public has spoken loud and clear. People do not want jurisdictional squabbles to jeopardize the health and safety of their loved ones; they do not want to worry that those who neglect Canadians in need will not be held accountable; and, most importantly, they do not want these shameful standards of care to continue. The public demands action and our government will continue to act.

Our government has invested a $3-billion wage top-up for essential front-line workers to help ensure that workers on the front lines are effectively compensated for their critical role in the fight against COVID-19. Our government's safe restart agreement included a $740-million investment in the provinces and territories for long-term care. By restructuring the investing in Canada infrastructure plan, our government allowed provinces to transfer 10% of their infrastructure investments to COVID-19 support projects, including long-term care projects. Our government's $38.5-million commitment to support the training of up to 4,000 personal support workers will help address some labour shortages in long-term care. In addition, our government's new $1-billion safe long-term care fund will help ensure that Canadians living in care homes will begin to live their lives in dignity.

If we do not significantly reform long-term care in Canada by addressing the systemic failures of these facilities and establishing national standards, we will not cure the crisis within the sector. First and foremost, provinces and territories need to work together with the federal government to establish national standards of care.

There is no acceptable reason why a long-term care resident in British Columbia is held to a different standard than one living in PEI or Ontario. National standards would enshrine the decency our most vulnerable senior population deserves.

Second, to protect—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up, but I am sure he will be able to add during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very spirited to hear the member talk so passionately about long-term care. I wonder, in his calls to the premier, why his government did not perhaps consider the Emergencies Act or the Department of Health Act under section 11.1. More specifically, when he talked about the government's investments in long-term care, what does the member have to say when this government allowed two long-term care facilities in Ontario to receive $157 million in wage subsidies while paying out $74 million in dividends?

Does the member not agree that his government could have done better for Canadians by ensuring that every penny invested by his government would end up in front-line workers' care and invariably in the health of the seniors in those long-term care homes?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the issue with long-term care homes is one that I think all governments are equally responsible for. We cannot ignore what has happened over the past decades. We have had a very broken system in Ontario and in other places.

As a response to the pandemic, we made sure that all Canadians were protected, but we did not necessarily earmark funds specifically for long-term care. Our initial support was basically a blanket amount of money for the provinces so that they could spend it on their priorities. Obviously, as the pandemic developed, we did target long-term care homes with some of the programs that I mentioned in my speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned, as is our Green Party leader, Annamie Paul. I look forward to the day when the Speaker will chastise me for using her name out loud, which would mean that she finally has a seat in Parliament. However, Annamie Paul has been very clear that this is a senicide: we are seeing the equivalent of a genocide among seniors, as 70% of all the deaths in Canada from COVID so far have been in long-term care homes.

I am horrified, as I think we all are, to hear over the national news that in Ontario in long-term care homes, people with COVID-positive tests were kept in the same bedrooms as residents who did not have COVID. These are basic public health rules that we have known for decades, yet in the second wave of this pandemic we are seeing mismanagement in these homes under provincial jurisdiction.

I know it is a sensitive matter, but I am going to raise again the question my hon. colleague just asked the parliamentary secretary. I am asking this because I am not sure, but is it not time that we used the Emergencies Act, which allows a coordinated approach and emergency help, and at least apply it to long-term care homes specifically? We do not have to extend it to all aspects of the COVID response or vaccinations. We could apply it specifically to long-term care homes so that we would not have to beg Premier Doug Ford to send in the military. The federal government could do it.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that there are additional measures that can be taken without imposing the Emergencies Act. I believe that the province can do more, and as a federal government we are ready to do more. We have the military on standby and we have the Red Cross already deployed in many of the homes.

We have expended a great deal of funds to the provinces themselves. It is essential that we do everything we can to support those in long-term care homes. However, I do not necessarily think that imposing the Emergencies Act will solve that. I think there are deeper-rooted issues that may not be resolved overnight. What we need to do is mitigate the losses we have had.

It is not too late. There are still outbreaks taking place that we can intervene in, and that is why I am asking Premier Ford to call in the military.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, Canada has been fighting COVID-19 for almost a year now and here in Toronto, where I am talking to you from, we are in an aggressive second wave. We are in the midst of shutdowns and kids are home from school for another few weeks at least. As we negotiate this, I want to take a moment to give a shout-out to essential workers and front-line workers in the community who have been working relentlessly and tirelessly to support our community. I give a shout-out to, for example, Michael Garron Hospital, which has been doing assessment centres to support the community, and also vaccine rollout, which relates to talking about long-term care homes. The hospital managed to vaccinate the residents and people working in the 22 long-term care homes in its district well in advance of the scheduled times. It completed that a few weeks ago, in fact. It did a really great job. People at South Riverdale Community Health Centre, as well, have been running assessment centres and working tirelessly.

It bears taking a moment to thank them for everything that they have done, because this has been—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Salaberry—Suroît on a point of order.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, the interpreter is telling me that she cannot do her job because she cannot hear properly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the hon. member to maybe unplug her microphone and plug it back in. I do not know if that is what the problem is. There is an echo coming back, and I am not sure if that is because of the room the hon. member is in, or if it is just not plugged in properly. There is a problem with the interpreters being able to hear properly to be able to interpret.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I apologize. I am going to try it again here, and then, if not, if you are okay with running across, I can try to connect somewhere else.

Is it working now?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Yes.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is resuming debate.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for the complications with interpretation.

I was giving shout-outs because it has been a hard time for everyone. I also wanted to recognize the stress that a lot of people are under and highlight the Wellness Together website, wellnesstogether.ca, as well as Kids Help Phone. Those are amazing resources that people should know about.

As we are talking about the fall economic statement and supports, I want to talk a bit about some of the existing supports, including the Applegrove Community Complex in my community. It has received federal funding. The staff are making calls and checking in on seniors. It is a really important time to be checking in on one another.

Today I would also like to focus on our local businesses. I talked with hundreds of local business owners in the community. They have been resilient and tough, but they need our support. One example of resilience is a local business, Looking Glass Adventures, which is an escape room. Imagine an escape room in the time of COVID. It has pivoted to offering its service online. Someone is inside, and they use a camera to show people around the place. It is amazing.

The most amazing thing is that not only has it been innovative, but it has been supported through federal programs, such as the wage subsidy and other programs. I want to highlight the importance of government programs working with communities and local businesses and providing the support that they need.

Our government cares. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has invested $322 billion in direct measures to fight the virus and to help people. That includes $85 billion in tax and custom duty payment deferrals. Throughout this pandemic, I have seen government programs to support businesses that have been responsive. The programs have been evolving to respond to what local businesses have been highlighting as issues as we go along. That has been very important as we have been addressing it all.

Federal programs have stabilized the economy, provided direct income support and bridged businesses through this difficult time. This will continue deep into 2021.

One program that I do not think has had enough attention supports live music. I love live music and our live music venues. There was $500 million in emergency support to the creative industries and sports. This included a live music support fund, which funded venues that would not normally receive funding, including here in my home community, the Dora: a bar that has great live music. In Toronto, there are Lee's Palace, the Horseshoe Tavern and all sorts of amazing venues.

There is more to do. That is where the fall economic statement comes in. Tourism, hospitality and entertainment are vital parts of our economy. Our main streets, with the restaurants and cafes, are hubs. They are the employers in our community. Our neighbours own these businesses. Many of them have faced regular and deep shutdowns, especially where I live in Toronto. These pandemic restrictions have taken a toll.

In addition to the existing wage subsidy, the Canada emergency business account, and the rent support program, the fall economic statement brings more to continue the response. One program that I would like to mention is the highly affected sectors credit availability program, or HASCAP fund.

This is really for the hardest-hit businesses: tourism, hospitality, arts and entertainment. It will provide 100% government-guaranteed financing for the hardest-hit businesses. There will be low-interest loans of up to $1 million with terms of up to 10 years. The interest rates will be below market rates.

This is in addition to the regional relief and recovery fund, which supported more than 2,800 tourism-related businesses, and the Canada emergency rent subsidy, which combined with lockdown support can provide up to 90% of rent and commercial mortgage interest when public health orders cause a lockdown, such as is happening in Toronto.

The fall economic statement will also do more to support our local businesses. For the Canada emergency business account, the deadline to apply is going to be extended to March 31. That is important. When I talk with businesses that are navigating their different needs, they say having that extra flexibility to be able to apply is important.

Another important piece, which I hear about all the time, is the wage subsidy. This will be extended to June 2021, and the fall economic statement will increase the amount paid for the period to 75% until March. That was the kind of predictability that local businesses were asking for when I was talking with them, and it helps support jobs. I can see the jobs that are supported right here in my community.

In addition to the wage subsidy and the other programs, I want to highlight the Canada summer jobs program. It provides employment to young people, who are among those who have been the hardest hit economically during the pandemic.

The Canada summer jobs program will be increased by up to 40,000 jobs, which will help local organizations, local businesses and young people who are looking for work. Also, there is going to be an increase in funding for skills and training and employment support across the board, and there is specific funding for the youth employment strategies. This will pay off not only for local businesses and different organizations but also for young people across our communities.

When talking about young people, I also like to mention the Canada child benefit. One piece I have heard from people in my community who are the hardest hit is that the Canada child benefit has a tremendous impact. In fact, it has had a huge impact on child poverty rates across the board. This year, there will be a temporary increase of up to $1,200 for families with children under the age of six, which is going to be an important piece.

The final piece is interesting for me, as I am a woman who has spent a lot of time balancing work and children. I had a hard time finding child care and managing to work from home while my kids were running around. I would feed them cookies while on telephone calls just to keep things going. I was really happy to see, in the fall economic statement, that a framework is being put in place for a national child care system, something that truly will make such a huge difference to so many families right across our country. It is an important place to start with in our fall economic statement as we come out of this pandemic. I have talked with a lot of people who have felt the strain, and I have seen how hard it is. In Toronto, child care is still expensive and is often really unattainable.

While the federal early learning and child care funding to date has helped to provide 40,000 affordable child care spots across our country, I can see the need for more. The fact that we are supporting an increased program that will help to build on that and create a universal child care system across our country is something I am really excited to see.

I am running out of time, but I am happy to answer questions because I am really excited about how we will build back from this pandemic and how we will continue to support our businesses and individuals.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague the parliamentary secretary for listing all of the programs offered by the government. However, I would like to know whether I am mistaken about this update.

Does this array of programs include any assistance for seniors who are also facing financial hardship during the pandemic? Could my colleague tell me if I misread?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I am glad we talked a little bit about seniors, because it is important. At the beginning of my speech, I talked about the programs that exist in my riding where there is funding to support organizations like Applegrove, which helps seniors in our community. It is not the only such organization, but it is the first example that came to mind. In particular, funds have been distributed to seniors throughout the year and during the summer.

Should there be more? I think so. In fact, I spoke with my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge Park about what we should be doing to help seniors properly. A lot of work has already been done, and I am very happy to be able to contribute.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the realities I have seen in my region is that small businesses have had to be extremely innovative to meet the specific challenges. Some businesses have been able to use innovation to find stability during this time, and other small businesses have really struggled because of the nature of their work.

My question is really about fairness. One thing I know, which I think we have seen very clearly throughout this period of time, is that our tax laws simply need to be reformed and changed to fit the realities we are seeing. Right now, companies and businesses that use tax havens are taking advantage of government subsidies specifically for the COVID pandemic. They are getting an extra benefit, while small businesses are struggling every day just to make ends meet.

Is there a commitment from the government to really look at reforming tax laws to make sure there is more fairness for all businesses so that big businesses do not take advantage when small businesses need supports desperately?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the first pieces to note when we talk about fairness on the basis of income taxes is that back in 2015 and 2016, we raised taxes on the top 1% while reducing them for the middle class. Many in the member's party did not support this, but it does increase fairness.

One piece in the fall economic statement that adds to fairness is about web giants paying the GST again. Many people have said they are in favour of this and want to see that kind of fairness, and it has been committed to.

There are steps toward greater tax fairness, and that is definitely something we should all be working toward.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise virtually on Bill C-14, which would enact certain components of the fall fiscal update. At the outset, I would like to inform the Speaker that I will be sharing my time with a member to be disclosed the next time I get up to speak.

The legislation has a number of great steps that could help Canadians during these difficult times. Enhancing the child care benefit was a recommendation, an idea, by the leader of the official opposition. It will no doubt help parents and women as they struggle through the additional child care challenges created by the pandemic. Granting a one-year break in interest on student loans will help students as they struggle to obtain part-time or full-time jobs during the pandemic.

I support these measures and I want to make that clear on the record. However, as important as the relief is, these are band-aids. They are painkillers meant to ease the pain, as they do not address the underlying illness. Canadians need a plan that allows them to return to work and really addresses the underlying illness and cures it once and for all.

The pandemic has brought millions of proud Canadians to their knees. We have seen millions of Canadians lose their employment and millions of business owners lose their livelihoods and even their life savings. The pandemic has cost thousands of lives. It has created substance abuse problems. It has exacerbated our opioid crisis and has created an epidemic of suicides across this country.

We need a plan that will expertly eliminate COVID-19 from our shores forever and make us prosperous once again, which we have always enjoyed in the past.

What are the steps to this plan? It starts with testing. Our plan must include rapid testing. Rapid testing needs to be ubiquitous across this land, not just in every province and every town, but on every street in Canada. Canadians need to have easily accessible COVID testing in their local pharmacies, their workplaces and our schools so we can identify immediately or shortly thereafter who has COVID, treat the sick and isolate them so that others do not fall ill to COVID-19. This would allow healthy Canadians to return to school and work and get on with the work of making Canada a prosperous nation once again.

Unfortunately, Bill C-14 will not make rapid testing ubiquitous in our nation. It will be leaving Canadians behind.

This pandemic will ultimately end when every Canadian who wants a vaccination has a vaccination. As our entire economic outlook depends on when Canadians are vaccinated, the acquisition of vaccines should be an absolute obsession for the government. It should be the first thing we think about when we wake up in the morning and the last thing when we go to bed.

However, the Prime Minister is letting us down. He did not even bother to call Pfizer until he was shamed into making calls by the Ontario premier and the media. The Liberals will no doubt regale us again and again with their stories of unlimited vaccines, the most vaccines per capita. However, in life, and even more so in a pandemic, timing is everything. We need 37 million-plus Canadians vaccinated now, not 100 million Canadians vaccinated 20 years from now. That will do us no good. We are currently below many countries in terms of vaccination rates. Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, Bahrain and the United Emirates have at least double our vaccination rate, and now we are going an entire week without any vaccinations when many countries are continuing to receive their vaccines.

Canada's vaccine program needs to be expedited. Canadians are literally dying because the Prime Minister has failed to deliver the vaccinations Canadians need for staying healthy. We need to return Canada to the freedom and prosperity that we have previously taken for granted.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have five minutes and 37 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]

The House resumed from January 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with Canada's favourite grandfather: the member for Cariboo—Prince George. I would remind him of the Speaker's stern warnings not to show any pictures or props of grandchildren. That would be completely inappropriate.

It is my honour to rise again virtually to speak to Bill C-14. The Liberal government's failure to protect Canadians and the Canadian economy, by approving and acquiring rapid tests and by securing vaccine doses on time, has put us at risk. Of course, the impact on the health of Canadians is the most significant impact, but the issues for the Canadian economy are very serious. Our unemployment rate is among the worst in the G7. Our GDP is continuing to lag behind most other industrialized economies'.

If Canadians can return safely to work, they will. They will re-energize our economy and bring energy and jobs flooding back to our economy, but the question is whether there will be jobs for them to return to by the time the vaccine rollout is completed, without a plan for the economy. A plan is more than just a willingness, a desire or dream to spend $100 billion. It is an actual plan. Without that plan, the answer to that question may be no, which would be tragic.

The fiscal update did not provide any concrete answers on how we can recover from the millions of jobs we lost in the pandemic or how we can emerge as one of the world's economic leaders as we did so famously after the great recession. We led the global economy out of that most terrible recession. We need a plan that builds on Canada's proven areas of economic strength, such as energy, manufacturing and information technology. Now is not the time for grand experiments or radical transformations. We need to rely on the reliable, relentless power of our workers, business owners and free-market enterprise.

The fiscal update and Bill C-14 do nothing to put in the conditions required to empower our workers and job creators to bring prosperity back to our wonderful land. While the fiscal update has little direction, it does have a lot of spending. What the Liberal government is ostensibly asking for is a $500 billion blank cheque. That is a tremendous amount of money. What has the Liberal government done to deserve a rise in the debt threshold to $1.8 trillion? I will repeat that: $1.8 trillion.

During the pandemic, Liberals have spent the most and gotten the least. We are outpacing all of our G7 counterparts with respect to deficit spending; however, our GDP growth and unemployment rates are among the worst in our peer group. What have the Liberals done to develop and build this trust, to raise the debt ceiling to $1.8 trillion? We have seen repeated violations of Canadians' trust. From the WE scandal to the SNC-Lavalin affair, we have seen breach after breach of Canadians' trust.

In fact, unbelievably, at the beginning of the pandemic the Liberals exploited the crisis to attempt to obtain an unlimited and unfettered ability to tax and spend. What is more, the finance minister, who said she does not believe in projections, says she will not limit the Liberal government's spending with a fiscal anchor. The fiscal anchor is of course meant to protect the government's finances and protect future generations from an excessive burden of debt.

The finance minister does say she is putting up guardrails. With respect, Canada's national debt is now over $1 trillion. Our deficit in 2019-20 is going to be over $400 billion. We do not need guardrails. The car is already in the ditch. We need a plan to get out of the ditch. The audacity of asking for $500 billion of additional borrowing authority, given the government's pathetic record of reckless spending and financial mismanagement, is nothing short of shocking.

Before Canadians can be asked to assume more debt, the government must create a credible economic recovery plan: a path back to fiscal sustainability. To give the government a $500 billion blank cheque would not just be reckless. It would be negligent. Our Conservative Party believes that Canadians, including those not yet born, deserve the opportunity to be prosperous. The government is putting this aspiration at risk.

We need to see legislation from the government that offers stability, confidence and compassion. Unfortunately, Bill C-14 offers a lot of spending and a lot of debt, without building the framework for security and prosperity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend makes reference extensively to the issue of the deficit and the amount of money the government has borrowed. The Government of Canada has recognized the importance of that by investing in Canadians through programs such as the wage loss subsidy for small businesses and, for eight million to nine million Canadians, the CERB program. All are meant to be there to support Canadians through this pandemic.

Is my friend and colleague trying to suggest that the federal government should not have been supporting Canadians through this pandemic? Following that, would he recognize that the Conservative Party did not do a good job of managing debt while it was in government? Why should we take advice from the Conservatives on deficits?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have been clear that we have supported programs like the wage subsidy and CERB. In fact, if the hon. member checks the voting records he will see that.

The reality is that the Liberal government has bungled some of these plans, such as the wage subsidy. Because the Liberals bungled them and miscommunicated them, they were slow out of the gate, such as with the rent subsidy which, eight months later, the government had to redo. Canadians have felt the brunt of this, and our economics are lagging because of that. Small businesses are lost that will never come back. Employment is lost.

With respect to the great recession, we led the global community out of it, leading in growth rates, GDP and unemployment numbers. We led back to a balanced budget. Five years after the great recession, we had a balanced budget. I doubt that, under the current Liberal government, we will be anywhere near a balanced budget. In fact, the Liberals' own forecasts say so.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was talking to Jackie Ryan, who owns Jacqueline's Aesthetics in Port Alberni. She is a constituent of mine. She is self-employed, and her home-based business has struggled immensely since the beginning of the pandemic. First she closed her doors to protect public health. Now she is down 50% because people are afraid to get out into the community.

Jackie, like many other Canadians, turned to CERB to help pay back the bills and support her family. She would not have been able to buy food or support her children and deal with her prescription medications. Now the Liberals are telling Jackie she needs to pay back the CERB, which she cannot do. She, like many others, is angry. She is disappointed. She is scared. She does not know how she is going to survive the next few months without support from the government, never mind pay this back.

Does my colleague agree? Does he have constituents who are honest business owners who maybe had a tax-filing year where they showed a loss and a carry-forward, and then were caught in this quagmire, where the Liberals say that they have their backs and they do not? Many women, as we know, have been disproportionately affected by the COVID crisis. This is impacting people like Jackie.

Does my colleague agree that the government should back off and not be asking people like Jackie to pay back the government for supports it promised them?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his great question and his long history of intervening on behalf of small business owners. I am sure the small business owners in my community also appreciate his great work and interventions.

The miscommunication that occurred with respect to gross versus net income is nothing short of extremely disappointing. I too have constituents in my riding who are facing audits and other actions from the CRA right now that relate back to poor communication by the government.

In fact, right now, I have constituents who were collecting the CERB and the government has audited them. Instead of saying, “You provide the proof and we will continue to pay”, the government is actually cutting off the payments before people continue to receive the CERB. These people are just like Jackie. I have thousands of Jackies in my riding who were struggling to get by but are having their benefits cut off because the government lacks compassion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to resuming debate, I notice that there seem to be some technical issues where we have dropped the audio a couple of times on the two previous speakers. I would ask the interpreters, if they are losing the ability to understand what has been said, to let me know somehow and we will have the presenter repeat.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are speaking on Bill C-14, and I want to thank my hon. colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South. He reminded me of my beautiful granddaughter, and I know I am not allowed to show those photos, so I will not do that again, but if any of my colleagues want to see them, I can do that. We are here to actually speak on serious terms, but I have to say that in troubling times and challenging times, my granddaughter and my family, and all our families, bring us back and remind us what is truly important.

I want to remind Canadians that it has been almost two years since we have had a federal budget. Unbelievably, and through good faith, our Liberal colleagues in the government have had an unprecedented amount of autonomy with their spending, based on goodwill and good faith collaboration from the opposition. When Canadians needed help the most, the opposition and all parties came together and dropped partisan politics, and we worked together in a team Canada approach. Sadly, we have seen that the Liberals have failed Canadians once again. They blew it, and today they are asking for another $500 billion. They want us to just trust them. They know what is best for Canadians.

It is disappointing. Our colleague from Courtenay—Alberni mentioned Jackie, his constituent, and her small home-based business that is struggling. As our colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South mentioned, there are thousands of Jackies right across our country who are failing, whose businesses have been shuttered and have closed their doors. They are facing financial hardship. A Liberal talking point is that they are investing in Canadians. Today, I am going to highlight some of the businesses in my riding that the Liberals have absolutely failed. While I will mention only a few, due to the time that I have to highlight them, I can tell members there are literally thousands of businesses right across our country that have fallen through the cracks and been left behind due to the Liberals' lack of a plan to get relief to those Canadians who need it the most.

Roy Call is a constituent of mine I have known since I was in high school. Roy's family operates C+ Rodeos in my riding. It is among the top 10 rodeo stock providers in our country. The family has worked and built this operation for over 35 years. Three generations of the family work their ranch. Their stock has been bred for over 35 years and sadly, they have fallen through the cracks. They are among those tourism or events-based businesses that have absolutely fallen through provincial relief programs and federal programs. Repeatedly, we have brought the situations of C+ Rodeos and others to the government and the ministers, trying to work collaboratively with them on that team Canada approach that they so desperately want to foist back on the opposition, saying we should work together.

Sadly, today if Roy and his family do not receive any help, they have to downsize. In a rodeo performance-based business, what does downsizing mean? It means euthanizing perfectly good, healthy rodeo stock animals. I do not think anybody wants to see us get to that point. That is where we are, with business people having to make those hard decisions.

I also want to talk about Central Display, an events-based business, and Jack and Sheldon. They go from community to community and help put on those events that are such economic drivers that our small communities depend on, such as conferences and other events. They provide the resources and services for those events to be put on. When they go into these communities, they temporarily hire local staff. They teach them a skill and hire them to actually provide the services in those communities. They work with dry grad groups and support special groups, like the women's hockey team in Smithers, British Columbia. However, in 2020, they lost in excess of $650,000 and are projected to lose up to $1 million in just the first six months of 2021.

These are real numbers. The government is asking for more money and it says it wants to invest in Canadians, but that money is not getting to where it is needed the most.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with a lady who was celebrating her 100th birthday, Margaret Sweder. I phoned her to congratulate her on her 100th birthday, and she told me that she was just missing the simple things, like a hug. She is a sweet lady and very sharp. She said that it was the first time she had a call from Ottawa that she actually wanted to take. She thought it was the tax man who was calling. I gave her a virtual hug and made a date with her for tea when the “COVID thing”, as she called it, ceases to exist.

These are the real stories that I am not sure those across the way get. I could go on about the failed vaccine promises that the Liberals have mentioned. Yet again, we know they have let Canadians down.

Unbelievably, throughout this pandemic the Liberals have taken the opportunity for pet projects. Unbelievably as well, what they want to do is shutter airport towers just when we need them the most. In our critical time for recovery, they want to shutter airport towers in places like Prince George, my riding, where we have the third-longest runway in Canada. We are part of the northern corridor project and part of the Asia-Pacific gateway. They want to take a key economic driver in our region and shutter the doors. How blind are they?

The government comes to us, the opposition, to say “Just work with us.” Trust is not just given; it is earned. Respect is not just given; it is earned. Time and time again what we see is that they just do not get it. We see a lot of sabre-rattling where the Prime Minister threatens the opposition with going to an election and talks about a confidence vote. Let me be very clear: The only person who wants an election right now and wants to send Canadians to the polls is the Prime Minister. The rest of us are concerned about our constituents, about the fact that it is unsafe and we are seeing increased closures and quarantine measures.

This brings me to a very important point, and I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for bringing this up yesterday. He pointed out that there is a very human toll to what is going on here. He said, “The University of Calgary published a study recently showing that there is a two percentage point increase in suicides for every one percentage point increase in unemployment. Imagine the human cost of 7% unemployment.” We also know that substance and alcohol abuse grows with unemployment. Increased isolation and anxiety have led to increased suicide and domestic violence crises.

We have to do more. Sadly, what we have seen is that the Liberals have left Canadians behind. They have blown it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that my colleague had an opportunity to share his picture of his grandchild, and I want to say congratulations to him on that recent addition to his family.

I did take issue with what he said, when he said that the only person who wants to go to the polls is the Prime Minister and that the rest of us are concerned about our citizens. I think that this government, through the collaboration with all members of this House, has demonstrated that all members of this House are extremely concerned about Canadians and their well-being during this pandemic, but indeed coming out on the other end of it.

My question is very simple. My colleague talked about businesses in his riding that are suffering. I think it is fair to say that we all have businesses in our ridings that are suffering, but that is exactly why we are investing in Canadians now. Previous Conservative colleagues have gone on about the amount of debt that we have had to take on as a result of supporting businesses. Does he not agree that the investments that were made to support businesses were important to get us through this? If he does not, and if his concern is that we are spending money in the wrong places, can he suggest where he would have not spent money in order to help businesses in his riding and his constituents?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my hon. colleague mentioned something about the last year being a little bit tumultuous and that it is an anniversary. I will also let Canadians in the House know that today marks another anniversary. Today marks the very first time I stood in this House to raise the increasing concerns of COVID coming into our country. I suggested that we perhaps look for a plan like shutting our borders to make sure that we do everything in our power to stop COVID from coming in. We were pressing the government for what its plan was.

To this day, we are still pressing it for what its plan is. What we have seen is that the money we all worked together to provide to Canadians, that we gave autonomy to the government to develop a plan to get to Canadians, has failed.

The Liberals want to say, time and again, “Well, you voted for it.” Yes, we voted for it, but the responsibility to deliver to Canadians lies right squarely on that front bench. I gave only a few prime examples of the thousands that we have of Canadians who have fallen through the cracks.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech and let him know that I would be happy to see the photos of his granddaughter anytime. We need these kinds of positive things in our lives, especially these days.

In his speech, he talked about Liberal management in general. We were just talking about borders a few minutes ago. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's opinion on the Liberal government's desire to encroach on provincial and Quebec jurisdictions, especially in health care.

When we look at border management, as well as how the vaccines are being managed, we have every reason to wonder about the federal government's qualifications when it comes to managing health and the national standards it wants to impose on the provinces regarding long-term care facilities. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on that.

Does the federal government not have a duty to fund the Quebec and provincial health care systems?

Does the member think the feds should be interfering in those jurisdictions and imposing standards on the provinces?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, in a time of a global pandemic and a global emergency, it behooves all of us to put away our personal agendas, our provincial agendas and our national agendas, and work together on a team Canada approach.

There has to be leadership seen from the top, but what we have seen is no plan from the Liberal government: no plan to help the provinces, no plan to assist in getting those vaccines to the people who need them the most, the people in our long-term care facilities, which are facing unprecedented amounts of concern over COVID deaths. We have not learned in the last year. Sadly, we still face the same issues that we faced a year ago. We know more than we did over a year ago, but the Liberals have not been able to develop a plan and they have failed Canadians, writ large.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Brampton East this morning.

It is great to see the Speaker and all of our colleagues, despite this being in a virtual setting. It is the world we are living in right now.

Today I have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-14. For those sitting at home, this means the implementation of commitments that were made by our government in the fall economic statement. What I hope to do with my time here today is talk about those commitments and how they relate to what I have heard in my constituency of Kings—Hants and in Nova Scotia, and talk a bit about where I see the future in terms of our economic recovery.

I will first talk about support announced in the fall economic statement that is part of this bill. There are $1,200 to help support children under six years old in households that are making under $120,000 a year. I cannot say how much I have heard on the doorsteps in my riding of Kings—Hants about the power and benefit of the Canada child benefit and what it has meant for low- and medium-income households to have a little extra money at the end of the month to buy healthy groceries and make sure their dependants have opportunities in recreation, arts and different activities.

In Kings—Hants alone, though I do not have the exact number, I believe the program means that $15 million or $16 million a month go to my riding. My hon. predecessor, Scott Brison, talked about what this program meant for the people in Kings—Hants and, indeed, across the country. Every member of Parliament in this House could speak about the importance of what this program means. It is a temporary measure. It is $1,200 for 2021, recognizing the fact that families are going through challenges right now and we need to be there for them as a government. It is certainly something I applaud as a parliamentarian, and I expect that all members of the House can speak about the benefit of what this represents.

I turned 30 not too long ago. I am one of the youngest members in the House and the youngest in the governing party, and I am not too far removed from my days in university. I was fortunate to attend Saint Mary's University in Halifax and Dalhousie for a law degree, and I can say that the cost of education is a challenge for many individuals. I still hold student debt. We need to make sure we are helping to protect those students, in particular, who are most vulnerable. Right now, as I understand it, as part of this bill, 1.4 million Canadian students will not have interest accrue on their student loans during this time. That is extremely important. We know that we need to support our next generation of young workers and leaders in our country, and I certainly applaud the government in this direction.

I want to talk about long-term health care. In my part of the country, in Nova Scotia, we have seen the challenges in Northwood. There were 51 deaths in long-term care in Northwood. We have seen challenges across the country, in Quebec and Ontario in particular. I have heard from constituents in my riding who reached out to me to say that we need to do more on long-term care, that the federal government needs to be willing to help step up and support, and that is exactly what we announced in the fall economic statement.

We have dedicated over $500 million to help support the provinces and territories in battling COVID and making sure measures are in place. We know there are probably longer-term conversations that need to happen around long-term care, but this is a meaningful step in the right direction. We recall that during the height of the pandemic, when premiers and provincial governments called upon the Canadian Armed Forces to intervene and help support, we were there to make sure that happened.

Through the safe restart program, $19 billion went to the provinces and municipal governments to help support them through some of the most challenging times in the pandemic. This is another demonstration of the work this government has been doing to support the provinces and territories, particularly in an area that is extremely important, which of course is long-term care.

There are also $133 million allocated in Bill C-14 for virtual care. As chair of the rural caucus, I know that for some of our most rural and remote communities having access to care may not allow for a direct relationship. We may in some cases need to be able to access tools and technologies, very similar to the way we are running a national Parliament right now on a Zoom call. We can make sure that telemedicine and telehealth options are available. Given the pandemic, this is extremely important as an interim measure, but in the days ahead it is going to be even more important moving forward.

The final piece I want to talk about in the key points I wanted to highlight in this bill is a change under the ability for business owners to access the rent subsidy. Before Christmas, the Minister of Finance, through I think Bill C-9, announced changes on the wage subsidy to help support businesses and simplify support for rent for businesses. This was extremely important in my community of Kings—Hants.

I live in an area called East Hants about half an hour outside of Halifax. Although Nova Scotia has been spared and we have worked collectively to avoid some of the case counts we have seen across the country, there was a rise in cases just before Christmas that required significant shutdowns, particularly for restaurants and hospitality organizations. This was something they were able to take advantage of. The provision under this act allows them to access the benefit before rent is actually due, which is extremely important because we know cash flow for businesses is challenging, particularly in the hospitality and restaurant sectors.

I have had the chance to listen in on this debate, which was happening yesterday, and will continue today and I believe tomorrow as well. I want to point something out. I have heard members of the opposition talk about the debt. As someone who considers himself a business Liberal and who certainly appreciates that we have to be fiscally prudent, I recognize that is not a bad direction, but it is hypocrisy.

There are members in this House who, in one sense, talk about the debt, which is a valid concern and we have to be mindful about managing that in the days ahead, but then in the other sense, they say this government has not done enough. In one breath they say we have taken on too much debt and are concerned about it, and then in the next breath they talk about all the measures the government should have taken further.

I would like to ask my Conservative colleagues across the way which it is. Is it that they are concerned about the debt and we should not have taken as much on, or is it that we need to do even more for our businesses? Most Canadians at home are going to recognize that talking out both sides of their mouths is hypocrisy.

I want to finish by talking about where we are going. Yesterday, the member for Carleton talked about the concern with rising debt levels. I agree with him that we need a strong economic strategy on the other side. We have a budget that will be forthcoming, I suspect, in the next couple of months. Our government is focused on ways to drive economic recovery. We have talked about providing up $70 billion to $100 billion of temporary economic stimulus.

The Minister of Finance has been quite clear, both in this House and outside, that her focus will be on those temporary measures. We have to be mindful of adding large structural spending that is not sustainable over the long term. I applaud her in that regard. Our government is going to have a strong plan to be able to bounce back and manage the debt load by growing our economy. That is traditionally how all countries of the world have been able to do this: growing their economy to be able to make the proportion of the debt to their economy go down and down. That was certainly the case before the pandemic, as we had the lowest unemployment in 40 years and a lowering debt-to-GDP ratio.

I want to put on the record some things I think are going to be important in the days ahead. The first is child care. This is not just an idea of social programming anymore, this is beneficial. Economists and business leaders around the world are talking about the importance of child care to help support parents getting back into the workplace. That is certainly something we need to see in the days ahead.

The second is agriculture. As the chair of the rural caucus, the agriculture industry in Canada is extremely important to me. It represents over $130 billion to our GDP and we are poised to be able to grow even further. I hope to see in the days ahead our government leveraging that industry for success.

I will finish with a few others such as natural resources, particularly our forest industry. I look to British Columbia around mass timber and the success it is having in being able to drive innovative practices and sustainable business practices for our forestry sector. On the Atlantic and the Pacific in our coastal communities, small craft harbours is an extremely important program to help support our fishing community.

The final point is on regulatory reform and modernization. We are talking a lot about spending, which is important. We are following other OECD countries. We also have to look at ways to leverage the private sector to be able to let it grow and create jobs, and so we have to be creative in the days ahead as well.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to comment on the member's very first statement in regard to the Canada child benefit, which of course we deeply appreciate because we initiated it. However, in speaking to young families in my riding, I had one conversation with a young mom who said the money is so important to them. She said the government is not understanding it is helpful. It was there in addition to the income their family was earning, and now they are in a very perilous situation. She asked why the government was not now taking the money it wants to spend on these various programs and focusing on borders, long-term care, front-line workers with rapid tests and PPE available for Canadians; leaving it at that and letting our economy get back to work, so they can earn the income their family needs.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member started by talking about the fact that families had lost income and that the Canada child benefit was beneficial. She then seemed to make the parallel that the economy will return back to normal, that all we have do is seal up the borders and get some more PPE, and then everything will be back to normal.

We have been there for Canadian workers, through the wage subsidy, through the CERB when it was needed, and this is in addition to the CCB. We are providing additional support. We are doing all of those things the member mentioned, including testing, money for PPE and the safe restart program.

I would ask the member to look at the bill and the measures behind the legislation. We are already doing them.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to wish my colleague a happy belated birthday. He said that he recently turned 30. I, too, completed my university studies not too long ago. I just finished my doctoral studies two and a half years ago.

It resonated with me when he spoke about the issue of the gradual elimination of interest on the federal portion of student loans. That is an issue that Quebeckers care a lot about. In 2012, there was a major education movement involving more than just students. Society as a whole got involved.

That being said, to make the connection with my aside, Quebec already has a loans and bursaries program. It would have been nice if there was some compensation announced, compensation for young Quebeckers on a per capita basis for post-secondary students.

Will the Liberals commit to doing that?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member is asking me, as a member of the governing caucus but not cabinet, for a commitment from government; this is asking in the wrong place. I will steer him to our ministers and our cabinet on the best approach.

I would certainly agree with the member that students in Quebec are well organized. This is something that Quebec has a history of, making sure that there are lower tuition rates. Quebec is certainly an example within the federation of a province that supports students and has lower tuition costs.

I know that students in Nova Scotia have talked about the way that Quebec students organized to get that. I would agree with the member in that regard.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, before the pandemic, over one million Canadians had been injured in the workplace. We know that when someone is injured in the workplace, every day that goes by without them getting accommodation from their employer means it is harder and harder for them to return to work.

Right now there is a lack of support and training to scale up workers in return to work disability management. We are hearing about long haulers. Due to COVID, we are going to be in an absolute crisis. The government has not even trained its own HR staff in disability management to prepare its own civil service to get back to work and be accommodated while they are dealing with these injuries due to COVID.

Would my colleague agree that the federal government needs to invest quickly in training in return to work disability management in institutions like the Pacific Coast University in my riding, so that we are ready for the crisis that could happen, whether it be mental health or COVID itself? Right now, we need to be ready to accommodate workers and get them back to work after they have been injured.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague opposite that skills training writ large for individuals, whether they have disabilities or have been impacted by the pandemic and are searching for work, is important.

I believe our government is focused on this. This is something we are delivering. I would agree with the member, particularly as it relates to individuals with disabilities. Our government has been focused on this for the last five years. We will continue to do so in the days ahead.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by wishing my colleagues a very safe and happy new year. The COVID-19 pandemic has put unprecedented stress and hardship on Canadians, from small business to long-term care homes and front-line and essential workers. Every Canadian has a story to share of how this pandemic has impacted them. Constituents in my riding of Brampton East are concerned about their businesses, the safety of their workers or simply when they can pay a visit to loved ones they have not physically seen in months.

For said reasons and countless others, the federal government has committed to the implementation of a strong and robust recovery plan presented by our finance minister through the fall economic statement. Our government's message is clear: We will do whatever it takes to protect the health and safety of Canadians for as long as it takes.

This message extends to our commitment to strengthen the economy by creating one million good jobs, investing in training and skills, creating valuable opportunities for youth and investing in green technologies to help combat climate change. This is a critical component in providing Canadians the support they need in Bill C-14. The economic statement implementation act would help put into action what the fall economic statement set out to do, which is supporting middle-class families, helping students manage their debt and investing in resources that will help better protect Canadians and the economy.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act will mean that families entitled to the Canada child benefit will receive additional temporary support of up to $1,200 for each child under the age of six. Families have had to transition their entire household routines in order to accommodate more time being spent at home, which means facilitating extra child care, buying additional school supplies to aid in virtual learning or simply helping with the cost of raising a family.

Throughout 2020, our government saw that families needed our help, which is why we stepped up to provide an extra one-time $300 payment in May and increased the Canada child benefit payment amounts in July. The proposed temporary $1,200 support for families is an increase of almost 20% over the maximum annual CCB payment. Our goal for a stronger and more resilient middle class involves ensuring that families have the resources they need in order to help nourish and support their children's futures. This plan includes a Canada-wide early learning child care program that will help ease the burden of arranging affordable child care. We know that this pandemic has disproportionately affected women. Doing better is not simply a choice, it is a responsibility that this government takes very seriously.

We will continue to support Canadian students. Our government plans to eliminate the repayment of the federal portion of the Canada student loans and apprenticeship loans from April 2021 to March 2022. Students in Canada can feel a sense of relief once these measures are in place to help them manage their student debt. This investment will help 1.4 million Canadian students who are trying to achieve higher education and ultimately begin their careers. I have listened to their experiences. I know that this support is essential. By easing the federal interest portion of student debt, we are allowing students the opportunity to focus on working toward their career goals and not being worried about incurring additional debt.

We also provided financial support to post-secondary students and recent post-secondary and high school graduates who were unable to find work last summer due to COVID-19. Eligible students received $1,250 for a four-week period for a maximum of 16 weeks between May 10 and August 29, 2020. Those with a disability or dependants also received an extra $750.

Most post-secondary students in my riding were unable to access the Canada emergency student benefit and are very positive toward our government's support for students, including the doubling of the Canada student grant amount to a maximum of $6,000 in response to the increased need for the 2020-21 school year.

Our government is actively creating opportunities for youth, whether that be through the investments of over $300 million into the Canada summer jobs program or the youth employment and skills strategy investment. These investments help young Canadians gain practical experience and make meaningful connections in the workplace. Students need our help. They have adapted to new learning methods and have overcome tremendous adversity during these troubling times, which is why our government is here to lend a helping hand.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put immense strain on our health care systems. The amendments made to Bill C-14 mean that we can help better protect those most vulnerable, like seniors, by investing through the new safe long-term care fund. This funding will help prevent and manage outbreaks in long-term care homes, which will ultimately help save lives.

The heartbreak and fear that many Canadians have felt knowing that they have a loved one living in a long-term care home or, God forbid, losing someone to the virus are all too common. We will also be establishing a new national standard for long-term care facilities to ensure that none of our grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles or friends must endure a substandard level of care. No person deserves that. Amending the Food and Drugs Act means that we can increase our investments in order to support access to virtual health tools, mental health supports and substance use programming.

Asking Canadians to stay at home can impact the mental health of so many. Restricting social interaction for long periods of isolation and job anxiety can take a toll on people's mental health. As the government, we want to make sure that every Canadian has access to the supports they need.

As we begin this new year, there is a great sense of hope among Canadians. This sense of hope was created by the hard work that was put into composing the largest vaccine portfolio in the world. I was excited to hear that all the long-term care homes in the region of Peel have received doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. As a government, we will continue to ensure that our vaccine rollout happens as efficiently as possible. We will also continue to prioritize those who are at high risk of or vulnerable to contracting COVID-19.

The amendments made in Bill C-14 under the Food and Drugs Act will help our government increase funding to support testing, vaccine procurement and distribution, as well as isolation sites. In November, the federal government, in collaboration with various levels of government, granted $6.5 million to establish an isolation centre for residents of Peel, in my riding of Brampton East, and throughout the region, to isolate safely if they cannot do so safely at home.

It is imperative that the messaging we continue to convey to Canadians is that we will support them for as long as it takes. That means including investments, such as the one proposed in the fall economic statement, which will help upkeep our efforts for medical research, countermeasures and rapid testing, and ensure that every Canadian can receive the vaccine.

Adapting to new research and trusting the science our health officials advise us on is how we can best protect the health and safety of Canadians. That is why investing in research is so critical under the presented amendments of Bill C-14.

The Canadian economy cannot function without the success of our small businesses across the country. Unfortunately, this pandemic has put an unprecedented strain on the ability of our small businesses to succeed. They account for over 90% of all businesses in Canada, and our economy cannot afford to stand back and allow businesses to close their doors. We must continue to provide a prudent fiscal plan that helps businesses stay viable and keeps employees on the payroll.

The Canada emergency rent subsidy saw over 20,000 organizations apply within the first four days of the application period. As a government, we are also cognizant of employees who have seen a reduction in their working hours or have been told not to come into work. Therefore, supports such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy have been extremely important to small businesses and their employees.

In my riding of Brampton East, I had the pleasure of speaking with various small business owners who were able to access both programs. I spoke with Mr. Dheri, the general manager of a local Turtle Jack's restaurant, who was thankful to have access to the Canada emergency wage subsidy so that he could keep his employees on the payroll. His is one of the over 350,000 small businesses across Canada accessing the Canada emergency wage subsidy program.

We want small businesses to be able to open back up once it is safe to do so. As we continue to fight COVID-19, our government will be there for Canadian small businesses every step of the way, so we can safely rebuild our economy and make us stronger than ever before.

While speaking to constituents, I have heard first-hand their concerns surrounding climate change and the state our children and grandchildren will inherit. Our fall economic statement represents actionable steps and investments to tackle these concerns. By taking steps to making homes greener and more energy efficient, Canadians can reduce their carbon footprint while lowering their energy bills.

Our government's efforts to establish a network of zero-emission vehicle charging stations across the country in convenient locations, including where we work, live and travel, will help accelerate the use of zero-emission vehicles. We will build on current investments and zero-emission vehicle infrastructure by providing an additional $150 million over three years to help ensure that charging stations are available and conveniently located where and when they are needed. This is on top of the 500 electrical vehicle charging stations at more than 250 locations across Ontario announced last year. Brampton is currently home to many electrical vehicle charging stations, and I look forward to welcoming many more.

Building back our economy requires a jump-start of investments to help stimulate growth once we get through this pandemic. As we stated in the fall economic statement in November, the federal government will invest billions of dollars over three years to help make this happen. The amendments proposed will help our government continue to make investments in resources to best manage the pandemic and support the recovery of our economy.

As I said before, there is a sense of hope among Canadians. We will continue to roll out and distribute vaccines over the coming months, and Canadians will be ready to return to a sense of normality. We must support these hopes and ensure that the economy, and Canadians' return, is adaptive, innovative and strong.

A lot of changes have happened this year due to COVID-19. Working from home has now become common practice among businesses. Students have adapted to online learning, and businesses have amplified their online capacities. The decisions and amendments that we decide on as members of Parliament will allow positive change to come to fruition. It will help us save lives, improve mental health supports, help middle-class families and create a more inclusive economy and society for all. Let us continue to move forward together.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss something very significant. We are looking at massive spending and an increase of $500 billion in the debt ceiling, but we have not received a budget in over two years. We do not have detailed information on how the money that is currently in the deficit has been spent. While yes, a significant portion of the deficit spending went toward the emergency benefits, not all of that spending did. There is a great deal of money that has yet to be accounted for.

Could the hon. colleague give us some indication of when we will get information about what that money was spent on and when we will get a budget, before we approve this substantial increase in the debt ceiling?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the notion of accumulating debt at a much lower interest rate than individual Canadians can access on their own and not thoroughly helping Canadians through the biggest crisis of our lifetime was not a question our government was willing to ponder. We were not going to consider putting austerity or partisanship above supporting Canadians through this crisis.

The significant federal support provided throughout the pandemic is working well to put Canada in a stronger position for a robust recovery, especially when compared to our international peers. This stimulus will help us grow out of this recession toward an economy that is greener, more innovative, more inclusive and more competitive.

The opposition loves pointing to this, but we ask the Conservatives what they would have cut out to save money. Would they cut supports to businesses or to Canadian workers? To this they have no response.

As I said earlier, our government will always be there for Canadians.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to greet all of my colleagues in this new year.

My question is very simple. I spent the holidays talking to my constituents in Laurentides—Labelle and one question kept coming up: When there is a desperate need for health care services, how is it that the government, who claims to be there for us, is not taking any concrete measures to distribute the money that the provinces, particularly Quebec, need? Everyone was unanimous and came together on this issue.

There are things that the government needs to take care of, but unfortunately, it is not giving the provinces what it should.

I would like my colleague to tell us why transfers are still not being made.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the federal government has been there with the provinces through the safe restart program, which was really important across the board and across the country in supporting provinces in terms of increased testing capacity, contact tracing and other federal support programs through the health agencies.

Bill C-14, the bill we are discussing today, is extremely important to so many Canadian families, and I would like to mention a few things on that end.

Inequality makes our economy less resilient. We are committed to building back a more inclusive Canada, but I am also proud of our efforts to support middle-class families throughout the pandemic, as well as our support to our promises. For families, in addition to the Canada child benefit, the government quickly provided the Canada emergency response benefit, along with many other supports.

I have heard from parents in my riding who had to buy additional school supplies to support virtual learning for their children. Bill C-14 includes measures that would introduce a temporary and immediate support for low and middle-income families entitled to the Canada child benefit. Over 18,000 families in Brampton East, including 30,000 children, have been supported through this program, so I know the federal government has been there—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to give the opportunity for another question.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, with a brief question, please.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, although my hon. colleague speaks about nobody being left behind, in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, we currently have cases of trench fever, a disease of extreme poverty, occurring in the middle of a pandemic. I would also like to remind him of other people who have been left behind, such as students, disabled persons and seniors in long-term care homes.

Let us not forget the government's current climate bill, Bill C-12, which will not allow us to meet our climate targets. In the midst of all of this, the vaccine rollout is not happening. We know the impacts of the climate emergency are exacerbating the pandemic.

I would like my colleague to let Canadians know what his government plans to do, outside of political sound bites, to make sure that people are really not left behind.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned many different subjects and various topics. What I would like to focus on is students and on our relief for students. As I mentioned in my remarks, I have spoken to many students who are very appreciative of the government's response. We provided the Canada emergency student benefit. We are doubling the Canada student grant amount to $6,000.

Bill C-14 proposes to eliminate the interest on repayment of the federal portion of the Canada student and apprenticeship loans for 2021 and 2022. This would bring over $300 million in relief for up to 1.4 million Canadian students.

This is not just a talking point. This would be real for students and would help put money back into their pockets, so they can support their livelihoods.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑14, which implements certain provisions of the economic statement of November 30, 2020, including adjustments to child benefits and the emergency rent benefit, as well as provisions affecting student loan interest. It also puts certain provisions in place to facilitate the importing of foreign COVID‑19 vaccines.

I would like to comment on some of the bill's measures. It is normal to want to support students during this crisis. However, we must remember that Quebec has its own loan and bursaries program. We must therefore ensure that these measures will not put Quebec students at a disadvantage.

Two provisions of the bill will help expedite the distribution in Canada of COVID‑19 vaccines produced abroad, but there is still nothing to facilitate local production. That would require reintroducing the amendments to the Patent Act that the government introduced in the spring but ultimately allowed to die on the Order Paper on September 30.

The delayed delivery of the Pfizer vaccine and the headache that this has created for Quebec and the provinces is a clear example of the ramifications of Canada's overreliance with respect to medical procurement. Investments of almost $1 billion were included in the economic update to increase the production of vaccines in Canada. We will have to carefully monitor the federal government's handling of these investments.

It is definitely unfortunate that the economic update does not provide for an additional and sustainable increase in health transfers considering that the federal government currently covers only 22% of health care costs when it should cover half. Additionally, the amounts allocated by this bill to long-term care again bring to the fore the federal government's desire to impose so-called national standards for health care. Quebec and the provinces would not accept this blatant intrusion into their jurisdiction when the federal government has failed miserably in carrying out its responsibilities to address the health crisis, for example on such issues as border control and vaccine supply.

The bill makes no mention of other measures in the November 30 economic statement, leaving our businesses in complete uncertainty. What about the credit programs for hard hit sectors? A year into the pandemic the federal government is indicating that it is still not prepared to help the tourism and hospitality sector or arts and culture. It is also frustrating that the federal government is still failing new entrepreneurs, whose fearlessness is at the very heart of our economy, who often have to make major sacrifices to start their business and achieve their dream, and who are now facing the agonizing prospect of bankruptcy.

I would like to read a letter that three young entrepreneurs in my riding sent to the Minister of Finance before Christmas and to which no one has yet bothered to respond.

Dear Minister of Finance,

My name is Joanie Raymond. I am 26 years old. I have been working in the restaurant industry for the past 8 years.

One year ago, with two other people, Dominik (26) and Veronique (33), after saving some money and borrowing some from friends and family, we collected $250,000.00 and we decided to pursue our dream of opening a restaurant.

We invested $250,000.00 with the group, Barbies Resto Bar Grill, a Quebec based chain and we started working to build our restaurant in the city of Ste‑Julie in Quebec.

Our first target opening date was to be March 1st 2020 but with a couple of small delays, the opening date was moved to March 27th 2020.

Unfortunately, with the COVID‑19 outbreak in March 2020 and the first lockdown we were only able to open June 22nd 2020 at the end of the first lockdown.

We started paying rent March 1st 2020. We started having a small payroll in March 2020. We have our GST, QST numbers, we had our CRA business number, everything was set to go.

Based on all eligibility criteria set out in the beginning of the pandemic, we were not eligible to receive any rent subsidy (CERS) from March 15th 2020 to September 30th 2020.

Also, we were not eligible for any wage subsidy (CEWS) from June 22nd to September 30th 2020. Even though it was difficult for our restaurant as all other restaurants, we did understand that were not lucky and we hoped for better future days for our business.

With the second lockdown since October 1st 2020 we are still not able to receive any rent or wage subsidy. The drop in revenue is still only for businesses that were open in 2019 or January/February 2020.

We are the forgotten ones. As the pandemic progresses, Mrs. Freeland, we see our dreams turning to ashes. Our hope is vanishing and we only see dark days ahead of us.

We pay rent, we invested $250,000.00 of our savings and $1,000,000.00 in loans.

Bankruptcy is imminent for business like ours.

Is any help on the way for us? Or should we simply lock our doors declare personal bankruptcy and never dare to purse a dream again?

We would like to have an answer from you.

If you decide there is no help for us at least we know and we go back to a miserable life.

Christmas holidays are approaching and for us it's usually a time to celebrate but this time for us it's of mourning.

WE NEED HELP, late is better than never.

Our head office sent several emails to you and to the Liberal MP in Brossard.

We wait to hear from you.

Let us know if you plan to help us or not or simply forget about us.

Thank you from all of us, Joanie, Veronique and Dominik.

This letter was signed by Joanie Raymond. Our young entrepreneurs need help.

Another change the government should have made has to do with the minimum withdrawals seniors make from their RRIFs.

In early spring last year, the government lowered the minimum amount that seniors had to withdraw. However, in the meantime, some of them had already withdrawn the full mandatory minimum from their RRIFs. They wanted to be able to put the difference back into their RRIFs, but the federal government refused.

The problem is that these retirees, having met their obligations promptly, are financially disadvantaged by the change the government made mid-fiscal year. Not only will they have to pay taxes on the excess amount they withdrew under the previously legislated provisions, but the excess amount withdrawn will not be allowed to continue to grow in their RRIFs.

We have consistently advocated for measures to financially support our seniors, who are particularly affected in many ways by the current health crisis. In this case, however, it is the federal government itself which, in addition to being ungenerous to seniors to date, is penalizing some seniors who have been more willing to comply with their legal obligations. This is patently unfair to them. Worse still, all RRIF recipients are being penalized in some way by this measure, which has the effect of reducing the tax exemption they can benefit from.

My colleague for Joliette and Bloc Québécois finance critic spoke several times with the minister and her team to get the government to finally correct this measure, but ultimately received a cryptic, cold and insensitive response that seniors who had withdrawn the minimum amount from their RRIFs prior to last spring's announcement would not have faced the market volatility associated with the health crisis and that their withdrawal would have been proportional to their assets at the time.

What can be understood from such a response? It is the exact opposite of the empathy we would expect from the government towards those to whom we owe the prosperity that the government has been able to lavish on just about everyone but them.

Perhaps it is not too late for the government to finally listen to reason and correct what needs to be corrected.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Montarville, who is always very eloquent and a pleasure to hear.

I know that I often come back to the issue of health transfers. My colleague mentioned that a bit in his speech. I would like to hear him elaborate on this topic and tell us more about federal interference in provincial health care systems, which obviously fall under provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to hear him more specifically on this topic. What does he think should be done about seniors care?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I know that he is very interested in what is happening in Sainte‑Julie, which I mentioned in my speech. I also understand his concern about health transfers, which the government has not increased, despite the fact that we are right in the middle of a health crisis that requires major investments in health care.

The federal government has been very generous to just about everyone and every sector, but it has not made the health care investments that it should have for a long time. We are now seeing the results of that, as this health crisis has tested the limits of our health care system. These limits were reached because of the federal government's drastic cuts in recent years.

We would have expected that, at least in its own areas of jurisdiction, such as border control and vaccine supply, the federal government would be at least somewhat effective, but this is not the case. Instead, it is once again looking at the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces with a view to imposing so-called national standards for long-term care. Rather than trying to impose so-called national standards, it should reinvest massively in health care.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made reference to health care. He is not accurate when he indicates that the federal government has not provided ongoing and continual support for health care in all regions of the country. There has been additional spending on issues such as mental health and more support for long-term care, which is a huge issue across the country.

Could the hon. member reflect on the hundreds of millions of additional dollars that have been invested in the provincial restart programs for health care? I am wondering if he just forget about that money. Could he provide some additional comments on the allocations that have been provided to provinces?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I never said that the federal government was not investing money in health. What I am saying, simply put, is that it is too little, too late. As I said earlier, we have seen the limits of our health system, limits that exist in large part because, over the past few years, the federal government has gradually but steadily cut back its health care contribution. That is why our provinces were poorly equipped to deal with an unexpected crisis. They were already struggling to make ends meet and provide basic services, so when this global health crisis struck, they were overwhelmed.

Extra federal cash injections were too small and came way too late. Now that the federal government is burning through cash, there is still time for it to get its act together and boost transfers significantly so that the provinces can both deal with the crisis and do a better job of delivering on their health care responsibilities.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Montarville for his outstanding speech. I was very touched by his testimony and the letter he read. When the government does not get the message, it is important to do something and find other ways to get the message across, and this was a good one.

I am going to focus on one particular aspect of the economic update, namely transportation, my critic portfolio. We know that the COVID‑19 pandemic has really had a negative impact on the transportation industry, specifically air transportation, which is experiencing a serious crisis.

We had high expectations for the economic update, and we were really hoping for something major, since we had been promised for months that there would be help for air transportation. On reading the economic update, however, specifically the section on the air sector on page 32, we learned that the government was simply going to continue negotiating with the airlines to establish a financial assistance process. I was floored.

Air sector workers have been struggling since March. They are out of work, with no income. The government has been saying for months that it will find a way to help them by talking to the companies and by taking action, but it turns out those were nothing but empty promises. This economic update is from November 30. It was bad enough in November, but today is January 26. It is almost March and nothing has happened. All these workers will have been out of work for a year, yet there is still no assistance for air transportation.

It gets worse. Many people had purchased plane tickets but never received refunds. The government did absolutely nothing to defend them or protect them. However, page 32 of that economic statement says that “the government will ensure Canadians are refunded for cancelled flights.” That is good news, but it had already been announced way back on November 8.

On that date, the then transport minister released a statement in which he promised that, before the government spent even one penny of taxpayer money on airlines, it would ensure that Canadians got their refunds. Nevertheless, today, January 26, 2021, travellers have still not been refunded. As a result, yesterday, a court delivered an initial ruling and ordered an airline to refund a couple from Rimouski, Quebec.

It is unfortunate that the current government is not doing anything about this critical situation and that people are suffering because of it. It is particularly disappointing because the government is supposed to govern and make decisions when the situation warrants it. We, on this side of the House, are putting pressure on the government, pushing it to take action. We tabled a petition signed by 33,000 people calling on the government to comply and require refunds for travellers. We introduced Bill C-249 to reiterate that travellers have the right to be refunded.

A new Minister of Transport was recently appointed, perhaps to cover up for his predecessor's incompetence, and he immediately said that he would continue to seek a solution so that travellers get refunded. We are pleased with his initial reaction, but a solution already exists. All the government has to do is pass Bill C‑249 and order airlines to refund travellers. The government has never really told the airlines that. Instead, it prefers to repeat that it is looking for a solution and working on the issue. This is not complicated. When a service is not provided, the consumer needs to be refunded. That is the law, and it just makes sense. If I order a pizza and it never gets delivered, that is too bad, but I will get a refund. That is how it should be.

I am flabbergasted at the government's complete lack of action on urgent issues affecting people's daily lives. I spoke about tickets and about unemployed workers who are struggling, but there is also the fact that the government's actions with regard to air transportation have been rather inconsistent.

The government is telling people not to travel and has been repeating that for the past few days and weeks, but it is not actually doing anything to stop people from travelling.

On January 2, the day after New Year's Day, people who had spent Christmas without their families and without gathering with loved ones, as they would have liked to do, found out that people who had decided to take non-essential trips south or elsewhere around the globe qualified for $1,000 in compensation from the government. This is unbelievable, and it is frustrating, too.

It took a while for the government to wake up and realize that maybe it needed to do something. It finally decided to take action, but it said its measures would only start in January, so they would not apply to people who had travelled before January. It is wrong to reward people who did not follow public health guidelines.

The same applies to border control. There is still no ban on non-essential travel, even though this has been a problem for several months now. It is nearly February, and this is still a problem. There is still no monitoring of people in quarantine. The only measure is automated calls where people press a number to indicate they are complying with the quarantine. It is frankly absurd. Even people who chose to travel have criticized the situation, saying it is ridiculous. That is the kind of job the federal government is doing.

In the meantime, customs officers are not very busy at the border, so they could help with monitoring people in quarantine.

The Government of Quebec is asking for help in getting the authorization and additional powers to do what the federal government is not doing, namely monitoring quarantine enforcement at the border.

A month after Christmas, the government still has not made a decision on a sector in crisis. That is unacceptable to me.

The economic update also addresses the issue of regional air transportation. It is nice that the government realizes that there is a problem. Again, the problem has been going on for months. In March, Air Canada announced, brutally and without warning, that it was cutting 30 regional routes. The regions' first reaction was to say good riddance. They were fed up with seeing the airline disrepect the competition, cancel flights without notice and slash prices only to jack them back up. The regions decided to find another solution. In Quebec, they decided to establish a group to look at the problem with the Union des municipalités du Québec, the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, tourism associations and the Government of Quebec and come up with solutions.

Do you know what happened? They asked the Minister of Transport to come and meet with them, to talk to them and listen to what they had to say. However, the Minister of Transport did not even bother to meet with them. In the middle of the crisis, 30 regional routes have been cut and certain regions of Quebec are now without service, but the Minister of Transport is so familiar with the problem that he does not need to listen to them. He does not need to hear from mayors, businesses, or the tourism industry. He does not even need to hear from the Quebec government.

In fact, that is what the Minister of Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine said when we toured her riding over the summer. I heard her on the radio saying that we see the trees, but the minister saw the forest. He is so familiar with it that he does not even need to talk to people. That is serious.

This frustration of not being able to talk to the minister is something that I heard from the airline industry. The airports were not able to talk to the minister, the airlines were not able to talk to the minister, and the pilots were not able to talk to the minister. No one was able to talk to the minister, and the minister did nothing. At some point, people got fed up. It is frustrating. I think that this is part of the reason for the change of minister.

We hope that the new minister will make some changes and that the government will get a move on, because this is a bad situation. A government that does absolutely nothing and makes no decisions is a very bad thing.

Worse still, here is one of the first things that happened in the regional air transportation sector after the crisis. Nav Canada was having trouble making ends meet, so it decided to jack up its fees by 30%. When Nav Canada asked the minister for help, the minister told it to figure things out and charge airlines that were already struggling 30% more for its services. In turn, airlines raised ticket prices, so fewer people travelled by plane. It is all nonsensical. To top it off, there is no more regional transportation.

The same thing happened with airports. The government made a big deal about rent relief for airports, but that was only for large airports. What people do not know is that rent relief is based on fees. If there is no money coming in, there is no rent to pay. The same goes for the airport assistance program. Much was made of investment assistance, but that does not help pay the bills. If they do not have any money, how are they supposed to invest?

That is what I wanted to say about the government's treatment of the air sector in its economic update. It is very disappointing indeed.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's comments regarding the people who are being impacted by the pandemic. One example is flight attendants. We know many are out of work. Through no fault of their own, people are losing their jobs right now, and their livelihoods and lives are currently at risk.

Does my hon. colleague support putting in place a guaranteed livable basic income for impacted workers and other people who have been left behind during the pandemic? These are seniors, students, disabled persons, and temporary foreign and migrant workers, who we know, in some cases, have had very extreme human rights violations perpetrated against them by their employers. Would my hon. colleague support implementing a guaranteed livable basic income to ensure that nobody is left behind?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I have to say, I do not really see the link between what she is asking and the speech I just gave, but her question is interesting nonetheless.

I think it is important to support people to give them a decent income, to get poverty under control and to ensure that everyone has a chance in life. However, what sometimes worries me about these kinds of measures is that we already have social programs in Quebec. I think federal interference in the programs under Quebec jurisdiction is a bad idea. That is the problem I have with the NDP wanting the federal government to tell Quebec what to do. We do not want that.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mentioned the airline industry, and I think it is very important he mentioned that the airline industry has not yet paid back the people. We have been pressuring the government to make this happen, but it has been slow on its feet, and this should be given immediate attention.

Many of the airlines cancelled flights on people who had paid thousands of dollars for a trip with their families. They then found out that not only was the trip cancelled, but they had lost their jobs in the meantime. Some put this on a credit card and are now paying interest on that debt, but they do not have the service back. The airlines are taking that money and keeping it, giving the customer a voucher. The customer is actually paying the interest charges, so the airline industry is getting a free loan.

Does the member think it is imperative for this to be stopped immediately and that the airlines have to pay back the money people have paid, with interest?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that really important question.

Unfortunately, I do not think the federal government has even looked at cases like this yet, cases where people are struggling with debts to pay, with credit card balances to pay off. People often plan to pay for their trips after they return from their travels and go back to work, but what do they do when they have no job to go back to?

It is absolutely clear that companies that hang on to money paid for services not rendered must refund that money. What is even clearer is that we have a government in Ottawa that is dragging its feet and not fixing this issue, even though that is the government's job.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his presentation.

He has painted a good picture of the current state of air transportation, and I would like him to comment on the cozy relationship between the government and certain airlines, which he condemned several times. I know that my question must be brief, but the answer requires some context. I will trust my colleague's ability to be succinct.

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

Madam Speaker, it will be difficult to give a brief answer to this question.

This is an example of the willingness to not take action on issues that are affecting people, such as airlines that do not reimburse their clients. Furthermore, the government is giving the wage subsidy to these companies but saying that they will not see federal money until they have reimbursed their clients. However, airlines are receiving money from the government as demonstrated by the $800 million in loans that Air Canada received through Export Development Canada. It is really frustrating to see a government that is not doing what it said it would do.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, happy new year to you and to colleagues. I sincerely hope that 2021 is a big improvement over 2020.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

When this government was first elected in 2015 and subsequently in 2019, it rightly identified growing income inequality as a serious threat to a free and democratic society. Several initiatives were taken, including the raising of the upper tax bracket and the lowering of a middle bracket, a worthy initiative. However, clearly the most significant initiative was the creation of the Canada child benefit, a direct cash benefit to low-income families with young children. Pre-pandemic, this meant more than $100 million had been allocated to Scarborough—Guildwood. This in turn led to the largest reduction of child poverty of any riding in Canada.

During the pandemic, the additional CCB funds had been allocated to the benefit of Scarborough—Guildwood and all other ridings. Bill C-14 is proposing a $1,200 benefit for each child under the age of six for eligible families. It is estimated to be an increase of 20% over the maximum Canada child benefit. For Scarborough—Guildwood, that will likely mean an additional $20 million directly into the hands of low-income families. The CCB has had, and continues to have, the desired effect of lifting kids and families out of poverty, supplementing family incomes and reducing wealth inequality.

I do wish there was a definitive study showing the economic return of the $100 million distributed locally, now estimated to be $120 million spent locally. I would imagine there is a significant economic multiplier. Regrettably, however, a benefit is not a job. Life and economics are never that simple, but I dare say that given the choice, most parents would prefer to have a decent, if modest, job that feeds their family rather than a government benefit.

Then along comes the pandemic and knocks the most vulnerable for a loop. It is hard for people to provide for their families when they do not have jobs. Quite properly, the Government of Canada stepped in with an array of benefits, the most significant of which is the Canada emergency response benefit, known colloquially as CERB. I do not know the gross amount of CERB funds given to Scarborough—Guildwood, but it is certainly in the tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions. However, again, a benefit is not a job.

What has been revealed over time is really a tale of two pandemic economies. Those earning salaries calculated to be in the order of $40 per hour or more have not only survived, but thrived. They have in many instances prospered with both increased income and increased capital assets, such as homes, businesses, properties, etc. However, those in the $15 to $20 range have been devastated, slipping closer and closer to absolute poverty, with attendant worries about food and housing insecurity. Regrettably, the biggest pop-up business in Scarborough—Guildwood has been the proliferation of food banks. Unfortunately, they are doing roaring business.

This has been a huge setback for income inequality and for the catchphrase “those in the middle class and those wanting to join it”. If this economic disruption continues for much longer, Canada risks a permanent structural inequality that will be devastating for all of us, rich and poor alike. Permanently impoverished citizens are unstable and make the lives of others insecure, hence the rise of security devices and gated communities.

The pandemic has exposed our vulnerability in supply chains as well. There are no jobs in the $15 to $20 range because of globalization's desire to get the cheapest product the fastest.

We do not make PPE, for instance. We cannot create our own vaccines. We line up at box stores to purchase products made everywhere else but here. It is good for others, but not so good for us. These are vulnerabilities that could be papered over in prosperous times, but not so much now.

I am not so Pollyannaish as to think that Canadians are going to rush out and start buying more expensive Canadian-made products just because they are Canadian. Canadians are pretty tight with their money. I would, however, argue that they might well buy Canadian products made in their community by their neighbours if they thought or knew that the competing product was made by slaves in a foreign country. I would like to believe that Canadian consumers, if they knew, would find the purchase of slave-made products repugnant. However, here we are in 2021 with massive amounts of products being sold in Canada through a supply chain infected with slave labour.

According to a conservative estimate from the walk free initiative, 40 million people are engaged in modern slavery. World Vision estimates that 1,200 Canadian companies are importing goods made with slave labour.

Recently, CBC's Marketplace ran a piece on slave labour in the making of the PPE products that we use on a daily basis. The Globe and Mail ran two articles on how Canadian companies use slave labour to build products in China. The Toronto Star wrote a devastating piece on goods coming from foreign sources that the U.S. will not allow to be sold there, but we allow their transshipment into Canada.

Polls are starting to show that Canadians are becoming increasingly alarmed. Some frame this argument against supply chain slavery in terms of moral repugnance. I share that view. Some frame this argument in terms of universal basic human rights. I also share that view. Few, however, frame it in terms of societal and economic suicide.

If we as consumers knowingly or unknowingly purchase a product infested by supply chain slavery, we are destroying a job opportunity for a friend or a neighbour or a family member. Remember the tale of the two pandemic economies. Those in the $15 to $20 range are most devastated by the absence of jobs. Any goal of redistributing income equality is out the window. The risk of permanent structural damage to the economy is increased.

What to do? I appreciate the government seems to becoming more alive to the moral and human rights argument and stepping up the authorities it does have. Time will tell how effective that increased surveillance will be. I, however, would suggest four specific initiatives.

The first is the intentional use of the government procurement process to shorten the supply chain from global to Canadian. As one person put it in our pre-budget consultation, the supply change should be run up and down the 401.

Second, let us give the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise the power to compel companies to respond to inquires on human rights abuses.

Third, let us make it abundantly clear that the failure to cleanse supply chain slavery from a company's business will immediately result in the denial of consular and/or government financial support.

Fourth, let us adopt and/or take over Bill S-216, formerly my private member's Bill, bill C-423. It would compel all companies of a certain size to certify to their shareholders and to the Minister of Public Safety that they have examined their supply chains and are satisfied that there is no slave labour present.

Not only is slavery morally repugnant and a gross abuse of human rights, but it is also in our economic interest to ensure that the products Canadians buy are free of slave labour. Canadian workers are among the best in the world, but they cannot compete with slaves.

The government's laudable goal of reducing income inequality will never be achieved if infected supply chains are allowed to exist. The Speech from the Throne has many laudable and supportable initiatives, but to not deal forcefully and effectively with supply chain slavery is, in fact, self-defeating.

I thank the House for the time and attention. I look forward to questions from colleagues.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my colleague and good friend just gave. I just have one issue, a red flag. He mentioned the importance of changing our supply routes to go up and down the 401. I would like to give him the opportunity to also include supply chains from the east to the west and the north to the south across this great nation.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for pointing that out. I knew, as soon as I wrote that into the speech, that someone would jump on it. It was actually a quote from the Scarborough caucus's pre-budget consultation.

The member is absolutely right. It is, of course, a supply chain within the nation's borders, not just up and down the 401. However, the point the commentator made was that we need to recognize that we created vulnerabilities for ourselves. There is a lot of conversation in this chamber about vaccines. One of the reasons we have so much vaccine conversation is that we have created a dependency in our own country on other countries supplying such a vital product. If the pandemic teaches us anything, it is that we need to look at those supply chains, particularly for vital products.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish you and all my colleagues a happy 2021.

I want to talk about two seemingly unrelated events that happened last week that are actually more related than people think. At at time when the government is spending billions of dollars to meet people's needs during the pandemic, an indigenous homeless man was found frozen to death in a chemical toilet at 3 a.m. in Montreal. That same week, we learned that the Governor General had been terrorizing her employees for three years while earning $300,000 a year. She will now receive a lifetime pension of $150,000 a year.

The government has not signed a housing agreement with Quebec for three years. Such an agreement would have made it possible to build social housing for indigenous people in Montreal and could have saved the life of the man who died last week. Meanwhile, the government is going to give a woman who is completely useless and who held a costly position $150,000 a year for life.

Does my colleague not think that it is high time Canada abolished the monarchy?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is no.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, small businesses in the tourism and hospitality sectors, have been hit extremely hard by the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on these sectors has been devastating. Many are now facing closure, and the Canadian economy could see hundreds of thousands of jobs lost by the end of February.

In November, the Liberals announced help through their HASCAP. However, here we are at the end of January and no help has been delivered. The Liberals do not seem to understand how urgently this help is needed. Small businesses cannot wait another few weeks or months; they need help now.

Will the Liberals tell the House when the hardest-hit businesses will get the help that was promised? How many small businesses are the Liberals willing to let close permanently before they make this help available? It is urgent.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think there is a person, whether on the government side or the other side, who does not recognize the devastation this pandemic has wrought on small businesses in particular and the ability of a lot of them to survive. The government is, in my judgment, alive to the issue.

The question is how to get the funds to the individuals and businesses. I would say the rent subsidy is one of the ways it is being done, and the wage subsidy is another way it is being done. I think the passage of Bill C-14, therefore, is quite vital for updating the speed that relief comes to small businesses.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood for sharing his time with me today.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14. I would like to begin by thanking all the essential workers across Canada, particularly those in my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, who have been working in grocery stores, hospitals, long-term care homes and other areas since the very beginning of this pandemic. They are real heroes.

I would like to thank all essential workers from the riding of Acadie—Bathurst who have worked tirelessly since this pandemic hit us and spread throughout Canada and throughout the world. They are the real heroes, whether they work in our grocery stores, hospitals or nursing homes. I thank them from the bottom of my heart for being there for us every single day since the pandemic hit us.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been there for Canadian families. We have provided different types of assistance, including help for workers who have lost their jobs, for example through the CERB. We have been there for businesses in my region and across Canada that have had to close their doors because of this pandemic. The wage subsidy has been a huge help that has enabled them to retain their employees, which is why we will build on those efforts and continue helping Canadian families and workers. We are going to make sure that they have the programs they need to get through these difficult times.

I was talking about the CERB, but in my region, we have built and grown our economy around certain industries for centuries. I am thinking of fisheries, for example. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a great deal of uncertainty surrounding our fisheries. That is why we put in place, with the Minister of Fisheries and our government, $470 million in funding to assist fishers through this difficult period of instability in the export markets for our seafood. This is an incredible investment in this area, and we must continue to ensure that our fisheries sector thrives for years to come.

On the subject of families, and without repeating everything my colleagues have said before me, I believe the Canada child benefit is one of the greatest legacies we can leave this country. Thousands and even millions of families have been able to access this program.

For the Canada child benefit, the numbers in my riding of Acadie—Bathurst are unbelievable. The last time I checked, $3.5 million is coming to this riding each month, and it is tax free. The numbers are astonishing: The number of children who received the Canada child benefit is 10,520.

Since we put it in place in 2016, this program has been a tremendous help to families, but when the pandemic hit, we provided additional funding to help these families get through the crisis and have a little more money in their pockets.

The business loan program is administered by our various regional agencies. I would like to give a shout-out to the CBDCs, here in my riding, in Bathurst or in Tracadie-Sheila, which have been tremendous at helping businesses get through these difficult times. Our financial institutions have made it possible to deliver these business loan programs.

Bill C‑14 is in fact designed to enhance those programs and provide a little more support to those families and businesses in my riding and across Canada. Take students for example. As we have said, we want the interest on student loans to be forgiven. That will give students a break. I am sure that my colleagues know what that is like, having been students, just as I was. It is stressful for students to have to worry about making student loan payments, wondering if they will find a job while in school, especially since that is very difficult right now in New Brunswick, with all the restrictions and closures. No longer having to pay interest will help students get through these difficult times.

The enhanced Canada child benefit is another measure that will truly help families in our region. Families with a net income of $120,000 or less will be eligible for up to $1,200 more. Families with a net income over $120,000 will also receive additional money. I hope that my colleagues in the opposition will support this measure to help families across Canada in their respective ridings. As members know, this program helps many Canadian families.

Once again, we want to give some respite to people struggling with mental health issues and maybe even substance abuse. This pandemic has affected a lot of people, and some have had to isolate for several weeks. This has certainly had a negative impact on mental health. Home is often considered to be a safe space, but that is not always the case. There are many incidents of domestic violence, and we need to put an end to that. This bill will provide much more support for these vulnerable people during the pandemic.

Earlier I mentioned that the regional relief and recovery fund, or RRRF, has been invaluable to businesses back home. We are going to improve this measure so that more businesses can access the fund, which will be distributed through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, in co‑operation with regional agencies such as Community Business Development Corporations, or CBDCs.

Eight dollars out of 10 from all the help programs Canadians and people in my riding receive come from the federal government. When I see a province like New Brunswick, which received astonishing amounts of transfer payments under different programs and streams, not helping the people of New Brunswick, it is unacceptable.

I saw a report today which showed that a lot of the money we transfer to provinces is being left on the table, especially in my home province of New Brunswick. I found it a bit disturbing to see that families who need help in New Brunswick do not receive the funds the federal government transfers to the province. When I look at the numbers, $7,452 in help is coming from the federal government and only $75 in help is coming from the Higgs government right now in the province of New Brunswick.

We all have to play a role in helping Canadians during this difficult time, during this pandemic. I wish and hope the Government of New Brunswick will use these funds to help businesses and New Brunswickers across my province.

We will not stop there. We said that every Canadian would be taken care of, and that is what we have endeavoured to do from day one. Through the various programs we have brought in we will be able to get through this difficult period and relaunch our economy.

I see that I am running out of time, but I forgot to address some things, including about the airports. Budget cuts at different airlines have resulted in my region losing its airport. I am pleased to see that our government will not give any financial assistance to these airlines until our regional connections are restored and Canadian passengers have their tickets refunded.

I hope that my colleagues will support Bill C‑14 to help Canadian families and our businesses.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing that small businesses and consumers are being crippled by credit card fees. When it comes to interchange fees, we are paying some of the highest interchange fees in the world. In fact, the Liberals have committed to moving credit card companies to a voluntary rate of 1.4%, whereas Europe legislated a cap of 0.3% and Australia, 0.5%.

In the 42nd Parliament, Bill C-236 was tabled by a former Liberal member of Parliament, Linda Lapointe. She moved that bill 16 times before she dropped it off of the Order Paper. Now the Liberals say they are not in bed with the big banks and the credit card companies, but she abandoned her promise to the Quebec convenience store association and the retail association of Canada by not taking action.

These credit card companies are making record profits in the middle of COVID. They are not doing their part. We are not all in this together. When is the government going to legislate a cap on interchange fees similar to what Europe and Australia have done instead of putting that on the backs of small businesses and consumers right now in this crisis? It is time for these companies to pay their fair share and it is time for the Liberals to step up to the plate.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I think that Canadians have seen that our government has been doing everything it can from day one to help people and businesses get through the tough times we know they are currently facing. That is why we brought in a host of programs to help Canadians weather this crisis.

Bill C‑14 does exactly that. It helps families and businesses and gives them greater flexibility to make the payments they are struggling to make because the economy is sluggish.

I completely agree with my colleague that we must do everything we can to reduce the financial burden on Canadians as much as possible. I agree that we must look at this matter closely and determine how to improve things in the case of certain companies that, as we know, may be taking advantage of Canadian consumers.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite agree that the government is doing everything it can to help businesses. Some sectors, maybe even in the member's part of the country, are still waiting for support programs. I think supporting these sectors, especially the most vulnerable ones, is still urgent.

Why amend the Canada child benefit in the Income Tax Act only for children under 6? Why not amend it for children age 6 and up too?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I am a parent too. I have two young daughters who are now in school. As everyone knows, most kids age 6 and under go to day care. Child care is extremely expensive in New Brunswick because we are not as lucky as Quebeckers, who have a provincial child care system.

I am glad that the government's fall economic statement included an announcement about setting up a national child care program. That kind of program could be a boon to all Canadian families by keeping child care affordable. That is why we want to increase the Canada child benefit by $1,200 per child for low- and middle-income families and by $600 for higher-income families. I think that would really help those families.

From the start, some provinces, including my own, New Brunswick, have not lifted a finger to help their citizens. I hope they will take their cue from the federal government and enhance the programs we set up for them.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

No one can minimize the very serious effects of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on our individual lives, our communities and our entire country. The times we live in are certainly not normal and the measures that have been implemented to mitigate the harm of the virus have been significant.

In the very early days of the pandemic, Conservatives were eager to work with the governing party to find solutions for Canadians. We knew it was imperative to act quickly and effectively, so those feeling the negative economic impact of the mandated shutdowns were offered the support they needed. We called on the government to close the borders, a recommendation it ignored for months and, sadly, caused considerable damage. To prevent job loss, we urged the Liberals to increase the wage subsidy program from 10% to 75%. When our constituents told us about the problems they were having accessing the rent relief program and other emergency benefits, we immediately proposed changes and fought for them. It often took weeks or even months for the government to respond. For some we are still waiting, but eventually some solutions have been put in place.

All of this was done with the understanding that measurable support must be given to help Canadians until the tide turns and a greater economic certainty is present, but here we are. We are nearly one year in and we are at a precipice. Even though the country is facing an astronomical deficit and debt load, there is no plan for recovery and there is no end in sight with regard to government spending. In the last year our country has adopted many policies which in normal times would have put us on a track to mirroring other economies like Cuba or Venezuela, where masses of people are out of work and individuals are reliant on the government for their very survival. It is entirely unsustainable for any long period of time, but oddly, to our detriment, the current federal government is proposing that many of the measures that have been implemented during the pandemic become permanently entrenched. This is scary.

The deficit for this year is projected to come in just shy of $4 billion, thus bringing the net national debt to a record $1.1 trillion. That is a massive number, one that is incomprehensible for many of us. The proposed changes to the Borrowing Authority Act in this legislation would increase the gross borrowing limit to $1.8 trillion, an increase of a whopping $700 billion. I realize those are big numbers, but to boil it down, we are living in a credit card economy. We are consuming more than we produce. We are buying more than we sell. We are borrowing from the world in order to buy from the world. We are sending jobs and money out the door in exchange for foreign goods. In essence, or in short, we are in trouble. Others get the jobs, the investments and the savings, but Canadians are left with the debt.

With the government's plan to increase spending, but no plan for economic recovery, Canadians should be concerned. It is the government's responsibility to facilitate an environment of economic prosperity. This is made possible by implementing policy that will draw investment into our country rather than repel it; by putting policy in place that would encourage job creators instead of punishing them; and by implementing policy that celebrates those who work hard in the private sector instead of forcing them into a place where they are reliant on the government for bread.

To sign off on the government's current intent to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without so much as a plan for economic recovery or accountability measures in place would be totally irresponsible of me and others in the House of Commons. The current government is providing poor leadership, and Canadians certainly deserve better. For Canada to get back on track, we must free the wealth creators, the innovators and the risk takers. We must believe in the people of this great country.

In response to a question about government spending, the Prime Minister said, “We took on debt so Canadians wouldn't have to.” I hate to break it to him but that is not exactly how it works. Governments do not have money. There is no special government bank account that money gets deposited into without a source, and of course, that source is us, Canadian taxpayers. The less revenue there is to tax, the less money there is to spend on social programs, health care, infrastructure and education. For this reason, it is confounding that the Liberals do not fight for industries such as the energy sector, manufacturing or agriculture, industries that have traditionally helped stabilize our economy for decades. They are well positioned to continue to do so; they just need a government that believes in them.

When the Prime Minister was embroiled in scandal over the SNC-Lavalin affair, which members will remember he pressured the former attorney general to let a criminally charged company off the hook. He did it under the guise of saying, “I am fighting for jobs.” What about the jobs here in western Canada? What about the jobs that were just lost when Keystone XL went out the door?

Why could the Prime Minister not do so much as pick up a phone, make a call and advocate for those workers and those jobs? Does he only care about jobs if they happen to be in his riding? Canada deserves a Prime Minister who will fight for unity, not against it. It needs a Prime Minister who believes that Canada is one nation from sea to sea and that the nation in its entirety is worth fighting for.

The debt-to-GDP ratio will rise to 56% this year. That is just a short distance away from our 1996 high of 66%, when the Wall Street Journal deemed Canada to be “an honorary member of the third world”.

While the private sector is shrinking rapidly, the government is engorging itself. This is entirely unsustainable, but it is incredibly beneficial to a political party that is most successful when Canadians are dependent on government. Doling out money is actually a political leader's dream. It turns the people's affection toward him. It positions him as their hero, caretaker and saviour, so to speak.

Responsible leaders restrain themselves from utilizing this enticing tool. Instead of making it a long-term solution, they limit and put restrictions in place. It is not so with our current leader. Sadly, for quite some time the current government has fostered animosity toward job creators and wealth generators. The Liberals are engineering a society that will leave everyone less prosperous and more dependent on government.

While the Liberals love to talk about giving and receiving, I wish to talk about the value of earning. I am talking about the privilege, the honour and the dignity of work. It is an incredible thing for one to earn what one receives. Studies show that individuals who receive money without earning it are more likely to be depressed and less likely to be happy or feel fulfilled. Whenever we discuss permanently increasing government handouts, we must look at the potentially negative ramifications, not just for the economy but for society and the people. People matter. Canadians must be free to use their gifts, talents and abilities to further themselves, to benefit their local communities and to rebuild.

Ronald Reagan famously said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

I am convinced government programs are not the answer to getting Canada back on track. Canadians are the answer. It is Canadians who have the ingenuity, work ethic and ability to come up with the solutions to the problems our country faces.

Ronald Reagan also said, “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.” Frankly, I am tired of hearing the government patronize Canadians by essentially telling them to sit on the sidelines and cheer. What coach benches his best players?

Instead of putting the government in the position of being the ultimate problem-solver, and exploiting the pandemic to increase government control in the lives of Canadians, I believe we have a real opportunity to do just the opposite. We can shift the spotlight onto Canadians: those who are dreamers, risk-takers, wealth generators and job creators. It is time to put them in the game. They have the ability to put forward exceptional ideas, solve problems and build toward a vibrant future. We must unleash the power of the workforce so Canadians can start receiving paycheques instead of government handouts.

The Liberals can try to reset, restart and reimagine this country, but the fact is the power belongs to the people. Canadians always have been, and always will be, the solution to the problems we face. It is time to let Canadians skate.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear about the level of debt that has been taken on throughout this pandemic. I heard it a number of times yesterday, and the member has mentioned it. However, at every step of the way through supporting Canadians and putting the resources in place to help them, the House has, pretty much on every occasion, unanimously adopted the bills and the mechanisms to be able to do that.

All the member or any other member of the House had to do in those instances when that unanimous consent came forward was to say no. One person would have triggered a whole process that would have been so much more detailed in determining how we go about that spending, by going through various stages in the House through committee. The member did not say no. No member said no. I knew that the time would come that Conservatives would eventually start to critique the government for the level of debt that it took on, but in reality, they were active players in that. They participated in taking on that debt.

How can the member justify being overly critical of the debt taken on when she voted for it at every step of the way?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a place for taking on a small level of debt for a short term. That debt load, however, should have been incurred primarily in the name of generating jobs and investing in projects and industries that were going to serve this country in the long run.

That said, there is a time when due to something such as a pandemic, it is appropriate for the government to provide assistance to those who need it most. Through no fault of their own, many Canadians lost their jobs. Government policy created a lockdown. That lockdown resulted in the loss of livelihoods for many. That was a government decision; therefore, the government is responsible to step in and help. I voted for that and I am proud of that vote. What I am not proud of is where the government is going for the long-term future, which is into incurred debt over debt on the backs of Canadians. That is wrong.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, happy new year. I know my hon. colleague spoke a lot about work. I, too, support the ability for Canadians to get jobs; however, we know that a lot of people are unable to work. I will give an example: 70% of adults with severe intellectual disabilities who are unable to work live in poverty. Seniors are unable to work and live in poverty. Many students who were unable to work as a result of the pandemic are living in poverty and unable to go back to school, as another example. Indigenous people in many communities, where rates of unemployment are 95% as a result of ongoing impacts of the Indian Act and colonization, again are unable to work.

Knowing this, as it is certainly well researched, would my hon. colleague support a guaranteed livable basic income? Does my colleague support providing greater support for students who, through no fault of their own, were impacted by the pandemic? Would my colleague also support a guaranteed livable income for persons with disabilities who we know have been completely left out during the pandemic?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question morphed from a celebration of work, which I was super excited about, to a squelching of work and its benefits. That is very sad.

We are talking about Canadians who have incredible potential, ability, gifts, talents and contributions to make to this great country. By putting mechanisms in place that would bench them, we would actually be making our country worse off. Why do we not have a more grand vision for people than that? Why do we not believe in letting them thrive? Why do we not believe in letting them use those gifts and those talents and those abilities to be the problem solvers, to be the solution makers and to be the people that they were designed to be?

I understand there are some who live with a disability and they absolutely deserve all the support they can get. That is an appropriate place for government to step in and provide support to those who are unable to do so for themselves. However, for the rest of us, let us skate. Let us use our gifts, our talents and our abilities to make this country a great place. Let us work.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 58,000 businesses closed their doors in 2020. There are 58,000 families who will not have the income they would have had from the family business. The CFIB is now estimating that there will be up to 200,000 small businesses closing in 2021. Think of the devastating impact that will have on the families who depend on them for their livelihood, and on the communities where jobs will be lost. The economic spin-offs of those business closures will be devastating.

New businesses have been particularly ignored by this Liberal government throughout the pandemic. In December, I had the opportunity to ask the government a question with respect to new businesses. I talked about a gentleman named Paul in my riding. Paul was going to launch his new small business in March 2020. Of course, that did not happen because of the first lockdown, and his business launch was pushed into May. Since then, he has desperately tried to make his business viable. He is not eligible for the wage subsidy. He is not eligible for the rent subsidy. Why is this? It is because he decided to start a business, and the government has deliberately chosen not to support people who made the decision to start a small business. Why it has made that choice, I do not know. I have asked questions about this many times. I do not get answers.

People like Paul invest their life savings, the money they have worked their entire life for, into a business at great risk. They put hundreds of hours into that business, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 hours a week. That is what entrepreneurs do to try to make their businesses successful.

To keep his business going, Paul has had to access a line of credit against his home and put more money into the business in a desperate attempt to have his life's work remain viable. I pleaded his case to the minister in December. I outlined exactly the circumstances that I am outlining now. I asked the minister to please give something to Paul.

The response was that Paul should look at the regional relief programs. That was where there would be something. Of course, I had looked at the regional relief programs in a desperate attempt to help Paul and businesses like his, not only in my riding but all across the country. As I learned in law school, the devil is in the details. In order for Paul to be eligible for a regional relief program, he had to have been operational before March 15, 2020. Basically, the minister's response was, “Sorry, there is nothing there for Paul.”

Since I asked the question in December, I have had dozens of new businesses in my riding get in touch with me, desperately asking how they can access some form of financial support so that their businesses can continue, so that they will not go bankrupt and lose their life's savings, so that they can continue to employ people in their businesses who can then support their families. They are desperate to stop the domino effect of the closure of businesses and the devastating impact that has on the business owners, the employees and the community. Unfortunately, I have no good answer for these people, because the government knows this issue exists.

I have asked about it in question period, and my Conservative colleagues have asked this question many times in question period and there is never an answer. Here we are debating a bill that would implement new economic programs. Conservatives have asked the government what it is doing to support new businesses and why these businesses are undeserving of any support. Therefore, Liberals know of the issue. It is clear. They have heard it. They have heard it from CFIB and from opposition members, who have asked if there is anything in this legislation to help new businesses. The answer to that is absolutely nothing.

We are left asking ourselves this question. This is a government that has opened the floodgates of spending. It is spending money on everyone and everything. We are racking up debt at a horrific rate. Why have the Liberals deliberately chosen not to support new businesses? I want to go back to that.

When people decide to become entrepreneurs and to set up a business, they do it at great risk. They have to invest their own money and often have to provide personal guarantees, including maybe a collateral mortgage against their home. People do that at great risk. They put in 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 hours a week in the hope that their business will be successful. The lockdown occurred, we understand that, but why has the government deliberately chosen to ignore people like Paul and like Michella, whom I spoke to yesterday about her business? It is something I cannot comprehend.

When I think about the answer the government gives on this, which is effectively to maybe look at a regional relief program, it is so tone deaf and offensive to business owners who have worked so hard to try to make their businesses successful. It reminds me of someone else who was incredibly tone deaf in the midst of a crisis. There is the infamous quote by Marie Antoinette. When she was told the people had run out of bread, she said, “Let them eat cake.” Guess what, the government is effectively saying to entrepreneurs and new business owners who have risked so much, “Let them eat cake.” I find that offensive.

I am here advocating on behalf of small businesses and new businesses not only in my riding, but also on behalf of businesses all across the country. They deserve better than what the government is giving them. If the government is going to give them nothing, if it has made that deliberate decision, which is the only thing I am left to conclude, that it has deliberately decided to let those businesses fail, then it should stand up and say it. Do not say they should look at some program that offers absolutely no support. The government should just say it is sorry, because it has decided that those businesses are going to fail and good luck.

Right now, there is only one business in my riding that is expanding rapidly and doing extraordinarily well. We see their signs everywhere, in strip plazas and downtown cores. Do members what to know what that business is? It is “For Rent” or “For Lease”. It is exploding all across my riding and all across this country. Why is that? It is because of the decisions the government has deliberately made, and I do not have an answer as to why. I would like to know why new businesses are being told that the Liberals do not care and that they can go out of business. They have an opportunity to correct it. We are debating this bill now. Why will they not make some simple changes so new businesses do not go bankrupt?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the intervention by my colleague today. When he got toward the end of his speech, he talked about the thing that seemed to be booming in his riding, which was signs “For Rent”. In my riding, the same thing is going on. There are a lot of for-rent signs going up. I would argue that seeing for-rent signs going up is not necessarily the product of lack of support for new businesses, but of businesses that have been around for quite a while and choosing not to continue. My approach to this is that I believe the government has been trying, in many regards, through the support of the opposition parties and their consent to the spending, to help businesses writ large. He brings up some very valid points about new businesses and I hope he has the opportunity to discuss those points when the bill gets to committee stage so that how we can support newer businesses can be discussed further.

Would the member not acknowledge that supporting existing businesses has been so critically important? Had we not done anything, there would be even more for-rent signs going up.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I like to give credit where credit is due. There have been supports for the business community in general, including the emergency bank account and the wage subsidy after a few of its hiccups initially when the first incarnation was not great and most businesses were not able to access it. I will, of course, give kudos to the government for making the decision to support businesses. It had to be done and it did it.

I have a particular issue. I would ask the member opposite to go back to his caucus meeting on Wednesday and raise the issue of new businesses. They are just as deserving of support as other businesses. They took the same risks. They invested the same amount of blood, sweat and tears, as we say, and the same capital. They have the same exposure and personal financial loss if their business goes under. Go back to the Prime Minister and go to the finance minister and ask them to please make the changes so that these new businesses have the opportunity to succeed.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for raising this very important issue about start-ups being ineligible for the government's emergency relief programs. I raised this very issue with the Minister of Small Business on Friday.

We have many businesses in our riding that have not been eligible and whose owners have invested a tremendous amount of their life savings to open a business or to restart a business from the past. They cannot collect the wage subsidy or the commercial rent program. They cannot access the CEBA loan program. There are ways for the government to create measures that would allow these businesses to qualify, and to avoid concerns about fraudulent businesses.

These are businesses with expenses that they can prove. Many of them have met payroll or paid rent for months. The government needs to allow them to access these programs. Many of them are in their second or third lockdown without any support. This includes a veteran-led business in my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford's riding where some of the profits go to helping those with PTSD. These are the kinds of social enterprises and businesses we have to save, or we are going to lose a generation of businesses.

I want to thank my colleague. If he wants to bring forward some ideas on how government can use measures to support those start ups, that would be great.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for adding his voice to this. As he points out, there are lots of metrics the government could look at for a new business to see if they should be eligible for some of these programs. I am more than happy to work with the government on determining what those metrics should be.

I know I have very little time left, but I want to really try to impress something upon the government. Maybe the Prime Minister and finance minister should take a phone call from someone who started a business and is now going to lose that business. I get many phone calls like that every single week. People are desperate and they are heartbroken. They think they are going to lose their homes when their businesses go under. Anyone listening to dozens of phone calls like that is going to be affected. I find it incredibly difficult to answer those calls, speaking to those individuals and saying that I am sorry and that there is nothing I can do to help them. The government has chosen to abandon them.

Maybe if members from the government would take the time to take a few phone calls like that, they would make changes to this bill to support small business. Behind every one of those small businesses is an owner and a family. They are in desperate times and desperately need help from the government.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I must inform the House and the members participating virtually that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round. Consequently, all subsequent interventions shall be limited to 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to lend my voice in support of the fall economic statement, more commonly referred to as the FES.

As we continue to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, our foremost commitment remains supporting the resilience of our people and businesses. To uphold this commitment, our government has provided an unprecedented $407 billion in overall support to keep Canadians and Canadian business afloat.

In doing so, the federal government has provided more than $8 out of every $10 spent in Canada to fight COVID-19 and to support Canadians through these challenging times. The significant investments we have made, in public health, in the provision of medical supplies and personal protective equipment, in income support and paid sick leave, have very much helped slow the spread of the virus. Our commitment of an additional $1 billion to a new safe long-term care fund will help ensure that seniors live in safe and dignified conditions and have exceptional infection prevention and control.

As a result of these efforts, apart from the island nation of Japan, Canada has the lowest peak new-infection rate among G7 nations in wave one and the lowest rate of new infections in wave two.

Canada has also experienced a rebound that is both vaster and stronger than initially forecast in the July economic and fiscal portrait, and which compares very well with its international counterparts. Whereas only about half of the American jobs lost through the pandemic have returned, in Canada 80% of these jobs have been recovered. British Columbia has very much been a leader in this regard, with 98.7% of the job losses recouped. These numbers are truly astounding when we consider the makeup of the B.C. economy and the economic sectors that have been hardest hit.

While it is always paramount that federal spending addresses the needs and desires of all Canadians, it is especially gratifying to discuss a fall economic statement that speaks to the most pressing and distinct concerns of British Columbia. I know, from speaking with business owners and non-profit representatives in my riding, that the federal supports that have been extended and expanded in the fall economic statement are, in so many cases, the only reasons why businesses have been able to keep their doors open and workers employed.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy, which has protected 3.9 million jobs across the country, is being extended until June and increased to a maximum subsidy rate of 75% so that employers can keep their workers through these challenging months. For small businesses, the Canada emergency business account has provided critical liquidity; and the Canada emergency rent subsidy has helped businesses with fixed costs, direct from the federal government to tenants, with additional support in the case of government-ordered closures.

While these subsidies have helped bolster our economy and protect our businesses, we also recognize that crucial sectors, such as tourism and hospitality and the arts, have been disproportionately impacted by the necessary travel restrictions and limitations on gatherings. This is certainly true in B.C., where tourism is one of our largest economic sectors, and it is especially relevant in my riding, where the resort municipality of Whistler alone, which has 12,000 permanent residents, is responsible for a quarter of the annual tourism export revenue for the whole province of British Columbia. Of course, our borders are now closed to non-essential travel. For this reason, the fall economic statement would create the highly affected sectors credit availability program to offer 100% government-guaranteed, low-interest loans of up to $1 million over extended terms for heavily impacted businesses. This program will be available very shortly from financial institutions.

We are also proposing a $500 million top-up for our regional development agencies for a total of $2 billion, so they can continue to support small business owners who otherwise would be unable to access the federal pandemic support programs, through the regional relief and recovery fund. Importantly, 25% of these funds is earmarked to support our local tourism businesses.

Given the unique and diverse economy in B.C., it has been a very long-standing priority to establish a separate regional development agency for our province. Previously, a single office in Vancouver was designated to serve over five million British Columbians. This is in very stark contrast to the 28 offices for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which serve a population that is less than half of B.C.'s. That is why it is so important that the fall economic statement committed to splitting Western Economic Diversification into two distinct agencies: one for British Columbia and one for our prairie neighbours. This would allow for better service for both regions to help with the important sector transformations taking place and allow these regions to take advantage of the distinct economic opportunities that present themselves.

My riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country is the most unaffordable region in the country that is not solely situated in an urban core. While the programs our government introduced have lifted over a million Canadians out of poverty since 2015, our work on addressing that affordability crisis is far from complete. However, the fall economic statement makes continued progress in this important direction.

All Canadians have the right to safety and shelter, as well as the ability to live comfortably as part of their community, but the pandemic has exacerbated the number of our most vulnerable community members who are facing housing insecurity. That is why our government has created the $1-billion rapid housing initiative to further the construction of modular housing, as well as the acquisition of land and conversions of existing buildings into supportive housing units. This program follows along some amazing leadership we have seen from cities such as Vancouver and Victoria.

For many in my generation, the idea of home ownership in our community is just a dream. To address the long-standing challenge of the lack of affordable housing, we are proposing to expand the rental construction financing initiative by $12 billion to continue to provide low-interest loans and mortgage insurance to support the construction of purpose-built affordable rental housing.

Since its inception in 2017, 30% of the initiative's investments nationwide have gone to British Columbia, including the recent construction of a 24-unit affordable rental housing building in Whistler, which will be managed by the Whistler Housing Authority to ensure affordable rental levels are maintained for the next 50 years.

Alongside housing concerns, many in my riding are under strain from a lack of affordable and accessible child care. In Squamish and Pemberton, for instance, there is a three-year minimum wait-list to receive licensed child care. In the meantime, parents are having to balance exhausting hours of dual work days against expensive and unlicensed private care.

To provide immediate relief for families with young children, the government is introducing a temporary and immediate support for low and middle-income families that are entitled to the Canada child benefit, raising the maximum benefit of $6,765 per child under the age of six by an additional $1,200 in 2021.

To address our long-term child care needs, the government is proposing to provide $420 million in the 2021-22 year for provinces and territories to support the attraction and retention of early childhood educators and workers by supplying grants and bursaries for students studying early childhood education.

Capilano University recently launched early childhood education programs in both Sechelt and Squamish in order to address this high demand for educators. This funding will support efforts like these, which, along with eliminating wage and infrastructure barriers, are crucial for us to meet the growing demand for educators right across B.C. and Canada.

The FES also commits to setting up a federal secretariat for early learning and child care to support the development of a Canada-wide system. We know this is not just sound policy to improve the lives of families, reduce gender inequalities and give children the best chance at success. It has also been widely identified by experts, including our former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, as one of the top two initiatives that could grow our GDP more than anything else.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the existing and more deadly health crisis in B.C. The pandemic-imposed restrictions have had a cascading effect that have led to a more toxic and lethal supply of drugs, leading to 1,500 deaths in B.C. as part of the opioid epidemic last year.

To support Canadians struggling with substance abuse, we will provide an additional $66 million over two years to support community-based organizations responding to the opioid crisis. Funding like this will be vital for the creation and continuation of safe consumption and overdose prevention sites, such as the safe consumption site that opened in Squamish this past year and the one that opened in Sechelt as well.

While the pandemic has drastically curtailed the use of public transit across the country, it remains a critical link for essential workers and others. For this reason, we provided over a half-billion in support for public transit in B.C. under the safe restart agreement. We know once the pandemic is over ridership will rebound quickly in places such as metro Vancouver, which had the fastest-growing ridership of any public system in Canada and the U.S. prior to the pandemic.

To meet this growing demand, numerous projects are being planned or are under construction to expand this service. All orders of government on the north shore are working together as part of next step to alleviate congestion and improve public transit both to and from the north shore. I am pleased the federal government is stepping up to provide permanent public transit funding to support a lot of these efforts going forward.

The measures I have outlined in this speech are just some of the many way that the FES will help bridge British Columbians and Canadians through the pandemic by providing support for the Canadians and Canadian businesses that need it most. The FES also has a number of down payments on larger programs that set the stage to build back better to a greener, more inclusive and more resilient country on the other side of the pandemic.

These measures, among others, will be part of the $70 billion to $100 billion in stimulus over three years to ensure our economy comes back stronger and more resilient than before. The FES is good for British Columbians. It is good for Canadians and I urge my—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to stop there. We have reached the end of the time allowed for the hon. member's speech.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I will take advantage of the fact that there is a Liberal colleague from British Columbia to raise the issue of tourism. I am guessing that tourism is a very important sector of the economy in his region. It is one of the sectors that was hit extremely hard by the pandemic, along with restaurants, events, festivals, arts and culture.

The government is creating one-size-fits-all programs and not considering the reality of these sectors. We need targeted programs for tourism, restaurants, festivals, events, arts and culture, and these are long overdue. The government did announce a credit for the hardest-hit sectors. However, we heard about this program two months ago, and no details have been announced yet.

I would like to know if my colleague believes that real targeted assistance will finally be given to the tourism, entertainment, events, festival and restaurant sectors.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the tourism sector is very important in British Columbia and especially in my riding. It is our biggest economic sector, so I am very much attuned to the comments and suggestions that my colleague made. The FES has targeted supports, particularly for tourism and some of the other hard hit sectors he mentioned. The $1-million HASCAP program, for instance, will be available in the coming weeks to support some of these businesses with low-cost, very low-interest loans.

Also, under the regional relief and recovery fund, the 25% set aside for businesses in the tourism sector are very much needed to ensure those businesses will have access to the credit they need so that we can bridge to the other side of the pandemic, once some of the health restrictions, and other restrictions that have heavily impacted those sectors, subside.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there were many things my colleague said in his speech that I was interested in, but one thing that he did not talk about is the wild salmon emergency in British Columbia. We just had the lowest return of wild Pacific sockeye salmon in the largest salmon-bearing river in the world. This is after last year, which was then the lowest return. We did not hear anything in the fall economic statement, outside of Big Bar, to help remedy that situation, and the many other watersheds that are facing the same thing.

We are in a wild salmon emergency, and we cannot even get the minister to declare a wild salmon emergency. We did not see any new investments. We are hearing that the $148-million B.C. salmon restoration fund is a drop in the bucket. Advocates are saying that that is over five years and, in fact, we need that every year for the next five years if we are going to make any impact on saving wild Pacific salmon, which is critical to our food security, our culture, our economy and our way of life, especially for indigenous people.

Is my colleague going to be advocating for his government to invest heavily in emergency funding for wild Pacific salmon in the upcoming budget?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much share my hon. colleague's concern about the plight of wild Pacific salmon. One of the measures he mentioned in his comments, the permanent funding for the passage of fish in Big Bar, is a very, very important step, but it is one of many, many important steps that we need to take to restore our salmon stocks across the province. This is going to take wide-ranging efforts to rehabilitate habitats to restore this species, which is iconic to all British Columbians.

I can assure the member opposite that this is very much a priority for me, for our caucus in British Columbia and for this government. I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing some important measures that will make progress in addressing this really, really important area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak about Bill C-14, the economic statement that the federal government presented to the House on November 30 of last year.

COVID has been hard on our communities in many ways. This time has been filled with constant change, significant modification in our habits and real health concerns. When I speak with constituents across the riding, I am shocked by how many things they have noticed have changed in their lives. I appreciate the innovation that I have seen in our riding. People are coming together to support one another, and businesses are stepping up to find new ways to practice what they do.

Just last week, I participated in a grand opening event at a vineyard in my riding. It was a small event with strict distancing rules and careful protocols, but 40 Knots wanted to take an opportunity to showcase their newly closed-in outdoor space, which will allow for events to happen all year round. The windows are able to open in warm weather and close in the colder weather while continuing to allow for a beautiful view of their vines. I deeply respect 40 Knots for their sustainable model of making wine and the creativity they have shown, along with that of the many local businesses in my riding during this time.

This innovation is inspiring, yet many folks have struggled during this time because of the way our local economies are built. Across Canada, we need to see an increase in supports for regional economic development strategies. I am carefully hopeful about the announcement that there will be a new regional economic branch in British Columbia. I do want the government to understand that I believe it is the rural and remote communities that have the most need for supports during these economic changes. I hope to see an office, in fact, located in my region of North Island—Powell River.

This is especially important for me because there are some significant challenges happening in my riding right now. On December 17, the fisheries minister made an announcement about the Discovery Islands fish farms. The announcement was based on recommendation 19 of the Cohen Commission from 2012. I respect that part of the process included several first nation communities in our riding. Those nations have a constitutional right to speak on behalf of the area they protect and represent, and have represented since time immemorial.

I understand that all seven nations have notified their members that they are in support of the announcement. Indigenous communities have a right to stand for what they believe is best for their traditional territory, and as key partners in our region, it is important during this time that we work together to create solutions to move forward. Although, I do want to point out an important gap in this decision.

Prior to this announcement, my colleague, our shadow minister for fisheries, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, was very clear. The fisheries minister needed a plan to go hand in hand with this announcement. I want to be clear. It did not need to be a step-by-step plan, but I wanted some sort of commitment that would allow for certainty during this time. I do understand that the Cohen Commission recommendation was made eight years ago, and that this was a timeline that many were watching, but that does not mean the minister should not provide something. The lack of a plan has left a void in my region, especially in the more northern parts of Vancouver Island.

During this time, we do not need more unknowns to face. COVID has certainly provided enough. What we do require is some certainty.

I want to acknowledge how hard this announcement has been on communities, workers and businesses. It is overwhelming, and I know many people are worried about the future of our region. When the fisheries minister made her announcement, there was no plan at all. I was hoping to see a commitment to significant resources and a regional approach.

I want to put on the record what I am hearing from constituents in my riding. First of all, there needs to be a firm and strong commitment to wild Pacific salmon. Habitat restoration is an important part of this, but there are so many other factors. People are asking for there to be a plan. The need to see an improvement to the well-being of wild Pacific salmon in our riding has only increased, as people have shown me rivers that are no longer seeing salmon return.

Across our riding, the lack of on-the-ground fisheries staff has also been a growing concern. I ask members not to get me wrong. There are some amazing DFO staff in our region; however, there are significant concerns that for a huge part of the coast that we represent, we simply do not have enough people on the ground to manage the need.

Happily, the indigenous guardian program has been growing across the riding. There is a sense of trust from our communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous, that these folks fulfill the role as protectors of the natural resources in the region. Communities are looking for ways for this program to be able to grow and develop to do important work.

Currently, there is a parallel process happening in our region to go alongside the decision made about the Discovery Islands. This process is the commitment that the federal government has made for a more sustainable aquaculture system. In my region, people are asking for clarity on what that will look like sooner rather than later. Businesses that are highly reliant on the fish farm industry are clear: the next steps need to be clearer for them so that they can make sure their business plans are modified appropriately. With the closure of the Discovery Islands open-net fish farms, businesses are looking for opportunities to invest to modify their businesses, and they are looking for the government to be part of that plan. There needs to be a clear path that is accessible, and with the change that is happening so quickly, they need to see the resources there to meet it.

Investment in economic development in indigenous communities has also been identified as a high priority. There is some amazing and innovative work happening in more than 20 first nations I represent. There is a desire to have discussions about these projects and see how they can be built to provide economic opportunities in our area.

There are also several hatcheries in my riding, and many are working on a volunteer basis. They have not seen an increase in funding to support them in well over 30 years but have found many creative solutions to fill that gap. Many of them have reached out to my office and are wondering how their role will change due to this announcement. I have also heard from commercial fisheries and public fishers who are hoping to see action taken in the sustainable management of fisheries and they want a voice to be a part of that.

I have asked the minister to prioritize our region to look at how to support us moving forward with a coordinated approach that recognizes the specific needs of our region. Again, a localized regional economic development plan simply makes the most sense. This requires a collaborative approach, and the federal government needs to be a significant player in this process.

I also want to point out that the municipalities in this part of the region will be impacted as well. There is a need to have resources for them to create strategies that make sense for their communities.

More attractive economic development means that we need to see better Internet and cell reception in our region. The Connected Coast project in our area is one we are very proud of; however, we need to see the resources now, not later. Our region demands it. The lack of cell reception is a deterrent to inviting business opportunities and for safety as well. There have been multiple petitions from the region sharing this reality.

All of this really fits into the reason I put forward my Motion No. 53, principles for a sustainable and equitable future, in the fall. This motion requires the government to equitably distribute funds and programming among federal ridings and take into account UNDRIP, climate change and the prioritization of projects by small businesses that create diversity in local, long-term, well-paying jobs, because that is how we keep profits and benefits within the community.

I also want to point out that the steel workers who work in the processing plant at Port Hardy have reached out to my office. They want to make sure their voices are heard during this process as well.

We need to look at these principles to make sure we follow a localized regional economic plan. I urge the minister to review my motion and adopt these principles as soon as possible.

For our region to work together in a positive way, we need to see some clear commitment from this government. With the lack of clarity, it is hard for people to know what steps to take next. It is not good for our region, and I am concerned it will focus us on our differences rather than on our joint commitment to this place we all live.

As I come to the end of my speech, I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that women working in the fish farm industry have noticed an increase in sexual harassment during this time. This is on social media. I want to state clearly that this is simply not okay and that we must all strive for a better country, where women are treated with respect and not objectified by sexism.

As I end my speech, I want to remind the government that it is local, rural, resource-based communities like the ones I represent that have built this country. I also want to point out that economic marginalization of indigenous communities in this region and across Canada has been a huge barrier to communities and legislation has often been the barrier, so I hope to see the government do better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will have to interrupt the hon. member. We are out of time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her advocacy for defence and security.

The member outlined some very important points around regional economic development and the lack of certainty that comes from not having a clear financial plan from the government. I am wondering if she could give us some insight on whether we need a federal budget to outline the priorities for where the money will be spent and perhaps other areas where not as much money would be spent so that we can have greater certainty and clarity to plan for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my time greatly when I worked with the member at the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association and our joint dedication to defence and the men and women who serve us so well across Canada.

I agree that we need a budget. We need to see where the commitments are. When we look at what is happening across Canada, we know it is important that we have regional approaches that make sense for communities. All too often smaller communities are left out of the plans. Ottawa should not advise smaller remote communities of what needs to happen. They are the experts. I am hoping to see those dollars go into the communities to allow them to make that plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address something a little different on this issue, which is to recognize the impact that many of our social enterprises have on communities throughout the country and how important it is to continue to show not only financial support, but also promotion.

I look at an organization like Habitat for Humanity, which in Winnipeg North has assisted in the construction of newer homes in areas that would likely be very challenged. I wonder if the member would provide further comment on the important role that social enterprises have played during the pandemic. Many of them clearly have demonstrated that it goes beyond just making a profit, but it also includes getting people engaged in a very real and tangible way and providing services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say that in my region, Habitat for Humanity has been profound. It has had amazing partnerships with many stakeholders in my region, but it does not address the core issue of my speech, which is how we address huge economic changes in our ridings with a regional economic approach that brings everybody together. I hope the government will stand up for that. It made a decision and I respect that decision, but we need support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned, and I am sure the member is too, about the ongoing financial peril in which a number of regional ground transportation companies find themselves.

The member is probably aware that the current president of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council, Judith Sayers, has called for protection for Wilson's bus lines. It provides service to a number of remote first nations communities on Vancouver Island. It is being threatened with bankruptcy by the large commercial banks. No government program is helping it. This morning's announcement from the Prime Minister about more details for the highly affected sectors program will not assist either because it caps new loans at $1 million.

I wonder if the hon. member for North Island—Powell River has any comments on what we could do about these very profitable banks that have lost some profit but remain profitable and their willingness to push out of business other businesses that are essential for recovery.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member. It is good to say hello from the northern part of Vancouver Island.

I could not agree more. There are a lot of rural, remote and indigenous communities in my riding that need accessible transportation. This has been an ongoing challenge. As we look at a recovery, making sure people can get to their appointments and get out of their communities for opportunities, health and many other concerns is pivotal, so I hope to see some support for this.

I appreciate the work that big banks do, but they certainly have enough profit. Let us make sure to focus on these really important supports for local communities.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the onset of COVID-19, the government has done everything in its power to combat the virus and mitigate its harm, using every tool available to safeguard the health and livelihood of Canadians, particularly for Canada’s most vulnerable. It definitely appeals to me that protecting health is the best economic strategy in a global health crisis like this pandemic. In fact, more than $8 of every $10 spent in Canada to fight the virus has been spent by the federal government.

Let me be clear. By no means has this been a solo effort. In the summer, we announced support for the provinces and territories as part of our $19.9-billion safe restart package. An additional $2 billion is being made available to provinces and territories through the safe return to class fund to protect the health of students and staff. We are also working with cities and indigenous communities to ensure Canadians have the support they need and to help stop the spread of the virus in vulnerable communities. This has truly been, and we have said this many times, a team Canada effort.

Over the last year, I have held 30 community consultations and town halls in my riding of Whitby. Those have been mostly virtual but a few were in person before the pandemic hit. People in Whitby are engaged and I know the measures contained in the fall economic statement would help people across my community.

The recently tabled fall economic statement outlines the Government of Canada’s actions to date and proposed new measures to support Canadians through this crisis and lays the groundwork for rebuilding Canada’s economy through a robust, inclusive and sustainable recovery.

For example, we moved quickly in the spring to introduce robust economic programs like the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account to help people, businesses and organizations of all sizes survive this pandemic. These important programs helped thousands of people and businesses across Whitby and the Durham region. As has been said, we will do whatever it takes to protect Canadians and their livelihoods as we move forward. Through targeted and flexible support measures, we will continue to provide economic certainty to Canadians and businesses through this turbulent and uncertain time.

We have also assembled a comprehensive, world-leading portfolio of vaccines, investing more than $1 billion in vaccine agreements to secure a domestic supply of up to 429 million doses.

Once the virus is under control and our economy is ready for new growth, our government will deploy an ambitious three-year stimulus package to jump-start our recovery through an investment of between $70 billion and $100 billion. This is comparable to other nations, investing approximately 3% to 4% of GDP.

The fall economic statement puts a down payment on this growth plan and sets the path for an inclusive recovery that is equitable, sustainable and would create good jobs for all Canadians.

This pandemic has laid bare and in many cases deepened significantly the inequalities Canadians face, especially in the workforce. Simply put, inequality makes our economy less resilient, less sustainable and less fair, which is why a robust and complete recovery must leave no one behind.

For example, the government is committed to ensuring that this growth plan addresses the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on women. We have announced the creation of a task force of diverse experts to help our government develop an action plan for women in the economy, a plan that would help more women get back into the workforce and ensure a feminist, intersectional response to this pandemic and our recovery. This is evidenced by applying a gender-based analysis to every measure in the fall economic statement, which I am very proud to see. This action plan would help advance gender equality and address inequities faced by vulnerable women, including indigenous, Black and racialized women. It would strengthen our economy as a whole and benefit all Canadians.

The government will also begin work on transformative initiatives, such as a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, in partnership with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. Investing in accessible, high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care would not only be good for families, but also makes good economic sense. It would give children a good start in life and would give parents, especially mothers, the support they need to support their participation in our country’s workforce and provide for their families.

It is also important to recognize that young people continue to suffer disproportionate economic impacts from COVID-19, and we must therefore ensure that the pandemic does not derail their future. That is why we are proposing to build on the employment, job skills development and educational supports provided to youth and students over the summer by introducing additional measures that would ease the financial burden on students and provide more opportunities for young people to gain work experience. This would include new proposed investments of $447.5 million in the Canada summer jobs program next year to support up to 120,000 job placements in 2021-2022, and $575.3 million over the next two years toward the youth employment and skills strategy to provide approximately 45,300 job placements for young people.

In Whitby alone, which is my riding, over 300 positions were funded through the Canada summer jobs program, providing valuable skills to young people in our community and helping to strengthen our local economy. This work is critical, and I think it is definitely going to make a difference in our recovery and in increasing economic participation by young people.

The legislation before us also proposes to eliminate interest repayment of the federal portion of the Canada student loans and the Canada apprentice loans for 2021-2022. This would help ease the financial burden of student debt for up to 1.4 million Canadians.

The fall economic statement also reiterates our government’s commitment to fight systemic racism and discrimination in all its forms, a painful lived reality for Black Canadians, racialized Canadians and indigenous people. We will do this through clear and meaningful proposed investments in a number of key areas. For example, we will launch a pilot program for open bidding opportunities that will expand economic opportunity for Black-owned and operated businesses, building off the successful procurement strategy for aboriginal business.

Committing to diversifying government procurement, as outlined in the procurement minister’s new mandate letter, is a critical step toward ensuring all Canadians can participate in government procurement and a clear step toward empowering marginalized communities. Additionally, the government will help ensure representation at the highest levels of and throughout the public service by creating a centre on diversity in the federal public service to help accelerate progress on diversity and inclusion and by modernizing equity legislation to be truly inclusive.

We will aim to empower communities by supporting community-led initiatives to combat racism and promote multiculturalism by expanding the government’s community support, multiculturalism, and anti-racism initiatives program and its anti-racism action program, and through proposed investments to protect communities at risk of hate-motivated crimes. As well, we remain committed to rooting out and addressing systemic racism in our justice system by supporting the use of impact of race and culture assessments by judges and by helping to decrease the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and Black Canadians in the criminal justice system through community justice centre pilot projects in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario.

The fall economic statement also charts a path forward on building a net-zero future. To quote the fall economic statement:

We need to invest in meaningful climate action. Failure to do so will only increase the costs and the risks of climate change to all Canadians. COVID-19 has reminded us all of the importance of early, sustained action to address systemic risks that threaten our daily lives.

With critical investments, the government is doing just that. This includes $2.6 billion for home energy retrofits, $226.4 million for new electric vehicle infrastructure, $3.16 billion in nature preservation and a plan to plant 2 billion trees, and $98.4 million to help the agricultural sector fight climate change as well.

In conclusion, through these and other important initiatives and investments, as outlined in the fall economic statement, our government will continue to tackle the challenges and barriers that constrain Canadians.

Building a sustainable, resilient and fair economy is critical to our success in coming out of this crisis, and Bill C-14 helps to chart a path forward on this important work.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the part of my colleague’s speech on the fight against racism very interesting. It bothered me because two weeks ago, in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, two Black communities submitted a project under the supporting Black Canadian communities initiative and were told by the government that they had not proven they were Black. I can assure you that they are Black. It caused quite a commotion. People felt insulted and rejected by the government, which is promoting anti-racism while at the same time insulting communities by claiming that they are not actually Black. It makes no sense.

Could my colleague explain to me how Black communities could have gotten such a response from the government?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that many of the programs and funding envelopes that we have made available and, in fact, increased, are oversubscribed. This often means that not every project is successful in being awarded funds, but certainly there is an independent process that is verifiable. It can screen applications and is really looking for the best outcomes. Therefore, although I cannot speak to the specific initiative in question that my colleague brings forward, I am sure there is a good rationale for why that group was not successful.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Whitby has made a lot of statements about the great intentions of what the government has been trying to do in putting in programs to help people under COVID-19, such as programs for workplaces, workers and children. However, some of those intentions have also failed a lot of people because of the practices that the government put in place.

What the member has failed to mention, and it was something the government did run on in its platform, was helping seniors and people with disabilities. There was a very small one-time payment to help out as the Liberals realized that costs were increasing during the first wave of COVID. In the second wave, the Liberals have completely ignored them. These people need help, and they need help now, not in the future. There is talk about giving them increases; we have heard nothing, except that it is going to come later. “Later” could be in another couple of years. What are we going to do now to help these people, our seniors who are just getting by and our people with disabilities?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, I would say that bold action and leadership actually start with good intentions, so the expression of those good intentions is just the start. We have demonstrated action, and I share the member's concerns for individuals who are living with disabilities, individuals for whom I have often advocated in my riding.

We are moving forward on multiple fronts. The national autism strategy was a commitment that was made, and my understanding is that the consultation process is moving forward. There is also mention in the Speech from the Throne of a new disability inclusion plan that would increase disability benefits, which would be redesigned to also offer employment support and somewhat modify the eligibility criteria so that more individuals would have access to those supports.

Therefore, we are not silent on these—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am going to try to get one more short question in here.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the hon. member moved from Bill C-14 to talk about the climate crisis as well. I am disappointed that the current level of spending of federal money on the Trans Mountain pipeline will total $17 billion, which exceeds the amount of money for the good programs the member mentioned. I wonder if he does not believe we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels while we move forward to transition our economy.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the member opposite and I really appreciate the question. I believe the government in its new climate action plan has made a strong commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies by the year 2025, phasing those out over time. I believe that the new climate action plan is looking at hydrogen and other renewable energy sources to transition industries to that direction in the future.

We know that the economy can be grown and developed and that we can protect our environment. There is incredible opportunity for Canada to be a global leader in sustainable business. We are not there yet, but rest assured that we will get there.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and every member the very best as we return to the House in this new year. Just as it affords us the chance to leave behind old habits that do us harm, a new year allows us to re-evaluate and correct our course. If there is one message my constituents would relay to the government as we enter 2021, it is that it should resolve to get back to normal.

Economic indicators across the country are not encouraging, and as the outlook worsens, the impacts of the government’s pattern of neglect and regional division will only be amplified in western Canada. The consensus I received from my constituents over the past many months is clear. They do not want a global pandemic to be the pretext for a great reset of our economy, nor do they want the government’s continued failure to effectively fight COVID-19 to justify inaction on our economic recovery.

My constituents demand a common-sense approach to recovery. They want to get back to work. They want a government that creates the conditions for every sector of our economy to thrive, but otherwise stays out of their lives. They recognize that stable work and reliable paycheques will be the key to emerging from this pandemic as quickly as possible.

The Conservatives were proud to stand up for Canadians when the pandemic hit. We worked to improve and accelerate many of the government’s relief programs. They were needed and have done a lot of good. Indeed, the Conservatives pushed for Parliament to reconvene as often as possible for the sake of navigating our country through this storm. Unfortunately, our calls were largely ignored.

However, it is not March or April anymore. In January 2021, we have a much better understanding of this virus and how to mitigate its effects. It is time to begin our road to normalcy and recovery. Why? It is clear that the current approach to spending cannot continue indefinitely. Let us reiterate the seriousness of some vital economic indicators that the government has helped to exacerbate.

Looking at debt, Canadians are being asked to shoulder the burden of $8.6 trillion of household, corporate and government debt. This equates to 387% of our GDP. Over the last six years, there has been a 40% increase in our debt, outpacing our growth in GDP by three times. Government debt in particular has grown larger than Canada’s GDP, and that was the government's measuring stick.

Our situation is worse than that faced by Greece during the sovereign debt crisis, or the United States during the 2008 financial crisis. Never before has our country faced such a burden of debt, with no plan to address it. Our deficit is higher than at any point in our history, now at 17% of our GDP. Not even the deficits amassed during World War I, at the height of the Great Depression or during the 2007-09 recession come close to our current deficit as a percentage of GDP. What is more is that the government continues to lack a plan to return to some level of balance.

What do we have to show for this spending? We have very little. Our unemployment remains the highest in the G7, despite the fact that we spend the most among OECD countries.

We could have been facing an entirely different situation had the government buckled down when times were good. From day one, it was clear that the Liberals had no interest in honouring their spending promises. Over the course of their first mandate, they spent the cupboard bare, adding $100 billion of debt before COVID even reached our shores. These patterns of reckless spending and antienterprise overreach have real consequences. Before the pandemic even began, $160 billion in investment left Canada because of the government’s poor decisions, leaving us in a weakened position.

What could make the situation worse? For one, the bill proposes to make COVID-era spending permanent. It asks for a $700-billion increase in the borrowing limit, reaching $1.8 trillion by 2024. It is almost as though the Liberals have no long-term plan to engage the hard work and ingenuity of the Canadian worker.

Let us let Canadians do their part to carry us through the storm. Rather than picking favourites, the Liberals should tap into the talents of every worker to produce the goods and services the world will buy. The government must level the competitiveness playing field with the rest of the world.

Just as Canadians must be empowered to lead us into a robust economic recovery, the government’s responsibility lies with its public health response to the pandemic. In my view, it has clearly failed.

Last night I had the pleasure of listening to my colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City speak to the detailed systems that have been in place for years in the greenhouse industry to prevent and shut down viruses before they can severely damage the health of its plants and the productivity of its businesses. She then compared this with the fallacies of the Liberal government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

Canadians simply want a truthful answer from the government. First of all, why did the Liberals make such obvious errors in responding to this pandemic from the very beginning?

They allowed 60,000 people into Canada from China in the first three months and never closed our borders. They ignored the first-hand warnings that came from the Department of National Defence that a crisis was coming.

They gave away precious stocks of PPE to China and took too long to secure what our first responders needed, as well as the general public. They said wearing a mask is immaterial and then insisted it was mandatory, even when social distancing indoors and outdoors. They shut down small businesses but not huge international box stores. They did not ensure balanced reporting, as their media outlets continue to focus 24/7 on only the dangers of COVID, instilling fear of the disease and fear of repercussions on children, parents, employees, employers, small business owners, seniors and students.

The Liberals are saying that staying safe is only possible through isolation; anything else is taking a big risk. They failed to provide rapid tests that would enable people to return to work faster and keep businesses open. They focused only on a vaccine agreement with China to begin with, which did not materialize and is not surprising, effectively putting us in the precarious position we are now facing, as those who wish to be vaccinated are left waiting.

All of these missteps are having huge repercussions on Canada’s economy, and they are not the only factors stonewalling our ability to do what we are capable of doing as a nation: To be the first country in the world to restore our economy and restore the ability of Canadians to get back to work, school, sports and special occasions and back to being with family and friends.

The very people we are sent here to represent have more questions that leave them anxious and confused by their government’s actions and by their doublespeak.

Why are the Liberals continuing to raise the carbon tax during the pandemic? Why are they pushing the clean fuel standard and introducing a bill that requires Canada to reach zero emissions 50 years from now when they cannot meet the commitments they have already set? Why would the Prime Minister want to cause such increased devastation to the livelihoods of the middle class and the working poor, who are struggling more than ever now to join it?

Why do the Liberals ignore the amazing contribution of rural Canadians, indigenous Canadians, western Canadians and east coast Canadians who have generated the wealth of this nation? To date, they have received no credit, no recognition and no appreciation for the internationally recognized environmental achievements of our agriculture, resource and manufacturing industries across Canada, without which the source of wealth for those who live in our beautiful major cities would not exist.

Why do the the Liberals want to stagnate and kill Canada’s oil and gas industry, and for that matter, the cutting-edge carbon sequestering clean coal industry, when the best resources and highest standards for environmental protections in the world exist right here and should be championed and shared all over the world?

Jerry Dias, while participating in a Corporate Knights round table, spoke to the need for Canada to move forward with building and purchasing electric cars and installing charging stations across the country, which is a good thing. My brother out on the west coast loves his electric car.

Truly, if the Liberal government cared about Canadians and this nation, it would hear what Jerry said. Forty more years of oil will be needed around the world. It should be using every opportunity to grow our economy and be a truthful, transparent and servant-oriented government. It could be honest about why its response to the coronavirus has been so ineffective.

Bill C-14 would give the government unprecedented access to billions more of Canadian tax dollars with no accountability to its citizens, at a time when those tax dollars literally do not exist and will not exist for years to come because of poor financial management. The government is printing money so that it is in control of our democracy instead of the Canadian people, and it is controlling the economy rather than enabling free enterprise.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the Prime Minister's stated intention to phase out the oil sands and how he stands to benefit electorally should the west leave Canada, the immediate crisis, as my colleague mentioned, is the absence of vaccines available for inoculation in Canada.

Today there are none. Nine days ago, Canada was 10th in line for vaccines. The EU is putting a Europe-first approach into place for the vaccines, and Canada is falling further and further behind.

What are the member's constituents who have been designated as non-essential telling her about the state we now find ourselves in? They are going by the wayside with absolute no income.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are very frustrated. They are very frustrated with the approach the government has taken during the entire pandemic. We are a very resourceful and creative group of people who want to see our economy thrive, even in the midst of the pandemic. There is definite concern about every step the government has taken in regard to dealing with the virus, and I outlined a lot of them in my speech. I am speaking on behalf of my constituents.

When it comes to the vaccines themselves, there is definitely a need for them to be available in Canada in a far more significant way than they are now. Clearly the government dropped the ball on that provision.

However, I am pleased to say that in the riding I represent, vaccines are needed and wanted, but under the condition that getting them is voluntary and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the member, I heard a bit of what one would classify as hypocrisy. On the one hand, the Conservatives try to give the impression that the government is borrowing too much money, yet on the other hand, they tend to support the initiatives we are taking to support Canadians and small businesses, such as the billions of dollars going toward the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the Canada emergency rent subsidy program, the Canada emergency business account and regional relief and recovery funds.

We hear Conservative MPs saying that in some sense we are not doing enough yet and we should still be spending more on small businesses. Then they want to criticize the borrowing of money.

Could the member clearly indicate to Canadians where she wants to see cuts to some of the programs we have brought forward, or does she support the entirety—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy is on the other side of the floor. On this side, we want what is called good governance.

Yes, we needed that support for Canadians; there is no question. My constituents agree with that. However, they are also saying, in the midst of this, that the government prefers to put our existing economy to sleep. There are people in my riding who are getting the wonderful Canada child benefit and appreciate it. We brought it in. However, what they are saying to me is it was supposed to be in addition to their income. Now that they are depending on it, it is not enough, and they need to get back to work.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sat on the veterans affairs committee with the member, and I genuinely miss working with her on that committee.

We are nine years out to meet our Paris climate commitment, and the government has done very little to support farmers and encourage them to reduce emissions, move toward alternative energy and improve nitrogen management. I wrote a letter in support of Farmers for Climate Solutions, which has been calling for supports for farmers.

The government came up with $90 million, when farmers need $300 million. Largely, they have not been engaged and encouraged to get involved to do their part, which they are already doing, to really modernize their practices and get the support they need.

Could my colleague speak about how important it is for the government to support Farmers for Climate Solutions and all farmers to ensure they are able to participate even more than they do now in lowering emissions and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, because my farmers tend to get the “minimal time” a lot.

There are significant things that our farmers do in my riding in Saskatchewan that have been making a difference to the environment to an unbelievable extent. It is to the point where, at the APAS summit in 2017, researchers at our University of Saskatchewan said that if we continued what we are doing to improve the way we farm, we will offset all of the emissions from the oil sands within the next decade.

I am very proud of what our farmers are doing, but when our farmers needed real help, they did not get it from this government.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic is a public health and economic emergency the likes of which we have not seen in a century, certainly not in my lifetime, and if I get my way, we never will again.

Through the first wave, we saw a virus the world had never seen or heard of before. It absolutely punished communities across Canada and around the world. Although we have been spared the worst of the pandemic in my home province of Nova Scotia due to a combination of smart policy and, more importantly, community buy-in, I see my neighbours across Canada in different provinces who suffer greatly at the hands of the second wave. We have Canadians who are suffering severe lockdowns. We have Canadians who have lost loved ones. We have people who have been impacted severely in terms of their economic or personal health and well-being. The circumstances cannot be overstated and they require our attention.

Despite these challenges, Canadians have responded admirably since the very beginning of this pandemic. We saw Canadians follow public health advice, which seemed strange in those early days when people were uncomfortable wearing a mask. We learned to wash our hands in a new and appropriate way, which may have been different from what we had learned over the course of our lifetime. We saw people willing to sacrifice some of their own comforts to protect the health and well-being of their neighbours. If there is a sentiment that is more Canadian than that, I would love to hear what it is. In Canada, we stand up for our neighbours and are willing to fight as hard for them as we are for ourselves.

I am also proud of the way that our government and, frankly, this Parliament have responded to the pandemic. I remember in the early days being part of the team that was tasked with developing some of the economic measures in response to COVID-19 and taking calls not only from MPs within the government caucus but also from MPs from all parties from every region. I think of members of Parliament who represent agricultural sectors in Ontario calling about the impact on grape growers in their region; western Canadian MPs who were calling me about support for workers in the energy sector who were going to be impacted, or about the exodus in downtown office towers when more Canadians were working from home; and, of course, here on the east coast, the MPs defending not only the public health measures but the economic supports for families who were having a hard time keeping food on the table. That said, I found it extraordinary to see the commonalities between the issues that were coming from western, northern, central and eastern Canada. Regardless of who we are or where we are from, when we lose our jobs or our health is put at risk, we need the support of our neighbours. I would like to think that we came through with the help of MPs from every party to deliver the exact kind of support that was most needed during a time of unprecedented challenge.

I think of the measures we adopted, like the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB. At the time, nobody had heard of it. In a matter of weeks, we threw together a program that has now reached almost nine million Canadians to help keep a roof over their heads. To support businesses, there is the emergency business account, the wage subsidy and other measures to help them keep their doors open and workers on their payroll. These are the kinds of programs that were designed to meet very specific needs that, frankly, arose by virtue of the pandemic. These are not just things we wanted people to have because they might have been nice. We realized that the pandemic had very serious and acute impacts on our neighbours, friends and co-workers, and we wanted to step up as a government and as a Parliament to make sure that those needs were met. We knew that the cost of failing to meet the needs of Canadians in a time of emergency were far greater than the cost of extending the kinds of supports that would see them through difficult times.

The legislation on the floor of the House today largely follows the trend of our emergency response and continues the pattern of meeting the needs of Canadians that have arisen as a result of this pandemic. Over the course of my remarks, I will touch briefly on the benefits of Bill C-14 that will be extended to Canadian families and businesses and, most importantly, that will continue to protect the health and well-being of Canadians as we struggle to fight the second wave of COVID-19 from coast to coast.

With respect to the support for families, I want to draw members' attention to the enhanced Canada child benefit for parents of young children who are dealing with shutdowns of child care, who perhaps do not feel safe sending their kids to child care, or who may have given up their space early in the pandemic because they did not know if they would need it during a period of an extended shutdown. However, there is an increased cost to taking care of kids at home.

I have a four-year-old at home and it is a challenge to try to work from home and deal with parental responsibilities. We want to make that easier, particularly for families that may not be in the highest income brackets. That is why we are enhancing the Canada child benefit to provide up to $1,200 this year for parents who have children under six years old. For families that are financially better off, the benefit might not be quite as generous, but it will still make a difference. If households earn over $120,000 a year, they will still see an increase of $600 to deal with the fallout of taking care of kids at home during this pandemic.

Continuing with the theme of supporting families, we are extending certain features of CERB that will allow Canadians who were eligible but who maybe did not receive all of their payments to continue to receive those payments now that we have entered a new calendar year. That would not have been possible without this legislation.

I had my start in politics as the president of the StFX Students' Union in the town where i was born, Antigonish, Nova Scotia. I wear the X-Ring every day. Back then we were advocating to have the interest on federal and provincial student loans eliminated. I am so pleased to see that this legislation is going to implement that step, and also remove the interest on Canada apprentice loans to make sure that this does not just benefit those who hold loans from universities, but also those who have taken skills training courses at community colleges who are working in the skilled trades today.

To support businesses this legislation does a couple of things. It makes a technical change to the rent subsidy program to ensure that businesses continue to receive the rent subsidy support they need to keep their doors open before their rent is due, rather than having a reimbursement on the back end. We have made changes to the regional relief and recovery fund, which has done wonders for small businesses that did not qualify for other supports in Atlantic Canada, by making it more like its equivalent, the Canada emergency business account for businesses that had an easier time qualifying.

In particular, I want draw attention to the health and safety measures included in the bill. There is $1 billion committed in the fall economic statement to improve long-term care and, in this piece of legislation, $505 million to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within our long-term care facilities. In Nova Scotia, the bulk of the cases that we have seen come from one facility, and if we can limit the outbreaks within these facilities where people are kept close to each another and are at higher risk of the spread of COVID-19, we can protect the health and well-being of all of our neighbours and ensure that we do not put our economy at risk at the same time.

We are making significant investments, including the $133 million in the bill toward continuing support for virtual care during the time of the pandemic. We have learned some lessons, which I hope stick around on the back end of this pandemic, that will reduce the burden on our health care system and allow Canadians and communities that may have difficulty accessing a family doctor to receive the care they need virtually.

Along a similar vein, this investment is going to help continue to allow the Wellness Together Canada portal to help Canadians who are struggling with mental health or addictions in this pandemic get the support they need and, importantly, provide support for those Canadians who are living with addictions and need support to help deal with substance abuse difficulties they may be living with, in particular, those who are struggling and living with an addiction to opioids. Opioids are taking lives from every community in our country and we need to pay attention to this crisis.

The bill includes over $260 million to continue pursuing vaccine development, to implement travel measures and to invest in testing and research that will help prevent the spread of COVID-19 in our communities. We know that the best economic policy we can adopt in this pandemic is to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and defeat it as swiftly as possible.

Before I conclude, I want to raise that I have seen notice of a Conservative motion on the Order Paper that would seek to divide portions of the bill and accelerate the Canada child benefit piece and delay other portions of the bill. Though I do not doubt that the intentions are good, I would implore all members not to fall into the trap of thinking that we can accelerate one piece without delaying the other important measures, specifically those targeted to protect the health and well-being of Canadians by preventing the spread of COVID-19 in our communities.

To conclude, this pandemic and the government's response has been the single most important project I have worked on in my career to date. In some ways I hope it remains that way for the rest of my life, because it is interesting and engaging, but for all the wrong reasons. Our fellow countrymen are hurting, are sick and are struggling financially. By continuing to advance emergency supports that will help families take care of their kids, get our communities back to normal, put food on the table, put a roof over the heads of families and help businesses keep their doors open and workers on the payroll, I know that we will remain on the right track.

l look forward to seeing the support of members of all parties in the House when it comes time to vote on this important bill.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Earlier, we were talking about the request from our constituents, who are asking us when the provinces and Quebec will get their fair share so they can provide health care that is up to par with what it should be.

In a few seconds, I would like to remind those listening that “[t]he provinces exercise very broad health powers under several provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, including subsection 92(7), which gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over establishing, maintaining and managing hospitals”.

It is an exclusive responsibility, with direct delivery.

Can my colleague tell me when the provinces will have the money to provide the care that falls under their jurisdiction?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to discuss increased investments to ensure that provincial health care systems can provide family doctors' improved mental health and improve the quality of long-term care, that is a very valuable discussion to have, but we cannot abdicate the responsibility to deal with this pandemic.

Frankly, the jurisdictional division of powers outlined in the Constitution, which I am intimately familiar with, broke down the moment I saw the military go into long-term facilities. When I saw the federal government being asked to fund field hospitals to deal with the consequences of provincial governments being overwhelmed despite their best of intentions, I knew that we could not sit back and send a blank cheque with no accountability.

We do need to treat the pandemic from a holistic point of view and understand that the money we put toward the emergency response will actually be delivered to improve the quality of health and protect the well-being of Canadians who are trying to fight this COVID-19 pandemic. This is the single most important thing and we cannot take our eye off the ball.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy new year to my colleague. He talked about blank cheques with no accountability, but his government and federal government institutions have provided $750 billion in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks with no conditions. Billions of dollars in support have gone to Canada's biggest corporations, who often have used that money for share buybacks and executive bonuses. Again, there is no accountability.

When we talk about Bill C-14, I share, of course, my colleague's objectives, but the amount of resources invested fall far short of what is needed. We talk about the $2 billion that is needed to put in place a foundation for national child care. This bill provides only a fraction of that. Canada's nurses, as the member well knows, testified that we need at least $3 billion a year to have national standards for long-term care that would make sure every single Canadian senior lives with an adequate level of care, and, yet again, there is only a fraction of that contained within the bill—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have to try to get more questions in here.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member well and a happy new year. I look forward to seeing him at the finance committee as well.

There are two buckets of issues that he has raised in his question.

One is the nature of supports extended to business and through the banks. I think the key words that he used were “liquidity supports” when it comes to the banks. We have to think about what would have happened if we did not advance those supports. If we had not allowed for increased liquidity support, the banks would not have been able to offer forbearance on foreclosures to home owners. There would have been more people out of their homes. If we actually look to the supports for big corporations, when we move fast, sometimes we will break things. There are examples to be found. I am not going to sit here and say that the response has been perfect, but it was pretty good. I have to say that I am proud of the work we have done, because we were able to keep millions of Canadians on the payroll with these supports.

With respect to the issues around child care and support for long-term care standards, I agree with the member on this. I think we need to be aggressive in the pursuit of improving these policies. This bill before Parliament does not seek to boil the ocean, but it is going to make a difference with the water in the pot.

The issues that we have tackled in the legislation are going to be advanced in a way that makes a meaningful difference and protects the economic and financial health and well-being of Canadians who live in my community as well as his.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise virtually today to join the debate on Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement.

The bill has seven parts, mostly containing items to which I do not object and aims that I support under the circumstances that Canada currently finds itself. Having said that, I have three main criticisms of the bill. First, it does not contain a plan or indeed any reason for hope for the millions of Canadians who own, work for or otherwise depend on small businesses, especially new businesses that have been ignored in aid measures that have been either adopted or proposed by the government. Second, the bill contains nothing to address the significant problems that were facing the Canadian economy before COVID. Third, the government should not be granted the unnecessary increase to the borrowing authority contained in the bill.

To my first two issues, some would say that it is not fair to criticize a bill for something it does not say. Ordinarily I would agree, but this is not an ordinary bill, nor is this an ordinary time.

The government is closing in on two years without a budget. The fall economic statement is as close as the government has come to tabling a budget, and that statement followed a period of chaos and crisis management. Here I am not referring to the COVID crisis, but to the tumultuous months during which we saw a government that should have been procuring vaccines, approving and distributing rapid at-home test kits and figuring out ways to allow the economy to function, if and when the second wave would hit. Instead, it was consumed by the scandal that saw the resignation of the former finance minister, prorogation of this Parliament and the appointment of a new finance minister. The bill is the government's missed opportunity to help small businesses that have fallen through the cracks in its aid measures and to fix its series of failures that left Canada on the brink of a recession before COVID.

As the shadow minister for small business and the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, I have spoken to many small business owners who had been left behind by the government. These small business owners are the pillars of our communities.

There are millions of owners, workers and customers who depend on small businesses and who are paying the price for the government's failures, like the owners of the Bitter Sisters Brewing Company in Calgary, whose owners live in my riding. They do not qualify for the wage subsidy or the rent subsidy, because they reopened their business in March 2020 after spending most of 2019 refurbishing it. The owners of this business exhausted their capital. They went through a lengthy period when reinventing their business, and they opened literally within days of the declaration of a global pandemic. They do not have access to government aid measures. I spoke to another constituent last week who had expanded his successful tattoo studio in early 2020. As a result, he does not qualify for either the rent subsidy or the wage subsidy. His rent is $30,000 a month and his revenue is zero.

I know that every member of the House has heard similar stories from their constituents and from other members during debate on the bill. The fall economic statement and the bill do not help these constituents.

It is easy to forget the extent to which the government's fiscal and economic mismanagement was coming to a head before COVID. This is a government that was elected in 2015 on a promise, which it immediately broke, to run modest deficits to fund infrastructure for three years, returning to surplus in the fourth. Its maximum deficit of $10 billion was to be its fiscal anchor.

That anchor was cut immediately after the Liberals took office, and the 2015 election promise was seemingly obliterated into an Orwellian memory hole never again to be acknowledged by the government. It was replaced by a new anchor: that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was low and would always shrink.

The finance minister clung to that anchor until it was clear, before COVID, that the deficit was going to rise as a percentage of GDP, and replaced that anchor with the last one, which was maintaining Canada's AAA credit rating. That anchor was cut loose as well, and there have been no fiscal anchors articulated by the government since then.

We saw all of this backsliding into a serious structural deficit before COVID. The Liberal government piled on nearly $100 billion in new debt at a time when it should have been running surpluses, like the one it inherited, in order to prepare for a financial disaster like COVID, but it did not. Furthermore, the government piled on job-killing laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 that devastated the western economy and will harm Canada's ability to recover from COVID.

This bill does not contain elements that would undo the damage the government did to our economy that prevent and reduce our ability to recover from COVID. It brought in a carbon tax in the last Parliament and has announced that it will almost immediately break its promise not to raise it in this Parliament.

There is nothing in this bill that will address the hostility of the government to the energy industry, which is an essential part of the federal government's tax base. It is historically Canada's largest and most valuable export. It is the creator of great high-paying jobs in every province across Canada, not just in Alberta.

The fall economic statement that this bill is to implement does not address the past economic mistakes the government made and that had Canada teetering on the brink of recession before COVID. It does not repeal the red tape that killed projects, like Teck Frontier, and scared off the private sector investors that would have built Trans Mountain without taxpayer support.

There is nothing in this bill for the thousands of Canadian workers who will lose their jobs due to the devastating Keystone decision or those already without jobs, whose hopes for returning to work are now reduced in the wake of the Keystone decision.

There is nothing in this bill to rein in the culture of wasteful corporate welfare that the government has and the ease with which it ran up significant debt, again, before COVID.

This brings me to my third criticism of this bill and that is the unprecedented increase to Canada's borrowing limit. Make no mistake, and I will say this again, that at a time when governments force businesses to close and lay off workers, governments need to support them. Governments do need to support Canadians who are being compelled not to work and to support businesses that are being compelled to close their doors.

This crisis has created a temporary necessity for extraordinary spending measures to support Canadians, but the government's proposal in this bill to increase its borrowing limit to $1.8 trillion is simply not justified. It is not justified by the government's present needs, not by its short-term needs, not by its medium- or long-term needs, and certainly not by its past enthusiasm for non-crisis deficit financing.

Parliament at its most basic function exists to authorize taxation, expenditure and borrowing by the government on behalf of the governed. As legislators, we have a responsibility to vote whether or not to grant the government these powers, and there is simply no reason to grant such an extraordinary sum for the government to borrow when its own fall statement and the estimates that have already been voted on do not require the authority for the level of borrowing that is contained in this bill.

If the Liberal government, or indeed a future government, needs to increase the national debt to $1.8 trillion, then that should be left for a future debate in this Parliament or a future Parliament. In the meantime, I urge the government to focus on establishing a coherent COVID policy, one that would result in a vaccinated population, a reopened economy and a full employment workforce fuelled by private investment into Canada's economy, unshackled by job-killing regulations.

We must return to an employment-based economy as soon as possible. While there are items in this bill that would help some Canadians cope with the difficult circumstances of the present, I urge the government to get serious about giving Canadians more hope for the future, especially for those small businesses that have consistently fallen through the cracks of the government's aid measures.

With that, I look forward to questions from the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to wish you all the best for 2021, and here is hoping that it will be better than last year.

My question for my colleague is very simple. What does he think of the government's performance when it comes to supporting businesses? Are we doing enough for our SMEs and entrepreneurs? What does he think of the government's loan- and debt-based strategy for businesses?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is there are many measures the government has undertaken that were necessary and indeed are supporting small businesses, but there are also many small businesses that are falling through the cracks, that have not been able to access the aid measures they need for a variety of reasons. The most recent ones that I referred to in my speech are those for new businesses that opened their doors, that maybe spent all of 2019 gearing up for a reopening at the end of last March. Those businesses are just devastated. They are not qualifying and the government knows it, but it has not taken action to support those businesses in particular.

The debt load that businesses are taking on is extremely concerning. These businesses are just desperate. They are desperate to see the end of COVID and to reopen. The government needs to get serious about answering questions on its vaccination rollout so we can get a vaccinated population and an employment-based economy back on track.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member when we talk about small businesses and how important it is for government to come to the table. That is something that I believe we have done. We can talk about the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy, the emergency business account, making sure there is better business credit availability and regional relief in recovery funds. There are a number of things out there that the government has done to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses and others, the backbone of the Canadian economy, are able to better manage as a direct result of the negativity from the pandemic.

Would the member not agree that as an opposition member, or any member of Parliament, one of the most creative things to do is to come up with specific suggestions and ideas for a plan, something that we can do as government? Being very specific would be helpful at this time.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the opposition spent much of the last year doing exactly that. We proposed all the fixes the Liberals needed to make on their rent subsidy program, which was a disaster for months. The opposition was instrumental in fixing that program. The opposition was instrumental in fixing all of the shortcomings of the CEBA program that he also mentioned. The opposition has been very active in constructively offering fixes to the government.

Right now, in the few seconds I have left, I would suggest that the government get busy very quickly on some kind of modification to the rent subsidy and wage subsidy programs that would provide some relief to businesses that literally drained their bank accounts just to open their doors at the dawn of the pandemic.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is quite right to note that government policy has affected profits of businesses, including small business.

Would my colleague not agree that there should be some regulatory reform with regard to credit card interest rates, especially small businesses that have unjust pricing and service fees during this time?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member points out a problem well known to especially the small business community. Merchants in Canada pay the highest fees probably in the world. It is an ongoing issue that has been exacerbated by COVID. I am concerned by the lack of competition in that area. It is a very important concern that I have heard from many small business owners.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, since it is 2021, I would like to first take the opportunity to thank the residents of Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury for putting their trust in me. I always do my best to represent them properly. I would also like to thank my family for their support. Finally, I would like to say a special thank you to my staff, who continue to work hard to support all residents of Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury.

I would also like to assure the people of Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury that our government and I have one priority: their health and well-being. Our responsibility is to ensure their physical and mental well-being, as well as the economic health of our businesses and communities. By so doing, we can ensure the ongoing economic recovery of our ridings.

COVID-19 is a non-partisan issue across the country. We have a duty as a country to work together across all party lines and across all levels of government to come to the collective goal of getting through this pandemic together. From the beginning of the pandemic our government has mobilized with the opposition and passed concrete measures that offer direct assistance to those in need.

Many families, students, seniors, businesses and indigenous communities felt the challenges. Mental health remains a challenge. We must prioritize our health in all its forms, check in with those who need it the most and recognize and reach out to those who need better support. That is why we stepped in. CERB provided $2,000 a month to eligible individuals, and we listened to residents to make changes to ensure people were not slipping through the cracks. Now it is the CRB.

We have also provided $300 million to first nations communities. Many in my riding also received funding. We provided over $157 million for Canadians who are experiencing homelessness and to address these unique challenges during the pandemic. There is over $50 million for women's shelters, because of the unique challenges women have faced during this pandemic, like job losses, violence, disproportionate income loss and child care needs.

Also, there are payments to seniors, up to $500, and for those with disabilities, up to $600. In Nickel Belt we have 17,360 people receiving OAS and GIS benefits for seniors. Also important is the one-time payment we also provided for the CCB payment. This is an important measure to help families and to help children, especially single moms in our communities. In Nickel Belt we have 9,700 families receiving the CCB, and it is important that we continue to support our children and our families.

Student loans are also important. We have offered grants for students and also deferred the loan payments.

Rental assistance for businesses throughout this pandemic has been important. We have modified the regional relief fund through agencies like FedNor. We have heard clearly from businesses the need to adjust some of these relief programs. Some $1.2 million was given to economic partners in West Nipissing to help local businesses meet their needs during this pandemic.

There is also the $2 billion for the safe restart agreement with Ontario. We have supported things like enhancing testing, contact tracing, supporting those in long-term care homes and ensuring there is safe and sufficient child care spaces for returning to work. More needs to be done.

It is important that we offer stability and support to local priorities outlined by local area municipalities. We also ensure emergency programs for private sector businesses, legions, food banks, arts and culture and not-for profit organizations all across Canada, Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury.

For example, there is $350 million to support vulnerable Canadians through the charity and non-profit organizations that deliver essential services, like the United Way North East Ontario. It is helping those in need and helping municipalities like French River, St.-Charles and Markstay-Warren. It is helping Valleyview Community Church, the Greater Sudbury municipality in partnership with Onaping Falls Lions, and the Metro grocery store in Valley East. This is all to support our most vulnerable.

We have also provided $100 million in emergency funding for food security. Of that, $100,000 went to five organizations in Nickel Belt: Onaping Lions Club, Destiny International Church in Val Caron, Helping Hands Family Mission in Hanmer, and Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First Nation community.

It is also important that we support Canadian heritage and arts and culture. In Nickel Belt there is the museum in Sturgeon Falls, the Capreol Historical Heritage Museum, the Greater Sudbury archives and the Conseil des Arts de Nipissing Ouest.

It is important to continue to support non-profit organizations.

I want to thank all the volunteers who are supporting our organizations with their time, and for submitting proposals and working hard at the grassroots level with solid partnerships to make a difference in people's lives, in their communities and in our neighbourhoods.

The support that flows through this community shows how resilient our economy is and shows the dedication of our government and people tasked with making changes at the local level. These include infrastructure in the municipality of Markstay-Warren, bypass roads in Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and investments for providing a light industrial park for economic development.

Also, regarding broadband, there was $270,000 for the Wahnapitae First Nation. It is very important to get high-speed Internet to homes and businesses in the community.

We made important strides. The fall economic statement was a true testament to this, and I am proud that our government is investing in RDAs all across Canada and FedNor in northern Ontario. I am proud of the staff at FedNor and the work that they do in the community. As a government, continuing to enhance regional development agencies is important.

We committed to investing in research and development and procurement of vaccines for all Canadians who want them. Just yesterday, public health in the district of Sudbury announced that vulnerable seniors and long-term care residents in northern Ontario are closer than ever to getting the vaccine. Progress is happening. The federal and provincial governments will continue working together to offer solutions and to ensure we all persevere through this.

That is why we need to support our long-term care residents and staff. This is a non-partisan issue. All levels of government need to get together and find solutions. We need to make sure that we look after our most vulnerable, and long-term care is an important area at all levels of government. We need to do what we can. If it means using the Red Cross or the Canadian Army, we need to make sure that residents and staff are safe in long-term care residences.

When we look at the most vulnerable, we look at seniors living in apartments who are isolated, and seniors who are living in their homes and are isolated. We need to make sure we support them also.

COVID-19 has highlighted just how challenging something as dangerous and disruptive as COVID can be. Through the pandemic, Canadians have shown that it really takes a lot to keep our communities safe. As we are showing, we will do whatever it takes to support our communities.

Overall, the government's quick and comprehensive assistance made it possible to provide unprecedented, comprehensive support of $407 billion, nearly 19% of the GDP, to help Canadians and Canadian businesses keep their heads above water during the pandemic. That includes $270 billion in direct support measures, or 12% of the GDP. It is really important to continue to ensure that we are supporting individuals and businesses.

The fall economic statement also reminds us that there are other changes that we must continue to address. Digitization continues to be important and carries the potential for tremendous benefit if it is managed fairly and effectively as we grow our economy. With the measures in the fall economic statement, we would leverage this potential to better benefit Canadians.

I want to thank residents of Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, and say meegwetch to all of the front-line workers, first responders, police officers, truck drivers and retail workers. I thank them for the work that they are doing in making a difference in our community. I ask people to stay safe and keep following public health measures.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss the economic update, make decisions and vote on whether or not we are going to approve spending. Typically, we do that with a financial budget. We have not had a financial budget for two years. I wonder if my hon. colleague could give us an idea of why we are voting on an economic update in the absence of a broader and more comprehensive budget.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that important question.

We have not tabled a budget in two years. The measures that our government took during the COVID‑19 pandemic, with the support of the opposition parties, had an impact on everyone, on all Canadians. It was therefore important for us to present the fall economic statement.

This spring, we will table a budget based on greater certainty. It is very difficult to come up with a budget in these uncertain times related to COVID‑19, but we will do so by continuing to focus on support for Canadians and businesses during the COVID‑19 pandemic.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

He listed all the measures that have been taken, which we welcome. They needed to happen. I would just like to remind him that all of this work is also based on ideas proposed by the opposition parties, and that it is all a collaboration between the government and the representatives of the people.

However, after almost a year of COVID‑19, the federal government is still sending the message that arts and culture are not important and that the sector will be getting no support. Many of the municipalities in my riding rely on arts and culture, which is a well established industry there.

What form of assistance is available for this sector, which is at the very heart of our Quebec identity?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I mentioned in my speech that the government and the opposition parties collaborated on the measures to assist businesses and individuals. Some measures were taken very quickly at the beginning of the pandemic, but changes were also made during the summer and fall. This proves that Parliament and our elected officials are here to help Canadians.

Arts and culture are indeed very important, and our government must do better for the entire not-for-profit sector. We must find better ways of supporting not only arts and culture, but also all not-for-profit organizations in order to build on our language and culture. As a francophone, I think that this is really important, not only in Quebec, but throughout Ontario, and particularly in Northern Ontario.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the member for Nickel Belt. I want to share the sentiment he expressed at the end in thanking the front-line workers who continue to provide essential services for all of us with respect to groceries, policing, fire and all of those kinds of things.

I want to ask the member a question about something that is not really addressed in the economic statement, which is the sick leave benefit. I am not talking about the fact that wealthy people who broke the rules have been able to get compensated for being in quarantine. I am talking about the fact that working families are having severe trouble accessing the sick leave benefit because of the way it is being administered.

Will the hon. member join with the New Democrats in pressing his government for a sick leave program that is more flexible, and will meet the needs of those front-line workers?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her important question.

One of the first things the Conservative Government of Ontario did when it was elected was to eliminate sick days. It is really important that Parliament review the issue of sick days.

We have already adopted certain measures with the collaboration of the opposition parties. I agree with my colleague. When we look at the most vulnerable populations, we realize that they are mainly women who work in the health care sector, and we must take them into consideration to ensure that we are implementing the right measures for them. The comments put forth by my colleague in the opposition will help me when we discuss how to help workers, as well as what financial support can be provided to give them a better sick leave plan.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the expansive riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I take this opportunity to thank the good people of my constituency who have repeatedly placed their trust in me to represent their interests in the Parliament of Canada. Being a member of Parliament is a unique privilege, and I thank them for that privilege.

I rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020. Specifically, I intend to focus on those provisions in the legislation that deal with the COVID-19 vaccine shortage in Canada.

I send a clear message on behalf of all Canadians to the government and to the Prime Minister: Canada, as well as beating the COVID-19 virus, must prepare for the next pandemic. Unfortunately, the federal government’s response to the pandemic has been a tragic comedy of errors. Mixed messages on masks, with federal cabinet ministers early on advising against their use because the government had thrown away or given the masks we had to China, to now insisting that masks be worn, has confused people. That confusion of mixed messages led to the spread of the COVID-19 virus, with tragic consequences for our seniors, particularly those in long-term care.

What should have been stated by the Prime Minister during one of his cuckoo clock appearances was, “We do not have enough masks,” and “Stay home.”

In March 2020, there was an awareness the virus was coming. The border should have been closed to all travellers to keep the virus out of Canada. Following up on the Liberal meme “man-made,” as in man-made global warming, what we have in Canada is a man-made vaccine shortage crisis.

The Part 5 amendments to the Food and Drugs Act contained in Bill C-14 come up far short of what is required to fix broken Liberal policy.

It is important to note the pharmaceutical industry has been trying to reach out to the government for years. After the short-sighted changes made by the government in 2017, it is as if the government was setting itself up for failure.

A letter written to the Financial Post by Paul Lucas, the former CEO of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, states:

The question is: Why is Canada not able to acquire more vaccine early?

Is it because the Liberal government has virtually no relationship other than as a buyer and regulator with the only organizations that could possibly produce a vaccine quickly and in sufficient quantities, the global innovative pharmaceutical industry?

Successive Liberal governments, including this one, have created an unfavourable environment for investment and commercial success for innovative pharmaceutical companies in Canada. They have made it very difficult for Canadian CEOs to attract investment to Canada despite many attempts by the industry to work with governments to do so. They have made no effort to work with the innovative industry to encourage a partnership that could deliver tremendous value to the health-care system and the economy and give Canadians early access to new medicines and vaccines.

Not surprisingly, the industry has gone elsewhere to invest—to places like the U.K., the U.S. and the EU where that positive environment does exist. They are all performing better than Canada on early vaccine acquisition.

It is important for Canadians to hear the truth about why we are at the back of the line when it comes to life-saving medicines to protect our population.

I am pleased to reference previous comments I have made in Parliament to inform Canadians of what the government does not want them to know. From the very onset of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has been disrespectful of Canadians, starting with parliamentarians. What has been particularly predictable has been the tactic by the Prime Minister and his party to try to pass off blame for his government's failings. His attempts to smear former prime minister Stephen Harper over the current government's lack of action are pathetic and dishonest.

Canadians should not be surprised to learn that the reason Canada does not have any capacity to manufacture its own vaccine is a direct consequence of the policy of the Prime Minister's father, Pierre, when he eliminated patent protection for drug manufacturers. This policy produced short-term gain for the long-term pain Canadians find themselves in today. The short-term gain was the drop in drug prices when the patent protection was reduced. The pain was felt more slowly.

When the Liberal Party changed the patent protection of new drugs in 1969, it led to a brain drain. There was an exodus of major drug companies that used to do their research in Canada. The University of Toronto was world-renowned as the place Banting and Best did their Nobel Prize-calibre research that led to the discovery of insulin. Montreal had a vibrant research community. That proud legacy has been lost.

What Canada received in its place were knock-offs: cheap generic drugs that rely on the work of others. It was not until the election of a Conservative government in 1984 that a real attempt was made to reverse the damage. During legislative committee hearings, the deans of the leading medical schools pleaded with Conservative parliamentarians to fix Pierre's mistake. If a gifted Canadian medical researcher wanted to continue in his or her field, they were forced to leave Canada. This fact was noticed in our medical schools.

For every successful discovery of a miracle drug, there are a hundred failures. The money for failures comes from the successes. The pharmaceutical companies could not afford to have their research stolen by generic companies. It made sense to do their drug research where they manufactured the drugs. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board that was formed could not bring back the companies that had fled Canada. Whenever government interferes in the marketplace, a price must be paid. The price today is Canada has no domestic capability to manufacture its own vaccine. This leaves Canadians and its enterprises where we are today.

I now correct the record from comments made by the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who wrongly stated on national media that Canada does not have any domestic vaccine production because GlaxoSmithKline Canada closed its facility during the Harper years. In fact, the former CEO of that facility confirmed it is still operational and manufactures much of Canada’s annual flu vaccine. The retired CEO of pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline went on to state:

The Mulroney and Harper governments supported the innovative industry by improving the patent landscape but Canada only partially recovered and to this day does not have globally competitive patent protection. The negative trend continues even now with the imminent implementation of a punitive pricing regime through new federal...[set of] regulations. One now has to ask: where are the generic companies when we badly need innovation? Liberal government pharmaceutical policy has failed Canadians at our time of greatest need.

The punitive legislation being referred to is legislation that the federal government rammed through Parliament before the last election and which Bill C-14 should be fixing. The government needs to be open, honest and transparent with Canadians about the true cost of the pharmacare promise made to the fourth party in the House of Commons.

This is what the president of Pfizer Canada has to say about that bad legislation made by the federal government before the last election:

The reality is, had the government applied its new pricing guidelines to COVID-19 vaccine candidates, our ability to move at the speed of science would have been restricted. This should be a key learning. As future innovative breakthrough treatments in areas such as oncology, rare disease and acute care are discovered, Canada needs to have a regulatory and pricing framework that encourages and fosters early access for patients.

In this regard, our industry association Innovative Medicines Canada has proposed an alternative approach to the federal government that would allow it to achieve its public policy objectives of reducing the price of drugs without undermining patient access to potentially life-saving medicines or vaccines, clinical trials, or investments in the country’s life sciences sector.

The shortage that Canadians are facing today is a direct result of bad decisions made by a succession of Liberal governments.

I will conclude with those remarks.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, in previous comments by the member for Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, he stressed the importance of working across party lines and orders of government. I did not get that same sense from the recent intervention by the foregoing member.

Could the member comment on the importance of all parties working together to fight the pandemic, versus fighting each other?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks with a quote from the Financial Post article previously referenced, and perhaps this will lend some information to the member who just questioned me:

When it comes to vaccine supply Canada should be in the same position as these other leading countries. Instead, we are three to four months behind. How many more people will die in this pandemic who wouldn’t have if the federal government had done a better job acquiring more early doses? How many more businesses will fail? How long will the lockdowns go on? Months matter in this struggle. Days matter. Unfortunately, Canadians are paying a steep price.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

On the news this morning they were saying how well Israel is doing with its vaccination plan. That reminded me that the entire population of Canada is the victim of the Liberal government’s poor planning in vaccination procurement, as my colleague mentioned in her speech. To what does she attribute this, and why is Canada behind in vaccination procurement?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, from the outset, the government led by the Prime Minister clearly did not take this outbreak seriously. A year before, they had dismantled our early warning system, and then they backfilled any PPE that we had, or sent the expired ones to China. When it was discovered that the virus had originated in Wuhan, he never stopped flights from coming in. He did not stop anyone from spreading it. He did not start contact tracing until the virus had manifested itself right across Canada.

Liberals did not have the pharmaceuticals in place because they scared off all the pharmaceutical companies. Now we are left behind. While the rest of the world is recovering, we are still going to be looking for vaccines.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always listen with interest to speeches by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and, of course, I enjoy working with her on the defence committee. As usual, we seem to live in different worlds. We have one point in common here, which is that we should have capacity in Canada to produce our vaccines.

I want to ask about the commitment that the government made, with the support of New Democrats, to have sick leave in place for workers so that those who need to stay home in quarantine or who need to stay home because they have symptoms, will not have to go to work if they have paid sick leave. The Conservatives have often talked about disincentives to work, so I wonder in this case whether they would join the other parties in supporting an effective program for sick leave, both to help workers maintain their paycheques and to prevent the spread of the virus.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing Conservatives do is respect jurisdictions, and requirements for sick pay fall within provincial jurisdiction and law. When we form government, we will of course be pleased to work with the provinces in any way to prepare for the future.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to contribute to the debate on this important bill. Bill C-14 would implement several important measures from the fall economic statement which highlighted the additional steps our government is taking to support Canadians and Canadian businesses during the second wave of the pandemic.

This bill, in seven parts, would provide much needed economic support for Canadians. The measures include increasing our supports for families with young children, helping students, investing in mental health resources and improving the long-term care system. It also makes important adjustments to the Borrowing Authority Act, the regional relief and recovery fund and the Canada emergency rent subsidy.

In addition to those measures, it proposes to deploy a three-year stimulus package to jump-start our recovery and provide the fiscal support that the Canadian economy needs to operate at a full capacity. Today, I would like to address these important measures and how they will truly support Canadians and Canadian businesses.

We know that many families with young children have been struggling trying to find affordable child care during the pandemic. For these families, we are introducing a temporary support of up to $1,200 for each child under the age of six. This support will be provided to low- and middle-income families who are entitled to the Canada child benefit. This would benefit more than 10,000 families in my riding of Richmond Hill.

We will also help the students in our country. During this time, we have heard from many students who are burdened by student debt and are struggling to find work. We are committed to ensuring that this pandemic does not derail their futures. The bill would eliminate interest on the repayment of the federal portion of the Canada student loan and the Canada apprentice loan for 2021-22. This measure will bring $329.4 million in relief to up to 1.4 million Canadians. This, on average, will amount to $235 of interest potentially saved for each student. This money can be used to buy textbooks, computers and other necessary resources for our nation's students.

As mentioned earlier, our government has a plan to help our nation's most vulnerable. The COVID-19 outbreak in long-term care homes has been tragic and completely unacceptable. The pandemic has further highlighted the need for significant improvements in the standard and care of our most vulnerable. Bill C-14 will invest in a safe long-term care fund to help provinces and territories protect people in long-term care and support infection prevention and control. We are committing up to $1 billion in support to ensure that every resident in our long-term care system is supported.

The COVID-19 Emergency Response Act passed on March 25, 2020. It permitted the government to borrow to fund its response to the extraordinary circumstances from April 1 until September 30, 2020. These borrowings are exempt from the overall borrowing limit set out in the act. A separate external borrowing report was tabled in Parliament on October 22, 2020. It provides details of the amounts borrowed.

The proposed measures in Bill C-14 would increase the maximum borrowing amount from $1.168 trillion to $1.831 trillion to cover projected borrowing until March 2024 and will include external borrowing made as a result of COVID-19. The new limit will allow the government to continue to support Canadians and businesses in my riding of Richmond Hill through the pandemic. As well, it will allow for a necessary investment once the pandemic is over to power a robust, sustained recovery in job growth to March 2024.

The action the government has taken and plans to take will help Canada come roaring back from the COVID-19 recession and prevent the long-term economic scarring that would weaken our post-pandemic recovery. The bill before us would also authorize payments to be made to Canada's six regional development agencies for the regional relief and recovery fund.

The government announced the $962-million regional relief and recovery fund on April 17 to help support those businesses unable to access other pandemic support programs. It provides this significant funding through Canada's regional development agencies. The government expanded the fund on October 2, bringing the total support to more than $1.5 billion.

In the COVID-19 context, the regional development agencies are playing a vital role in helping to bridge small and medium-sized businesses to better times. To date, the regional relief and recovery fund has protected over 102,000 jobs and supported over 14,700 businesses, including 8,500 clients in rural areas and 5,100 women-owned businesses.

As a next step, the fall economic statement proposed a top-up of $500 million on a cash basis to regional development agencies and the Community Futures Network of Canada, bringing the total funding to over $2 billion in this fund.

Finally, the bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to allow for the Canada emergency rent subsidy to recognize a rent payment as a qualifying rent expense when it comes due rather than only when it is paid, provided certain conditions are met. We are still in a situation in which not all small businesses have the cash flow to pay their rent on the first of the month, with a reimbursement to come later. The new rent subsidy provides simple and easy-to-access rent and mortgage support for qualifying organizations affected by COVID-19. It is provided directly to the tenants while also providing support to property owners.

In addition, under the lockdown support program, organizations that must shut their doors or significantly restrict their activities under a public health order are eligible for a 25% top-up in addition to the base rent subsidy of up to 65% until December 19, 2020. This means hard-hit businesses in my riding of Richmond Hill that have had to shut their doors because of provincial lockdowns are eligible to receive up to 90% support for rent and mortgage interest.

To provide greater certainty to businesses and other organizations, the fall economic statement proposes to extend the current subsidy rent for an additional three periods. This means that a maximum base subsidy rate of up to 65% and an additional 25% for lockdown support would be available until March 13, 2021. The government will put in place regulations to effect this extension.

These are important changes to the program and are pieces of legislation that will allow the government to continue to provide direct support to Canadians so that they can pay their rent and mortgage and feed their families. It also provides scalable support to businesses to help bridge them through the crisis and keep Canadians healthy, safe and solvent.

In closing, better days are coming. The government has a plan to get through the pandemic and the recession and to recover strongly. We will do whatever it takes to support Canadians and get the economy firmly back on track.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the array of government programs that are available, but at the same time the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has identified that 200,000 Canadian small businesses may fail this year because of COVID-19. The future success that we need to move forward in getting people back to work is a vaccine. It means getting vaccines here and getting people inoculated. As the government's own COVID-19 tracker said today, only 113,000 Canadians have received two doses of the vaccine.

Will the member say that the ultimate success of getting the economy back to work is getting people vaccinated?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to make sure there are vaccines available, as Canadians need them. We have made sure there will be 1.1 million vaccines available in the spring, and by the end of September there are going to be vaccines available to all Canadians who want to be vaccinated. With a total of six million vaccines being available by the end of spring, we feel that we are well on our path to recovery.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to go back to the part of the bill that addresses the extension of the Canada emergency response benefit, an emergency measure I approve of because it has helped many people. However, it is rapidly becoming a source of concern for others, with the tax season around the corner. Canadians are starting to receive their T4s.

Some of them are learning that they owe income tax for the CERB, for which they never applied. Then they quickly realize that they are victims of fraud. Whether through this bill or otherwise, has the government considered measures to better support victims of fraud? When people call the Canada Revenue Agency they are referred to Service Canada, but both agencies keep passing the buck. There is confusion, and that is causing anxiety for many people. How is the government going to help them?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we were made aware of the concerns that Canadians had. The government took the necessary steps to inform Canadians early in December, especially the ones who received the CERB, and provided needed alternatives to processes to make sure that their taxes would be filed properly and that no undue hardship would be put on them.

I recommend that Canadians reach out to the CRA and their members of Parliament to work with them to make sure they truly understand those measures.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, time and time again we have heard Liberals saying that they have done everything they can for seniors in LTCs, yet that is simply not true.

It is true that the government has provided investments for long-term care, such as wage subsidies, but it is also true that these private LTCs are sitting on mountains of profit while collecting federal subsidies and paying out dividends. They are doing this at the exact same time that they are cutting wages and not providing critical PPE to their workers and residents.

Will the member work within his caucus to ensure that every dollar invested in LTCs results in the care of its patients and seniors?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government has always committed to full accountability and transparency. We will continue working with the provinces and territories to make sure of the funding being granted. As Canadians know, $8 out of every $10 provided as part of the emergency funds is coming from the federal government.

We have provided billions of dollars in support of long-term care and we will work with the provinces and territories to make sure that these funds are put to effective use.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, happy new year.

I speak on Bill C-14 this afternoon, which is legislation that, among other things, increases the federal spending authority from a staggering $1.1 trillion to an astronomical $1.8 trillion.

For a government that spends tens of billions of dollars here, hundreds of billions of dollars there, racks up a debt of more than $1 trillion, it is tough to keep track of exactly what $1.8 trillion means in context. My friend, colleague and former fellow finance committee member, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, put it into some important context yesterday when he spoke to Bill C-14. In that regard, my colleague noted that in the more than 150 years since Canada's founding in 1867, total accumulated federal debt equalled $700 billion in the beginning of 2020. In the span of a single year, that debt level rose an astounding 50% to $1.1 trillion. Now we have before us legislation that is contemplating and indeed authorizing the debt ceiling to rise to $1.8 trillion—in other words, more than double the total accumulated debt since 1867, all within the span of a little more than a year.

If that is not unsustainable, I frankly do not know what is, yet one would not know that if one were to listen to the speeches from Liberal MPs across the way. They seem to believe there is no issue and go on at great lengths to pat themselves on the back for the supposedly wonderful job they have been doing since COVID and, more broadly, for the government's economic track record.

If the metric by which to judge the government was on the basis of how much it spent, it absolutely could pat itself on the back or get an A, but when it comes to delivering results for Canadians, someone who is objective would be hard pressed to give the current government anything close to an A, for its track record has been wanting, to say the least. After all, it is a government that has delivered the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, save for the stagnant and socialist economy of Italy. It is a government that has delivered the slowest rate of economic growth in the G7. It is a government that has presided over a decline with respect to Canada's competitiveness. Under Prime Minister Harper's government, Canada was within the top 10 countries in the world with respect to competitiveness. We have now fallen to 17th and we are declining further.

The current government presided over a time when we have seen divestment from Canada, with $160 billion of investment in the energy sector gone. In the last week we saw a major pipeline project, the Keystone XL pipeline project, cancelled for the second time by the second U.S. administration under the current Prime Minister's watch, and he could barely pick up the phone and call the new president to make a case for Keystone as thousands of Canadians lost their jobs, including Canadians in my very hard-hit home province of Alberta.

Consumption is set to grow five times faster than investment over the next two years, and, as depressing as those economic numbers are, when one speaks of the massive deficit, the massive mountain of debt that has been accumulated, it is not any rosier. Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio has hit a staggering 387%, including government, personal and corporate debt. By far and away, it is the second highest in the G7, save only for Japan, which ekes us out for first place at a little over 400%, which is hardly something we should be aspiring to.

When it comes to the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, the numbers are equally concerning, with that ratio climbing from 31% last year to 56% for next year. Sometimes when we talk about numbers, they need to be put in context, so what is the context of going from a 31% debt-to-GDP ratio to 56%? The historical high was 66.6% in 1996, at a time when the Wall Street Journal ran the unflattering headline “Bankrupt Canada”, comparing us with a third world banana republic. There was truth to that unfortunate headline, inasmuch as Canada was effectively bankrupt in 1996. Literally no one would buy Canada's debt. That, of course, resulted in very difficult decisions, with significant cuts being made to social programs and transfers to the provinces by the former Chrétien Liberal government.

Very simply put: why would we ever want to go back to those years? Yet, that is where we are headed if we stay on the current course.

It is true that right now interest rates are very low, at around 1%. That is about the only thing this government has going for it at the present time. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the former head of the Bank of Canada, in testimony before the finance committee, stated that interest rates are bound to go up in the foreseeable future as a result of inflationary pressures. That really should not be news to anyone. Therefore, when one thinks about a simple 1% hike, let alone the average rate over the past number of decades being 5%, it is very difficult to imagine the cost of servicing the now $1.1 trillion debt, which is soon to be $1.8 trillion in debt, and if the government does not change course, it will be over $2 trillion in debt.

What Canadians need right now is more than a plan to spend money; we need a plan to get Canadians back to work, to get businesses open again and to do it safely, and that includes a strategy around a vaccine distribution plan. In that regard the current government has no plan. Canadians deserve to get their lives back. They deserve a plan from the government and, unfortunately, that has been sorely lacking.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just heard this member go on for 10 minutes about the debt that has been incurred over the last 10 months as though he were not part of it. The reality is that he voted in favour at every single step of the way to spend this money, quite often through unanimous consent motions. All he had to do, and we know he does not have a problem speaking up when he feels like it, when unanimous consent motions were brought forward, was to say no. That would have triggered a whole series of events to get into the fine critiquing of every single spending measure. However, he voted in favour of them at every step of the way.

Quite frankly, it is getting tiring listening to Conservatives rail on and on about the debt all day long in here, when they were part of spending that money over the last 10 months. How can this member possibly be so critical of it, when he was right there every step of the way, spending the money with us?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me acknowledge first of all that this is an extraordinary time and there has been some spending that has been required. I do not dispute that.

Conservatives have tried to work with the government to get dollars out to workers and businesses and Canadians who need it, but that being said, it is also true that out of the $375 billion deficit, only about $175 billion relates to direct COVID spending, so it is equally true that the government has a spending problem far beyond the necessary measures to help Canadians get through COVID.

Quite frankly, as much as there has been some need for spending, I am surprised that the hon. member would not be concerned about the fact that if we are going to reopen, we need to do so safely and need to get Canadians vaccinated. The government has wholly failed as we move into on what is now the most important next phase of COVID.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to wish you a happy new year.

My question for my colleague is as follows: What does he think about the government’s transparency at this time when the Parliamentary Budget Officer is telling us that, if the aim is to help the economy recover from the pandemic, the government may have missed the mark? What does he think about that?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would concur with the member's assessment of the PBO that the government has been less than transparent. This problem with transparency has been a long-standing one we have had with the government. It does not just relate to fiscal and economic issues, but also includes their being straight with Canadians on where Canada is with the vaccine distribution plan.

Where does Canada fit in terms of receiving vaccines relative to other countries? Are other vaccines beyond Pfizer one part of the government's plan and are we waiting for approval of such vaccines?

Those are basic questions that go with being open and transparent, something the government has not been.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the member. I have to say that when we talk about deficits and deficit spending, particularly in this context, one of the things we know is that had the federal government not stepped in with a lot of financial relief, that same deficit would simply have been on the books of individual Canadian households. Millions of Canadians would have been facing bankruptcy. Of course, that would have had serious economic consequences.

There is a question of how we raise revenue to be able to fund social programs going forward. The NDP has suggested many times closing things like the corporate stock option loopholes and other ways to get at the wealth of the people at the top who have been receiving a bigger and bigger share of the pie for decades now.

We hear Conservatives complain about the deficit. They are not willing to support us when we talk about taxing the rich to make sure that we have a fair tax system. Then they do not really acknowledge the consequences of having no public spending at this time and what it would have meant not only for individual Canadians, but also for the economy overall.

Could the member finally offer a reckoning of some of these points for people in the House?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, given the brief time I have to answer the member for Elmwood—Transcona, let me simply say that he speaks of a reckoning: We will face a fiscal reckoning if we stay on the current course.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish you a happy 2021.

I am pleased to be able to speak today about Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.

Bill C-14 is an essential step to implement measures from the fall economic statement that would provide assistance to families with young children, support students and invest in resources to protect the health and safety of Canadians as we continue our fight against COVID-19.

Canadians have been hit hard by the pandemic in the past 10 months. Whether financially, physically or psychologically, everyone has been affected by COVID-19 one way or another. Nearly 20,000 Canadians have died from the virus. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs and much of their family income because of the closure of countless businesses. People are also suffering mental health problems like never before in our lifetime as a result of isolation.

Our government has done its best to be there for Canadians through it all. Among the measures that are included in this bill is an increase to the Canada child benefit, referred to by its acronym, the CCB, for low- and middle-income families, totalling up to $1,200 in 2021 for each child under the age of six. We know that it is expensive to raise a child, and doing so during such uncertain times can be extremely stressful. The price of groceries and other necessities has gone up.

It is important for us to support families by giving Canadians who are raising small children, and who need it most, a boost. I know that many of the families in my riding will be benefiting from this measure. The total increase in the CCB payments will be amount to about 20% of the maximum annual payment, and this measure will benefit 1.6 million families and 2.1 million children in Canada.

Data show us that young people are the ones hardest hit by the COVID-19 job losses in Canada. It is more difficult now for young Canadians to get a good job in their field after they graduate than it was before. That is why our government has tried to find new and innovative ways to support young Canadians by creating opportunities for them to gain relevant work and volunteer experience.

Additionally, thanks to Bill C-14, we will be able to ease the financial burden of student debt during the recovery for up to 1.4 million Canadians by eliminating the interest on repayment of the federal portion of the Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans for the year 2021-22. This measure will bring $329.4 million in relief to Canadians who are looking for work or who are otherwise in the early stages of their careers.

As I mentioned before, our economy was hit hard by the lockdowns in various provinces. Small businesses such as restaurants and local shops have been severely affected by the public health measures, yet many are doing their best to stay open and keep their workers on the payroll.

Fortunately, thanks to the co-operation of all of the members in the House and our government's initiative, we have succeeded in helping numerous Canadian businesses since the start of the crisis. The wage subsidy and the original rent relief program known as Canada emergency commercial rent assistance for small businesses helped companies survive until the summer, when they were finally allowed to reopen. However, the program had its problems. Not all businesses were able to benefit, since they had to rely on their landlord to apply to the federal government.

At the time, many businesses in my riding had reached out to me to let me know that this was not working for them because their landlords were not willing to help them. The government came back with a better program that allowed businesses to apply directly for rental assistance. Bill C-14 will allow even more flexibility to help businesses during their most difficult moments, as it formally provides that an expense, such rent, can qualify as an eligible expense under the new Canada emergency rent subsidy when it becomes due, so businesses can access the subsidy before the expense is actually paid.

More importantly, Bill C‑14 will give the government additional funds to help Canadians get through the pandemic and return to normal as quickly and effectively as possible.

Since many Canadians have been living in isolation for the past 10 months, some of them have developed mental health issues. For many of them, it has become a major problem. Furthermore, many family doctors are not seeing patients in person right now, instead offering services by telephone or video conference because that is safer for everyone.

In an effort to provide them with the best support possible, in this bill, our government will invest $133 million to improve access to virtual care, mental health tools and substance use programs in order to help those who, in addition to trying to survive COVID-19, are struggling with addiction and fighting for their mental health as well as their overall health.

Additionally, Canadians can expect, and they do expect, their government to invest in a way out of the current reality we are living in. They want the vaccines to come quickly so we can return to normalcy and our businesses can begin to reopen. Thanks to measures already put in place, our government has been able to invest millions in testing, medical research, vaccines and more.

Bill C-14 would provide the government with up to an additional $262.6 million for a suite of COVID-19 initiatives, including testing, medical research, counter measures, vaccine funding and development, border and travel measures, and isolation sites for those returning Canadians.

Bill C-14 would allow our government to continue making the necessary investments to weather the pandemic and support the economic recovery. Now is not the time for austerity. It is time to invest the amount we need to in order to get Canadians out of the situation they are in, a situation that everyone is tired of and that is taking a major toll on all Canadians.

It is time to invest in vaccines. It is time to invest in ensuring Canadians have what they need to get through this difficult time.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Saint‑Laurent spoke at length about ways of getting out of this health crisis and, of course, addressed the issue of vaccines. Let us talk about that.

People seem to be surprised that the United States and the European Commission are putting their own citizens first. Quebec actually used to have vaccine laboratories. The government did not realize how little vaccine manufacturing capacity there is. In its economic statement, instead of figuring out how to make up for our dependence on foreign manufacturers, the government is proposing standards for long-term care facilities.

Does my colleague not think that her government should focus on our dependence on foreign vaccine manufacturing, because there will be more pandemics?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc québécois for her question.

I am entirely in agreement that Canada should address this question and find ways of producing vaccines here. Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic is the first major pandemic our generation has faced. It is obvious that we need to invest in businesses that develop vaccines. However, it was very important to invest in the seven businesses that were already producing vaccines.

It was also very important to invest in our long-term care facilities, because the pandemic brought serious problems to light. I still agree that we need to invest in research and find ways of strengthening our domestic pharmaceutical companies.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about mental health and addiction. I was with my new friend Mark, who has had his own recovery journey of living with addictions. He lived at a therapeutic treatment centre, long-term care that gave him the complex supports he needed.

I joined Mark on Sunday morning because there were 38 people sleeping in doorways in Port Alberni. They have nowhere to live. We had coffee, hot chocolate and some food with them on Sunday morning, and everyone said they cannot get anywhere without help.

The member talked about a way out. They need a way out, and the rapid housing initiative the Liberals announced, the 3,000 units, is not even a drop in the bucket. There are 360,000 Canadians who are homeless on any given day.

We have not seen any units in Port Alberni. We have an application in, but rural communities are being forgotten. People are dying. The federal government needs to step up instead of downloading onto the provinces.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that homelessness is a major problem, and it has only been highlighted because of the pandemic. More people are on the streets now than there were before. Our government was the first in decades to propose the national housing strategy, where $40 billion was to be invested in housing. Some of that money has gone out the door already to help with these investments, help build homes for people who do not have them and create affordable housing.

We are on the right track. I would strongly encourage the member to talk to Minister Hussen, who would probably be very willing to work with him in order—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the member that she is not to use the names of ministers or individuals.

We have time for a brief question. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for outlining all of these different programs and needs that Canadians have.

One of the things I am deeply concerned about right now is the growing inequality and wealth disparity in this country. We have seen that over a long period of time, but right now we have 200,000 businesses that could go bankrupt and disappear, while the big box stores are surviving.

Does the hon. member think that it is time for a wealth tax and for a better and fairer tax system in this country?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is something that I am concerned about as well. I am going to be working with the government to see how we can move forward in order to help solve this problem and make Canada a fairer place for everyone.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we said, we will support this bill. However, we are still disappointed. We need to do more than what is in the bill, much more.

First I will reiterate our requests, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will include them in her first budget, which we are eagerly awaiting. The betting is that it could come as early as late February, or else in March or April.

The federal government needs to contribute its fair share to health care. I heard the hon. member for Saint-Laurent say in her speech that long-term care facilities need funding, but she did not say anything about the standards the government wants to impose. Our long-term care facilities do not need standards, they need better funding. Barely 20¢ of every dollar spent on health care comes from the federal government. The rest is paid by Quebec and the provinces. This is unfair, and it needs to change. Health care costs have exploded since the beginning of the pandemic, and the federal government needs to increase funding on a permanent basis.

We are also asking for a permanent increase to the old age pension, since seniors were hit hard during the health crisis and deserve support.

I would also like to mention the need to immediately create a special committee to study COVID-19 spending, because it is an urgent matter. Yes, businesses and workers and their families needed and still need help to get through the pandemic.

We have made several proposals that were accepted. All this costs money, which is normal, but we cannot forget the size of the deficit, as the Liberals are doing. It is a costly legacy to leave to future generations, and given the government's reckless spending, the WE scandal and the awarding of dubious contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, it is urgent that we create the special committee that the government promised us to make sure that taxpayer money is being used for the right reasons, namely to help Canadians, not cronies.

We would have liked this bill and the economic statement to focus more on environmental issues. We have my colleague from Repentigny here who is proudly taking on this fight against climate change to protect the environment. The government is failing to implement a green recovery like we are proposing. The section on the environment is one of the smallest in the entire economic statement. The federal government is missing yet another opportunity to join the 21st century, create jobs and restart the economy with clean energy, research and regional economic development. Instead the government is merely announcing yet again that it may plant some trees some day. I sincerely hope that the upcoming budget will focus on a recovery that emphasizes the environment and a real green economy.

I want to come back to November's economic statement, which this bill is based on. A credit program for highly affected sectors was announced. We did not have any details until today, when we finally got a little bit of information about it. I am sure that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue will ask me about that. The pandemic has been going on for more than 10 months, but the federal government says that it is still not ready to provide help to the tourism, hospitality, arts and culture, or major events sectors. We also see that Ottawa still has not announced any support for the aerospace sector. Clearly, a lot of work remains to be done for the industries hardest hit by COVID‑19.

There were good intentions in the statement, but there is nothing in the bill. Today I got a little message saying that we will discuss it when I am questioned about it. Before the pandemic hit, Canada was the only country with a major aerospace industry but no aerospace policy. That is unacceptable. The pandemic had a direct impact on the industry, one it will not soon recover from. Some say it will take a decade. The government must urgently set up a targeted support program for the industry. France, Europe and the United States have done so, but Canada has not. The industry plays too important a role in our economy, especially Quebec's economy, to be abandoned. The government must take urgent action.

In addition to creating a targeted support program and an industry-specific strategy, the government should make better use of its civilian and military procurement budgets to buy Canadian-made aircraft. It should also set up a program to finance purchases of aircraft made in Canada to make it easier to sell them under the present conditions. The strategy also needs to include strong support for research and development. That is crucial in high-tech sectors like aerospace.

Our industry needs to stay on the leading edge, especially when it comes to the environment. Let me remind the House that the plane manufactured in Mirabel is the most fuel‑efficient plane in the world. It is therefore ideally placed to fight climate change. In addition, it is the only plane capable of circulating fresh air while in flight, which is a significant advantage in a pandemic. The airlines that have these planes are leaving their other models on the ground in order to fly them because of the advantages I just mentioned. If there were a sales program, it would help them significantly.

One of the good things about the economic update is, of course, that the GST will apply to web giants as of July 1, 2021, but also that their revenue in Canada will be taxed by 2022. At last, some good news.

However, there is no reason to wait. This government has the power to act now, and it must act now. Quebec's culture and economy are suffering from the pandemic while the web giants are raking in record profits. These giants must take part in the recovery by paying what other companies are paying, sooner than next summer. They are currently exempt, which is unacceptable and must change. We welcome these announcements, but all of this can be done sooner than has been announced.

As I mentioned earlier, we will have to wait until we see the budget to learn more about the Liberals' recovery plan. Most of the measures in both the economic statement and Bill C‑14 are measures that had already been announced rather than plans for the future. We are disappointed that the government is making highly targeted expenditures but not addressing the actual problem. We are in the midst of a public health crisis and we need to prioritize health and vulnerable Quebeckers and Canadians.

I want to touch on one last point, about the Canada emergency wage subsidy. We have heard from all kinds of workers on this issue. Some large employers are apparently requesting this subsidy solely for the employees who are still working at the company and not for the workers that the company chose to lay off.

Since the implementation of the emergency wage subsidy, the government has gone on and on about how this subsidy is meant to help and provide an income for workers, including those who were laid off. This is in line with the spirit of the measures intended to help us through the pandemic, and it also helps maintain that employer-employee relationship. This is meant to help stabilize the economy and get it back up and running more quickly.

Why are some large employers refusing to pay this subsidy to the workers they laid off? We need to look into this issue, understand what is happening and do something about it. The government is implementing programs with the support of the House. In this case, some large employers appear to be misusing the program. That does not work and we need to change it. We will come back to this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my question is about something that I have believed for many years as a parliamentarian, both at the provincial legislature in Manitoba and now as a member of Parliament in Ottawa. It is with regard to the important issue of health care. No matter the region, province or territory I have had discussions with, there seems to be a general feeling, which has been reinforced during the pandemic, that the federal government has more of a role to play in health care than just giving money. Long-term care and a pharmacare program are the two specific areas that constituents want me to advocate for.

I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on the idea that we need a national government to be involved in health care beyond just giving out cash.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his intervention, his comments and his question.

Clearly, he and I are not talking to the same people. I invite him to come to Quebec—virtually, of course, because of the pandemic—and visit the Quebec National Assembly to speak with any elected official there. Every one of them will tell him that health is a Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, and that all roles and standards are for Quebec to decide. It is not up to Ottawa to decide these matters.

In closing, I would remind the House that for every dollar spent on health care, just over 20¢ comes from Ottawa, while Quebeckers pay half of their taxes to the federal government. We can do better.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his description of the leading-edge clean aerospace technology.

The government has had a string of failures, led by the Prime Minister, such as the dismantling of GPHIN, the early-warning system for viruses; plowing PPE into landfills; refusing to allow rapid testing until October; no serum testing except for blood donors; and refusing to allow soldiers returning from the Military World Games in Wuhan, just before the virus was exposed, to be tested for COVID. Now the government is intimating that it will decide who is going to get to travel outside of Canada and who is not.

Given this wonderful aerospace technology being developed in the member's riding, what is he going to do and what are these future employees going to do if Canadians cannot travel?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.

The aerospace sector is not in my riding, but it obviously plays a vital role in Quebec's overall economy. There is, of course, a clear link between aerospace and aviation. In light of the pandemic and the COVID‑19 variants, extra caution is required. That is what the Quebec premier has been telling the Prime Minister over and over again. We need to pay attention and we need to take action.

Early on, in the first wave, this government did not do its job. This caused more infections than we should have had. The Quebec government is saying that we need to pay attention. It is important to have a long-term vision, for when this crisis is behind us.

The aerospace industry is extremely important and must be supported so it can make a full recovery.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, the question I want to ask my colleague concerns the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that we need leadership from the federal government.

As we know, many indigenous communities are going through a real crisis. Not only do they need more vaccines, but they also need investments in clean drinking water and a solution to the housing crisis.

Does my colleague believe that this should be a priority for the federal government, which does not seem to be the case, so that progress and real improvements can be made to the situation of people who are suffering right now?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, in short, yes. The Manawan Atikamekw live in my riding. They are in desperate need of health care. We stand with them. The government must do more for health care, especially during a pandemic.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity today to discuss our government’s plan to fight COVID-19 and support Canadians.

At the beginning of the pandemic, our government acted quickly and decisively to support Canadians through the crisis to help workers, businesses, the provinces and territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and public health officers to do the right thing. Our government has made major investments in health care, income support, paid sick leave and responding to the urgent needs of businesses. Our commitment to do whatever it takes to keep Canadians safe, healthy and solvent through the turbulence of this pandemic has always been at the heart of our plan to ensure that we are well positioned for a resilient recovery.

When the virus is under control and our economy is ready to absorb it, our government will deploy a stimulus package of up to between $70 billion and $100 billion over the next three fiscal years, roughly valuated at between 3% to 4% of GDP. The growth plan will help us jump-start our recovery toward an economy that is greener, more innovative, more inclusive and more competitive. We will make smart, time-limited investments that act fast, while also making a long-term contribution to our shared prosperity, our competitiveness and our green transformation. We will spend this winter working with Canadians to plan and prepare these investments when the virus is under control.

Canadians know that inequality makes our economy less resilient, so it is key for us to ensure that young people have the opportunity to acquire skills and work experience, that all Canadians have the means to find housing, that women can fully participate in our economy, that racialized Canadians and indigenous people who missed opportunities are given a chance and that all communities have the 21st century infrastructure that people need. This plan includes investments in good jobs for Canadians and helps deliver on our commitment to create millions of jobs and bring jobs back to pre-pandemic levels. The investments proposed in the fall economic statement will help us achieve these goals, lay the foundation for a fair and lasting recovery and create good jobs for all Canadians.

When it comes to jobs, many Canadians have already faced barriers to pre-pandemic employment, and they are now at risk of falling even further behind. This could have a long-term impact on their ability to build a career and create financial security for themselves and their families.

That is why our government proposes to invest an additional $274 million over two years to further bolster training programs for those hardest hit by the pandemic, including marginalized and racialized women, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and recent newcomers to Canada. This funding will support the indigenous skills and employment training program, the foreign credential recognition program, the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities and the women’s employment readiness Canada pilot project.

Let me reassure members of the House that our government is committed to ensuring that our job plan addresses the unique characteristics of this crisis and the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on women. Job losses have affected people across Canada. They seem to have had a reassuring rebound, as 80% of the jobs lost at the beginning of the pandemic have been recovered, but employment gains have been slower for women.

As many of the hardest-hit industries disproportionately employ women, women have also faced a greater loss of earnings and hours worked. Lockdowns have led to closures of schools and child care centres across the country. For families with young children, it was more often than not mothers who took on the unpaid burden of care for children, many of them reducing their hours or leaving their jobs entirely. In September, our government announced in the Speech from the Throne that we will create an action plan for women in the economy to help more women get back into the workforce and ensure a feminist intersectional response to this pandemic and recovery.

With this fall economic statement, we are announcing the creation of a task force of diverse experts to help the government develop this plan. We are bringing the task force together in the coming weeks to begin the work of advising the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on policies and measures to be included in the government's stimulus plan to support women's employment throughout the recovery period.

What is good for everyone must also be good for young people. The economic impact of COVID-19 on young Canadians is disproportionate. It is important that the government ensure that this pandemic does not derail their future.

Young people need to be able to transform their hard-earned knowledge and skills into secure, well-paying jobs. It is essential to their success and to Canada's future prosperity. That is why we are proposing to build on the employment, skills development and education supports available to young people and students over the summer. These measures include doubling student grants and funding for new employment opportunities with additional measures that will ease the financial burden on students and provide young people with more opportunities to gain work experience.

More specifically, we are proposing to allocate more than $44 million to the Canada summer jobs program to increase the number of internships available; invest more than $575 million over the next two years in the youth employment and skills strategy in order to be able to offer internships for young people; and eliminate the interest on the repayment of the federal portion of Canada student loans and the Canada apprenticeship loan program for 2021-22. This measure will apply to up to 1.4 million Canadians who are looking for work or are in the early stages of their careers.

The final issue I would like to touch on today is the work that we are undertaking to build a more inclusive and diverse Canada. Systemic racism and discrimination is a painful lived reality for Black and racialized Canadians and indigenous peoples. Data shows that racialized Canadians have experienced many of the worst health and economic impacts of the pandemic. Global events during the pandemic have also shone a spotlight on the realities of racism, particularly anti-Black racism, and that it still persists including here in Canada.

Our government has reiterated our commitment to fight racism is all its forms through clear and meaningful proposed investments in our fall economic statement. These are in a number of key areas: economic opportunity, representation at the highest levels of and throughout the public service, diversity in corporate Canada, modernizing the equity legislation to be truly inclusive, community empowerment, and action to address systemic racism in the justice system.

These measures reflect the advocacy and hard work of community leaders across Canada. We will ensure that senior government officials work directly with them to make sure that these programs are delivered as intended. Building on the previous investments, these are early steps in the work to be done to make sure that federal policies appropriately serve the historically underserved and in a manner that all Canadians deserve.

There is no doubt that the direction we take now will decide the future of our country. As members can see from the measures I have highlighted today, the government's stimulus package will make smart investments and create genuine sustained value for many years and generations to come. These are measures that will have a real impact on jobs in the short term and strengthen Canada's competitiveness in the long term. These are measures that will support people and communities hardest hit by this unparalleled economic crisis and provide economic benefits for a more inclusive workforce.

Bill C-14 is the first step in implementing these important measures and I hope that all of the House will support it. We must take advantage of the full potential of Canada and Canadians and what Canadians have to offer to create a stronger, more resilient Canada. Together, and now, is how we build the foundation for a better, fairer and more inclusive Canada for all, the Canada we all deserve.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not like to disillusion the novice MP, but his Liberal government did not act decisively. The government knew about the virus in December and did not do anything about it until St. Patrick's Day. The government told us the virus was not contagious and then told us it was contagious. It told us not to wear masks and now it is the law to wear masks. Millions of people are without jobs, and the government wants to play gender politics.

Let us get the vaccines that people want so desperately so that they can get back to work and out from under Draco's code.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I have been a banker for almost 30 years and have seen our economy endure things like sovereign debt crisis, the tech bubble, the real estate bubble and interest rates at 18%. One thing I have learned throughout all of these crises is it is important for us to work together toward a common goal and avoid acrimonious criticism, which is counterproductive for everyone. I believe this government is willing to work with others and is keen to make sure we have a Canada everyone is proud of.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Newmarket—Aurora for his presentation.

I would like to hear what he has to say about farmers, a group that may have been forgotten in the suite of measures that the government wants to implement by passing Bill C-14. Have farmers been forgotten?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, having grown up on a 50-acre farm, I understand the specific challenges many farmers are facing, based largely on the capital investment required and, in many cases, struggling with the return on equity. I believe our government has undertaken a number of programs that support farmers. That commitment continues and will sustain the farm community as a result of this government being committed to making sure that everybody shares in the recovery as soon as possible.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his remarks, we heard the member reflect that the government has done everything it can for the most vulnerable Canadians, but that simply is not true.

What does the hon. member have to say to the tens of thousands of Canadians living with disabilities, people who are in deep and dire need across the country who have still yet to receive a red cent from the government in support during COVID?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member of the comments I just completed and the commitments this government has outlined with respect to supporting disabled persons.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Newmarket—Aurora was also the mayor of Newmarket. Maybe in that role he gained a sense of how communities work through the not-for-profit organizations. The two of us have had some conversations about this as well.

Could the hon. member share his thoughts on the importance of supporting not-for-profits throughout this pandemic?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that not-for-profit organizations play a critical role in the recovery. We have seen that through some of the programs that are undertaken by the United Way. There are many organizations that contribute to our economy. If we were to give consideration to the volunteer hours that are contributed to our not-for-profit organizations, it would be in the value of $80 billion. Some 4% of our GDP comes from not-for-profit organizations. These organizations are critically facing challenges and therefore, support for not-for-profit organizations is very important.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke referred to the member as a novice member as if to suggest that somehow he was less capable of understanding the concepts that we are engaged in here in Parliament. We should not be referring to people in such a way. I for one enjoy listening to the refreshing remarks from a novice member such as this one.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind members to be careful with the wording they use. However, I believe that the point the member just raised is more of a point of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate that we are having today. The most critical things facing this country right now are the fiscal economic situation and, of course, the vaccine situation. I have the privilege and honour of speaking to the vaccine issue this evening, which is where I am going focus most of my remarks in terms of the fiscal economic update.

Before us today we have Bill C-14, a bill to enact certain provisions of the economic statement. As members are aware, we had an economic statement tabled in this House. It was a fairly significant update, especially considering that we have not had a budget in in this House in the last two years.

First of all, I want to talk a little about history, because if I am leery about what the government is putting before us, it is with very good reason. As many people may recall, at one point the Prime Minister made the very infamous, or famous, comments about how budgets would balance themselves, and from the heart out. Clearly, budgets do not balance themselves.

In 2015 the current Liberal government had the good fortune to assume a very strong economy and a strong fiscal position. After working our way through the global recession, which was an extraordinary challenge, Conservatives did exactly what we said we would do. We said were going to put some stimulus into the economy, and we put that stimulus in. We said we would get back to a balanced budget in a certain time frame. Many, certainly on my side of the House, miss our colleague Jim Flaherty, who was so articulate and so thoughtful in terms of how he was going to deal with both taking care of the economy of the nation and taking care of the government's finances.

After finding that budgets clearly do not balance themselves, the Liberals, who promised a balanced budget, found that they could not do that, so they started to talk about the debt-to-GDP ratio, and Liberals were actually having trouble meeting their fiscal anchors in terms of the debt-to-GDP ratio. Essentially what Liberals have done is abandon any sort of attempt at trying to maintain some sort of control, so we have no fiscal anchor.

Before the crisis hit, we had issues with an aging population and poor productivity. We had challenges and we were heading into some very difficult times. This was pre-pandemic. I do not know if people are aware of the flight of capital that was leaving this country because of some of the policies and positions the Liberal government was putting in place. We were seeing a flight of investments leaving Canada.

The pandemic, of course, is an extraordinary crisis, and countries across the world are having to determine how they are going to deal with this extraordinary crisis.

We now know that we have gone from a $20-billion-plus deficit to likely one over $400 billion and that we have surpassed $1 trillion in debt. Day after day, I have witnessed a Prime Minister out on the porch announcing significant dollars with unfettered concern.

I do want to say, for those Liberals who are listening, that yes, we supported those measures, and yes, they were important measures during these extraordinary circumstances, but we certainly did not support everything the Prime Minister was announcing every day. We did realize that the CERB and rental assistance had to go out. However, there is a difference between supporting measures in the pandemic and some of the unfettered spending that we have seen.

What we have before is a fiscal update and a vague commitment by the Minister of Finance that she was going to have to spend $100 billion to build back better, so Canadians can understand if we are a little leery in terms of what the Liberals plan to do and how they plan to do it.

Within this particular update, there are some important measures. I will talk about the area of specific concern in part 7 after I reflect on one part of what the concern was. This is where the government needs to do some soul-searching and really wonder how it handled this pandemic. I am talking about long-term care homes.

We know that the vast majority of the deaths from the pandemic have been in our long-term care homes. We knew that in phase one. When we look at the tragedy that is happening today and what is happening in our long-term care homes, it has to break our hearts.

I certainly remember that at the time, we said the government had a window of opportunity to prepare for phase two. We knew we had challenges in our homes and we knew we had some time between phase one and phase two. What happened? The government got so sidetracked with the WE scandal and other issues that, other than sending some money to the provinces to support vulnerable populations, it did nothing.

We now have a commitment from the government for a few things. One is $1 billion for our long-term care homes. It is too late. That $1 billion should have been in the hands of the provinces between phase one and phase two to deal with infection control and do the minor modifications that would make the environment safer through investing capital into infrastructure for airflow. The Liberals had a window of opportunity; they missed it, and now they are saying that they are going to give $1 billion. By the time that money gets out the door, hopefully our residents will be vaccinated, but they missed an opportunity to do what needed to be done, and now they are saying they are going to give $1 billion for measures that should have been done months ago.

The other thing is that their answer to long-term care was talking about national standards. Whether one agrees with national standards or does not agree, everyone in government knew that it would take years to develop national standards. It was not a measure that was going to deal with the crisis of the pandemic.

What we have is a government that was negligent. The Liberals were sidetracked because they were so busy handing dollars to their friends at WE that they did not do the basics that they should have been doing to prepare for wave two, and that negligence is on their shoulders.

That is just one part of the fiscal update, and when I read it, it broke my heart, because it is too late. It should have been there earlier, so I felt it was important to draw attention to that particular component.

To go back to the main legislation, perhaps the reason that I find it so difficult to support it is that we have not had a budget. We had an economic update. We had some very vague talk from the finance minister about building back better, picking their winners and losers and, if it is anything like WE, making sure that Liberal-friendly companies were part of that build back better idea.

What they have asked for in part 7 is spending authority to be able to borrow money that far exceeds even their $100 billion. For any parliamentarian to give that authorization for borrowing power to the Government of Canada without having had a budget in the last two years is, quite frankly, irresponsible.

Therefore, I would recommend that the government take part 7 out of this legislation. Let us move forward with those measures in parts 1 to 6 that are actually going to help people. That would certainly be an approach that would be supportable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member has worked on the issue of Anbang and the Chinese state government takeover of Canadian long-term health care facilities, and I ask her whether now would be the appropriate time to review the for-profit model. Between those government-controlled investments and private equity firms, a series of things have taken place, and in my neck of the woods here, it is our private facilities that have had the biggest problems with COVID illnesses and deaths and require government intervention.

Therefore, I ask her for her thoughts on why it is so important, as we have an aging population, to continue to have a profit-driven model to care for our loved ones, as opposed to a not-for-profit model. In a not-for-profit model, the profits and proceeds, if there were any, would be modest, but more importantly, they would be rolled back to protecting and providing a quality of life that is of a higher standard, as opposed to making a profit and shipping it out of our country at the expense of our seniors.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, we did express great concern about the Anbang takeover of our seniors' facilities. It is a state-owned enterprise, and I think it is important to note that previous to the pandemic, when a number of those facilities on the island were found to be providing inadequate care, the health authority actually had to take them over.

I remember, and at the time they should have been held accountable. When we were questioning on Anbang and its takeover, the Prime Minister raved about the standards and how the provinces had excellent quality and would make sure there were no issues with standards in our care homes. Again, that is something that he needs to be held accountable for.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say to my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo that we have a blind date tonight. We are featured in the TVO show that is coming up tonight.

In any case, my question is about whether she shares my concern that in this pandemic we are seeing too many really important small businesses that play a big role in our transportation and tourism infrastructure being pushed into facing bankruptcy. No government program is yet helping them. The coach bus line services across Canada are calling out for help, and they are not getting it. In my area here on Vancouver Island, it is Wilson's bus lines, but we are talking coast to coast, including all the way to Maritime Bus in the Maritimes.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a wider issue than just the pandemic and what has happened with the pandemic. We know that when Greyhound stopped its service, the government at the time said that it was going to give it a couple of years and that it would help with routes where Greyhound was going to be challenged.

Certainly in the riding I represent, the ability for people to come down the North Thompson Valley is not there. That was a route that was never even adapted to in the new model. We had a problem before the pandemic. I know that here flights out of the airport are almost nil, and of course we do not have an adequate service. People who need to get to Vancouver for cancer treatments and people who need to go to other places for essential services are completely stymied, and the pandemic has made it much worse.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer deplores the government's lack of transparency. I would like to know if the member agrees with the Bloc Québécois' plan to create a special committee to study all COVID-19 spending.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to compare the transparency of the government with other governments around the world. For example, in many countries we can look at the vaccines, know what the contracts are and what was purchased. In Canada, it is completely non-transparent.

For a government that is committed to transparency, and sunlight being the best disinfectant, it certainly has fallen through and broken another commitment it made to Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from January 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 89 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill, and I would first like to give an update on what has been happening in my riding with regard to vaccines.

As members know, I represent an indigenous northern region of Canada. I am pleased to say that first nations communities have been vaccinated, and a number of our Inuit communities as well. All long-term care residents and the staff have received the vaccine, and other communities in the southern region of Labrador have been scheduled for vaccines. I am really pleased to see how this is rolling out and serving the people of Canada and the people I represent.

Canadians are very strong. I do not need to stand anywhere in this country to say that. We know that; we live that experience every day. We are known to care for each other. This pandemic is unprecedented, and it is something we have never seen or experienced before in this country. However, our response to it, by caring and supporting one another, is something we have become all too familiar with as Canadians.

When the government and Canadians were informed of the coronavirus pandemic and we learned what it would mean for the health of Canadians and the economics of our country, there was no blueprint or manual on how government should manage its way through it and keep Canadians safe during a time like this. It was very much uncharted territory for the Prime Minister, leading scientists and researchers, health organizations and institutions, and all of us as politicians and citizens. We knew it would require courage, outward thinking, strength and drawing upon Canada's very best in the scientific community, health care facilities and research institutions. Everyone stepped up.

Even the media stepped up. I saw the media reporting the facts and informing and education Canadians, not just editorializing everything that was happening. I think that is very important, because today in our country we often see that journalism is more about editorials as opposed to reporting facts and information. I think the media did well in this pandemic to inform Canadians.

People right across Canada are working from their kitchen tables to make masks to keep us safe. They are working from their home-based businesses, or doing their jobs from home. Students all across the country are using laptops to study and some finished up high school and university degrees. The adjustments that so many Canadians have had to make are remarkable.

When storefronts were closed down across Canada, and some continue to be closed down, businesses started to deliver. They were not going to see people stuck.

Everyone did their part. Everyone stepped up and they have continued to step up. They have not stopped. As a government, we also stepped up. We have not stopped and we will not stop. That is what this fiscal economic statement is about. It is about how we support Canadians at a time when they need it.

Not only the government but our Prime Minister had to enter uncharted waters. Ours was a world that came to a halt. Sometimes we fail to realize the huge significance of what this pandemic has meant to so many. However, not only did the world come to a halt, but Canada was vulnerable. For the first time in many generations, we were vulnerable, and protecting the health of people 24/7 and rising to that responsibility was left solely to the leadership of the government and Canadians.

The pandemic required the best of all of us, and it still requires the best of all of us. I am very proud of how the Government of Canada has stepped up for Canadians. I have seen first-hand in my riding the significance of government investments, government care and government outreach and how these have made the pandemic a little easier on a lot of people.

In the last few weeks, there has been a lot of banter back and forth by the opposition about the pandemic and the vaccine itself. I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say a few days ago, when he talked about the urgency of ensuring that Canadians had access to these life-saving vaccines as rapidly as possible, and that our government was operating with a sense of urgency every single day. Canadians know that and they understand that. With more than 1.1 million vaccines already distributed across the country to date, not only is Canada among the top five G20 nations for COVID-19 vaccines, we were also in the top two contributors to COVAX to ensure there would be equitable access to vaccines around the world, because that is what we do. We are Canada.

The Minister of Health, the Prime Minister and many others in the country, such as the people who have led behind the scenes to acquire those vaccines and do the work that had to be done, have all said, over and over, that even if no additional vaccines are approved by Health Canada, we remain on track to receive six million vaccines by the end of March, 20 million between April and June and a total of over 70 million doses by the end of September. Our government has been on top of this. Holding government accountable is a good thing, but focusing on politics for the sake of politics on issues such as what is happening around the vaccine does a disservice to all Canadians. It creates fear where there should be none.

Every day I hear the opposition talk about how the government has invested in people through this vaccine and that we are spending too much money. One day they tell us we are not spending enough, and the next day they tell us we are spending too much. I would like to review a couple of things.

I live in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, without the assistance of the federal government, communities would be experiencing tremendous challenges. People would be left behind without the supports the federal government stepped up to provide across the country and across Newfoundland and Labrador. I have one of the most rural northern ridings in Canada. It has made a difference.

In this pandemic, through the Government of Canada, the Canada health transfer increased in my province by $13 million over the last year. It was necessary to support the health of the people who live here. Nearly $150 million has gone to Newfoundland and Labrador through the safe restart agreement. That agreement allowed the province to look at testing capacity, to do tracing, to look at public health data and at ways to fight this pandemic and to keep the people of my province safe. That was a priority. That is not a waste of Canadian taxpayers' money. That is about saving lives. That is why I am always so taken aback when I hear the Conservative Party, in particular, continuously harp at the government for how we have stepped up for Canadians.

I wish no lives had been lost, just like every single person in the House of Commons. Every step has been taken—

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

I am sorry to inform the hon member, but we are out of time and we have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canada received 8% of the doses the Prime Minister promised for this period. My colleague said that there is fear where there should be none, and I actually agree with her. This week at the Roberta Place long-term care facility, over 40 people died of COVID-19. Health care workers who had a dose of vaccine do not know when they are getting their second one. Many do not have it at all. There is fear there. There is actual fear, and the fear is legitimate, and this week Canada got no doses of the vaccine.

I am wondering if the member can put aside everything she said for a moment. She said this is about how to support Canadians at a time when they need it. Canadians need vaccines, and we do not have them.

Does she think it is acceptable that those residents who died did not receive the vaccine because the Prime Minister could only deliver 8% of the doses of vaccines that he committed to just a month ago?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, because there is a lot of fearmongering, and unfortunately a lot of it is unwarranted. We wish that every Canadian from day one could have accessed this vaccine. We wish that today every Canadian in this country could access this vaccine, and every Canadian around the world, but the government has stepped up. The government, the team of people within Health Canada, the people within procurement and the leading people who have been a part of this pandemic have done what has been necessary to secure those vaccines, and the member opposite knows that we are on schedule. It has been said, over and over again, that we are on schedule to ensure that the vaccines that have been procured for Canadians will be received by Canadians during the target dates that were projected.

To do anything outside of that is purely political, and the member knows that.

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member for Labrador to the extent that we did what we had to do. We provided financial supports to the millions of Canadian workers and the millions of small businesses that were really struggling or in desperate straits because of COVID. However, now I am hearing concerns from a lot of my constituents about how we will pay for this. The NDP says that the people who did very well during COVID should be the ones who pay: the ultra-rich.

I am wondering if she would agree with the NDP that we need a wealth tax on super-wealthy Canadians, who have more than $20 million in assets, to pay for the amount that we have spent to make sure that no Canadians were left behind.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the investments that we have made into Canadians, all of those investments were necessary, whether it was the Canada child care benefit, which increased payments to families; whether it was the bonus, or the small grants, that we gave out to seniors across the country; whether it was the money we invested with businesses, so that they did not all go bankrupt during this pandemic; or whether it was the supports we gave to workers that were necessary. I really believe in this country, and I believe that when we invest properly, we generate revenue on those investments.

In the Government of Canada, we are positioning ourselves not just for a safe restart, but for future economic growth and to work with businesses, with industry and with Canadians to ensure that we can create those new jobs, build that new revenue and generate that new economy we feel is within our grasp.

In terms of taxation in this country, we are the government that stepped up to increase taxes on Canada's wealthiest individuals. We have done that. We have a fair tax regime right now, and I am very proud that we were able to do that, but we have to be fair to those who are in need, as well: the most vulnerable. The money I have seen going into food banks, homeless shelters and women's centres made a huge difference in the lives of so many people.

I would never stand in this country—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, seeing as this is my first speech in 2021, I want to start by wishing all of my colleagues a happy new year. I also wish a happy new year to my constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I know we are all very hopeful that this is the year when we finally turn things around.

The experiences of this pandemic have shown that we are not, in fact, all in this together. What is closer to the truth is that we are in the same storm, but we are in different boats. Some of those boats have certainly been much better at weathering this storm than others. Indeed, many have sunk. We have people right across the country who are in extremely dire straits and, in the immediate future, things are not going to get better. We are still in a very rough patch.

All around my riding, I have been witness to people who have lost their jobs, to small business owners who have shuttered their doors forever, and to many who are very much struggling to stay afloat. It is an open question as to whether they will continue to be able to do so.

We are now dealing with an outbreak in a local first nation. Cowichan Tribes has seen an outbreak of COVID-19 that, unfortunately, has led to a strong rash of racist incidents, which I am joining other community leaders in my riding to condemn.

I also want to acknowledge that many people have stepped up to the plate to support those who have been affected by the pandemic. I want to acknowledge the work of the local chambers of commerce. I have five chambers of commerce in my riding, and they have all been very strong advocates for their members and for the needs of small businesses throughout the region.

Families and workers continue to be concerned about the impacts of job losses and the worsening situation that we find ourselves in. When we come to actual measures that are going to provide assistance, while some parts of Bill C-14 are good, unfortunately it is a continuation of half measures. Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic, including where we have been, where we are and where we are going for the foreseeable future, it is extremely important for us, as a House of Commons, to seize this opportunity to strengthen our social safety net by investing in programs that directly help people.

From the beginning, the goal of the NDP caucus has been to get more help to more people, more quickly. That has been our focus for the last 10 months. I believe that we were very successful in leveraging our position in a minority Parliament by working with the government and with our Conservative colleagues to make sure we could do things like increase the amount of the emergency response benefit. We managed to have that increased to $2,000 a month and we also managed to have it extended.

It was great to see our leader, the member for Burnaby South, join with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and unions like UFCW, Unifor and the United Steelworkers to ask the government to increase the wage subsidy from the initial 10% to 75%.

We have consistently pushed for more and stronger payments for students, for seniors and for persons with disabilities.

We were able to secure Canada's very first paid sick leave. That is incredibly important in the middle of a health crisis, because we do not want to see workers making the impossible choice between their health and their ability to earn money. If we are going to get through this pandemic, we absolutely must give workers a way to stay home if they are feeling sick. It is a way to not put anyone else in danger of catching COVID-19.

I looked back at the speech that the finance minister delivered in November: the fall economic statement. Bill C-14, the bill we are discussing today, is meant to be the implementation act of that speech.

It is quite clear to all parliamentarians that we are not going to effectively get through this pandemic until we see a very strong rollout of Canada's vaccines. I know that the government has consistently come forward with the message of how much it has invested in vaccine agreements and how much it has secured in a domestic supply, but it has become clear, over the last number of weeks, that there are some holes.

Not to play politics about it, but it is really our job in the opposition to hold the government to account and ask these probing questions. Why is there a delay in the vaccine rollout? Why is Canada not receiving any doses in some weeks and going forward?

My colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, in the emergency debate last night referenced the fact that this is the third time in two weeks that the federal government's delivery schedule has been revised downward. Canadians have questions about that, and I believe it is incumbent upon the federal government, the Liberals, to be up front and honest about where we are at and to provide answers to those very important questions.

When we look at Bill C-14, we see that it is proposing a series of measures, including allowances for young children, a suspension of interest on student loans and an increase in the borrowing limit. I know my Conservative colleagues have great concern over that aspect, but if we look at the desperate times we are in, we can see that we absolutely need to have the federal government step in and provide that important backstop. The alternative is to have more and more businesses falter, never to open their doors again, and recovering from the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves will take so much longer.

I will concentrate on one particular aspect of the bill that has great significance for my riding. It is the fact that $64.4 million is being allocated for mental health and substance use in the context of COVID-19. Here in the Cowichan Valley, as in many parts of the country, we are still suffering through an opioid epidemic. Indeed, British Columbia posted record numbers of deaths last year from opioid overdoses. We have consistently asked the federal government to step in to do more to address this crisis, to provide more financial resources to the provinces, to declare a national health emergency and to start finally treating this problem like the health issue it is. We have to seriously look at criminal justice reforms and at decriminalizing possession of small amounts of illicit substances so that people do not have to fear the criminality of their actions and can actually get the help they need.

There were some missed opportunities, as I alluded to earlier. If we are going to make those bold policy fixes that are truly going to help Canadians get out of this crisis, we need to see massive investments in child care. It is one thing to give parents a financial contribution, but they will not be able to make much use of it if child care spaces are not available. I know that in Langford, which is one of the most rapidly growing urban centres in all of Canada and is full of young families, the lack of good available child care spaces is a huge concern to so many young parents and families.

Similarly, on pharmacare, I am glad to see the member for New Westminster—Burnaby stepping up to the plate with his Bill C-213, which would actually put Liberal promises into NDP action. This would make a huge difference, along with dental care, in actually addressing some of the real costs that so many working families have on their budgets.

We also need to have a serious conversation on how we are going to finance all of this. We have to have a serious talk about implementing a wealth tax to make sure that those very wealthy individuals and corporations that benefited from this pandemic and made profits in the billions of dollars are contributing their fair share and that the payment does not fall on the shoulders of working families.

The Liberals also missed a golden opportunity to fix the wage subsidy, in that start-ups that did not have payroll accounts before March 15, 2020, still cannot qualify for the emergency wage subsidy. I have one business in particular, V2V Black Hops Brewing, an amazing social enterprise that does work in my riding for veterans, that cannot qualify for the wage subsidy because of the payroll account issue. I implore my Liberal colleagues to please fix that in legislation, and this bill was a missed opportunity.

I will conclude by saying that Canadians can no longer wait for half measures. We need bold, decisive action.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague. I was listening to his discussion toward the end about the wage subsidy and in particular what he thinks needs to be fixed in order to make it better.

Could he repeat and possibly elaborate on that point so that it is clear?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question because it allows me to go into more detail.

Because the small business I have been trying to help did not have a payroll account number established before March 15, 2020, it has been unable to qualify for the wage subsidy. It has been going through 10 months of the pandemic just like every other small business, but not having that wage subsidy has absolutely been detrimental to it.

The Liberals need to look at start-ups and businesses that have not qualified to see how we can help them get the wage subsidy. We are going to be in this storm a few months longer and they desperately need that help, so I implore the Liberals to please commit to action on that front.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. There were two points in his speech that stuck out to me.

My colleague spoke about Canada-wide programs that would interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, in particular with respect to child care. Quebec already has a child care program. We do not want to pay double or do twice the work.

The member then mentioned the universal pharmacare program proposed by his colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, but Quebec has had a pharmacare program since 1996.

The Bloc Québécois is not making up the rules. The rules are enshrined in sections 92, 92A and 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, originally known as the British North America Act.

What does my colleague have to say about the fact that Quebec has already addressed these issues and that it has requested the right to opt out with full compensation? Is he prepared to respect Quebec's autonomy and the decisions it makes?

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

Madam Speaker, how I would respond to my colleague from the Bloc is by pointing out the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act is a perfect example of federal legislation that still respects provincial autonomy, jurisdiction and health care. It sets up five priorities on how provinces can qualify for those federal health transfers and it ensures that we have a public, universally funded system right across the country so that no matter what part of this great country a person resides in, they have access to the same kind of care. This kind of federal model both respects provincial jurisdiction and allows us to play a strong federal role in making sure that every Canadian, no matter what part of the country they live in, has access to the same great services when they need them.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my neighbour's speech, and he really did a good job of laying out where we are presently.

What I am hearing in my riding is that most people are still very much in the pandemic. While we need to think about what is ahead, we also need to take care of those who are in need now. We are seeing a phenomenon in which independent professionals, artists and some small business people who were in need applied for CERB in good faith, but they are now being threatened with clawbacks because of the CRA's interpretation of the rules.

Can the member comment on how unjust that is?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for raising that important issue. I want to contrast that particular issue with the fact that some large corporations received federal assistance and then used that money to actually pay out dividends to their investors. They are not being chased down by the federal government. They are not being penalized. However, Canadians who made applications in good faith are being penalized. This is the completely wrong direction, especially when some Liberal MPs are encouraging people to apply in good faith.

When we are in the middle of a pandemic, we need to start taking care of people's immediate needs, not threaten them with this over-the-top, heavy-handed approach. I agree with the member that we need a different approach. The Liberals should be looking, in fact, at corporations that have benefited from this pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, once again I want to wish everyone, including all my constituents, a happy new year, as this is my first official speech in 2021.

I am extremely happy to be able to speak today on Bill C-14. Before I do, I want to thank and congratulate the people of Nova Scotia. I know we are in the midst of a second surge right across this country, but we have been very successful in limiting the numbers in Nova Scotia. What people have done, what students and teachers have done in the school system is something to be proud of. It has been a success story on that front, even in these very challenging times.

The fall economic statement focus for me today is on protecting the health of Canadians, ensuring that individuals and businesses have the opportunity to continue to work and prosper and making sure we build better as we move forward. The fall economic statement is an important piece of that delivery.

I cannot thank front-line workers enough for the work they have done. We are faced with health challenges, and they have to go to work in dangerous places because of the disease. They are there on the front lines, and it is just amazing. We have seen that throughout the pandemic. For people working in grocery stores, students in schools, and so on, it has been very challenging.

I want to thank the Canadian Armed Forces for the work they have done with the long-term care facilities throughout the pandemic. We have heard some very sad news. We have also heard about the improvements that are needed, and I will talk about that later.

We have invested over $1 billion in vaccine agreements, which allows us to have seven promising candidates and over 400 million doses of vaccine. We are in a very good position; in fact, it is one of the most extensive vaccine portfolios in the world. We are providing the vaccine free to all Canadians. As well, we have procured over 38 million rapid tests, and I am proud to talk about our COVID app, which 5.5 million Canadians have downloaded to help them identify possible exposure.

Again, we should talk about PPE. We have invested $2 billion in personal protective equipment. Many companies, even here in Nova Scotia, made changes to their manufacturing so that they could manufacture products that would help us through COVID. What they were willing to do to help Canadians is pretty impressive.

Also, we have made investments in mental health and the challenges around mental health, such as the opioid crisis and homelessness. Trying to find ways to prevent the spread of COVID in those areas is very important.

Throughout the pandemic, we have identified major gaps in long-term care facilities that we need to deal with. Most deaths that we have seen in COVID-19 have taken place in long-term care facilities. Our government has indicated that we will move forward to negotiate national standards with provinces, which is crucial, and Canadians expect us to do so.

We have been faced with the deepest and fastest recession since the Great Depression. We saw a decline in our GDP in March and April and the second quarter of last year like we have never seen before. We have seen over three million Canadians lose their jobs. Can we imagine people losing their jobs and not having any revenue?

Our government needed to respond to this unprecedented challenge with an unprecedented response, and we did so by investing over $400 billion to help ensure the health and security of Canadians, to help with financial benefits and to brace the business community throughout this crisis.

That is 19% of our GDP. It is the largest relief package since World War II. However, today, as difficult as it is, about 80% of the jobs have returned compared to the United States where it only has about half that number.

We were very quick in trying to help young families with the Canada child benefit and the increases on that front, now adding $1,200 per child under age six depending on the family income.

CERB helped Canadians. One in five Nova Scotian received the CERB to help him or her through this tough time. Those are big numbers.

The Canada emergency student benefit supports young people, who are very much challenged through this tough time as well. We have increased the Canada summer jobs program and we will increase it again this year by another 40,000. We have invested in the youth employment and skills strategy for another 45,000 jobs.

We have supported seniors with $300 of $200 depending on their income for the OAS. We have to move forward on long-term care and pharmacare as we said we would. We are working with provinces as we speak.

In Nova Scotia, 32,000 companies were able to take advantage of the wage subsidy, which is very impressive. Also, 15,000 companies in Nova Scotia were able to take advantage of the Canada business account.

We know the challenges around the airlines and we have helped them through wage and rent subsidies and supported them through rent relief and other ways as well.

We have helped communities in Nova Scotia. We increased the equalization payments. We increased the Canada health transfers and the Canada social transfers. Those are all extra investments to help us through this as well as adding a regional relief and recovery fund. Let us keep in mind that these businesses were not able to get any financial supports through the other programs and this picked up the extras that did not get support through those programs. It is a way of trying to catch everyone as best as we could.

With regard to build back better, our government, in our economic statement, will invest around $100 billion over the next three years, which is 3% or 4% of GDP, to stimulate the economy. That will be focused on a greener, more innovative, more inclusive and more competitive economy. This is the Canadian way.

We need to invest in early learning and child care, and we will some investments in that. This will increase the accessibility to high-quality child care. It will give children a better start and will allow both parents to work if they so desire.

There are also green investment grants for homeowners to improve energy efficiency. Charging refuelling stations will be very important as well. There will be the planting of two billion trees to fight climate change and protect the forestry. Our Canadian net-zero emission accountability act will be binding, and of course reporting annually.

Finally, I want to talk about the student loans to help students through tough times. This coming year the interest on the student loans on federal money will not exist and that will help them as well.

Through this very difficult time, through COVID-19, we were able to help in the health and security of Canadians. We were able to help them financially. Now we need to ensure, as we continue, we are able to jumpstart the economy as quickly as possible so all Canadians will benefit. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel and I am confident we will be successful as we move forward.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, a little earlier the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs talked about how the vaccine distribution was going very well in her northern and remote riding. Now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs spoke proudly of the wonderful job the government had done in securing vaccines.

Like the parliamentary secretary of Northern Affairs, I come from a northern and remote riding as well. Today I was contacted by a chief of one of the first nations community, a community of about a thousand people. It has been dealing with a suicide crisis and is now in the midst of a COVID outbreak. Today he told me that they were now dealing with three more funerals, one more from suicide and two from COVID. So far this community has received 30 doses of the vaccine. He told me today that hopefully he would get more in February.

Is this really what the parliamentary secretary is proud of in the distribution of the vaccine to northern and remote communities?

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague well knows, we have negotiated some of the most extensive vaccine candidates in the world and the vaccines are coming. More candidates are being added as we move forward. We are distributing vaccines as best as we can to try to initially reach as many of the Canadians who need it most, and we have been very successful in doing so.

As my colleague understands, when one is receiving vaccines, based on the number of them coming in at one time, one is unable to get all the vaccines that are important for Canadians. We are working on that. We have a plan that is moving forward. There will be some challenges here or there, but the objective is that we are able to get as many vaccines as possible and as quickly as possible to Canadians right across our great country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned two things that resonated with me as the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors.

First, he stated that national standards are necessary and essential. We would like to remind the government that caring for seniors requires money, not national standards.

The government must give our health care systems, Quebec's and the provinces', the means to take care of those who are sick at this time. What Quebec's advocates for seniors are calling for is an immediate health transfer and not standards. Once again, standards are not going to ensure that people are cared for.

Second, he also said that his government had really helped seniors by increasing old age security. Aside from the $300 cheque sent to OAS recipients, I have not heard about any other measure.

Why are the Liberals stubbornly ignoring their election promise to increase old age security? People should be able to access it when they turn 65, not 75.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question.

We are responsible for the health of Canadians across the country. We must support all Canadians who are dealing with health problems.

We have made investments through a national health fund that is already contributing significant funding to support seniors. While we deal with the challenge of COVID-19, we are adopting other strategies to provide more help to seniors.

As Canadians we must support seniors whether they live in Quebec, Newfoundland or in British Columbia. This is not just a matter of giving money to each province, but of setting standards so that all Canadians receive what they deserve and—

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

We have time for one last question.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting, but I do have some concerns about some of the things he mentioned about supports for young people and students.

In particular, he spoke about the emergency student benefit, which I am sure he knows does not exist any longer. He also spoke about expanded funds for Canada summer jobs, which I hope he knows did not happen last year. Of course, there were the almost $900 million that were supposed to go to students and did not. Now we have stopped charging interest on student loans.

Despite the fact that his party voted to put a moratorium on loan repayments until May, could he explain why the government has not acted on that when students and recent graduates so desperately need that support right now?

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

Madam Speaker, there is no question that young people and students are facing very challenging times through this pandemic. The program we initiated for students in the summer, the CESB, was very important and it helped many young students in my constituency. Last summer we also increased the Canada summer jobs program. I know the numbers increased in my riding and the member should do some calculations because the intent was to increase jobs right across the country. Again next year, we will add another 40,000 to bring this number—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we are debating the economic statement implementation act, following a throne speech after prorogation, but before I get into the substance of my speech, I think it is important to again put on the record the context that this debate is taking place about 600 days since the last federal budget. It has been 600 days since Canadians had a fulsome view of the finances of our nation. Certainly, I think that reality should cause many to pause and question the objectives and agenda of the federal government.

We all understand the unprecedented times we face. However, provinces, other jurisdictions and cities have all been able to figure out how to present, approve and manage the budgetary process, yet here we are 600 days later. Conservatives certainly were calling for fulsome economic details the entire way, but we have not gotten those, which is incredibly troubling. That is the context, the 30,000-foot view of the bill we are debating, Bill C-14.

I spent a lot of time on the phone last night with constituents. The Liberals are very, very quick to brag about the way they have handled this crisis. In fact, the associate minister and parliamentary secretary just prior to me were bragging about how much they spent, $400 billion. However, one has to consider not just the dollars that are spent, but also consider how effectively those dollars are being spent and what the result is. Certainly, when any Canadian goes shopping, they do not simply look at who can spend the most. They look at the value for the dollars being spent. That is just part of simple budgeting, which speaks to my initial point.

On this side of the House we have great concern about the effectiveness of some of these dollars. Supports have been needed. I know the Liberals are quick to say that Conservatives would not have done all of this. We have been collaborative throughout the entire process, but critical at the same time because there is much to be critical of. When we look at the results of what has been spent there are some serious questions. That is what I heard from constituents last night.

I want to bring together the speech I made a couple of days ago and what we are discussing today, specifically, the economic realities that my constituency is facing. I spoke to a rancher in a small community in my constituency. She was almost in tears on the phone and said that we should with the Prime Minister and the Liberals this comment: “Look me in the eye and tell me there's no future for my kids in Alberta”.

We were talking about the economic circumstances of Alberta and Alberta's place in the federation. It is heartbreaking the number of people whom I speak to who think that Alberta might be better off alone. I know that the members opposite will want to play politics with that issue, but I will say that as a member of Canada's national Parliament and a proud Canadian, to hear so many who feel that Canada has given up on them and that they have no choice is tragic. That should cause all involved in national leadership to pause. Certainly, that relates directly to what we are talking about here today.

I also got an email that sums up quite a few of the other calls I got last night. I will not read it all, partly because the language used is not parliamentary, but it still provides the context of the devastating circumstances around Keystone, the energy sector and the economy, with the service sector being pummelled and hotels being closed. All of these things are seeing a level of tragedy that is unbelievable. This is talking about the mental health effects specifically. In this case, two parents from her son's class saw no hope and committed suicide. I have put that on record because it provides the context of how important it is to get this right.

There is a whole host of issues addressed in this bill and, quite frankly, there are some things that need to be addressed. Some of aims to fix some of the issues with previous legislation that was brought forward. Some of the issues were identified early but we are only now fixing. Some of them are promises that were made in the throne speech that the government is now attempting to actualize. Some issues have been mentioned, such as that the entire House agreed on the need for action on student loans, but which we are only now seeing the government get to.

There is a bit of understanding of something that I would like to bring into context with regard to the spending part of what this bill addresses. There is certainly some concern when it comes to the overall spending, although there has been no question that supports have been needed. That is why Conservatives have stepped up to the plate. In fact, we attempted to collaborate, and here I can give the government a bit of credit because in some cases there has been successful collaboration. Unfortunately, there have been other times when there was unwillingness on the part of the government to come forward in a fair and transparent way. We can reference its attempted power grab early in the pandemic when the Liberals wanted unlimited tax and spending powers, frankly attempting to roll back 800 years of parliamentary tradition. There have been scandals, which we certainly are still demanding answers on, such as WE Charity and Baylis Medical, among others.

There was the prorogation for no other reason than the fact the Prime Minister was trying to hide from his own mistakes, and so he prorogued Parliament. Although the Liberals will claim they only lost two days of parliamentary sittings, Canadians can see through that. When we look at the facts, about 35 days were lost, especially when we include the bills on the Order Paper that had to be reintroduced and debated, many of which came back exactly the same, even though issues had been identified with them.

As I come to the conclusion of my remarks, in part 7 of this bill, there is an increase in Canada's borrowing authority. We have seen unprecedented growth in the spending of our government and this economic statement that we will be voting on speaks to aspects of that.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, by the end of fiscal year 2023-24, the spending of the government, when it comes to debt financing requirements, will be $1.642 trillion. However, I would note that the Borrowing Authority Act asks for $1.831 trillion. There is a discrepancy there, doing math quickly in my head, of $207 billion. If the government plans to spend that $207 billion, it is the right of the government to bring forward that legislation and that plan to suggest so.

However, we have seen an unprecedented lack of transparency in the way the current government has operated and here we see a massive increase in the borrowing authority of the government for what is not the government's money. That is one of the frustrations. Whenever I hear a prime minister or a minister or any level of government say it is their money to spend, that is one hundred per cent categorically false. It is taxpayer money. It is hard-working taxpayers who spend that.

Therefore, I believe there are serious questions that need to be answered, whether in regard to Bill C-14 or the overall circumstances that we find ourselves in. I look forward to questions.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, before I get to my question on the issue of government expenditures, I will point out many of the investments we have made, though they are expensive, will actually reduce the overall cost to government, because the cost of not supporting households and businesses to get through this pandemic is far greater than the cost of making sure they can survive and preventing that economic scarring.

The thesis the member led off with was effectively that the government should not just be spending money, but figuring out whether there is value received for that money. I want to talk about one specific program. His leader has repeatedly criticized in public the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB as it has become known to Canadians. It has now reached nearly nine million Canadians to help them keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables for their families.

Does he agree with his leader that this program was completely screwed up or does he believe that the Canada emergency response benefit actually provided value for money to Canadian households?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there it is. He is putting words in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me clarify for the member. In fact, Conservatives were there in the beginning when CERB was first introduced understanding that the unprecedented circumstances that we all faced needed unprecedented action. Conservatives were there and not only were we there, but we were doing everything we could to be collaborative in the process to ensure that it would be effective, to ensure that it would be spent the right way, and to ensure that the formulas being used would balance accountability with the need to get dollars in the pockets of Canadians.

In fact, we made further suggestions about the way it could have been administered, which the government decided not to follow. That is its right, but likewise, it needs to accept the consequences of some of those decisions and, now, the challenges that have arisen as a result. Canadians needed support, yes, but when it comes to the question of effectiveness of this program, it is not immune from criticism. In fact, it is responsible for many of the challenges we are faced with.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He pointed out that the federal government has not tabled a budget for quite some time, which is completely unacceptable. This is an image-obsessed government. One only has to look at the eligibility criteria for the new highly affected sectors credit availability program to understand that the program made for a great announcement but it will not make much difference, since no one will be eligible for it.

Bill C-14 does have some interesting aspects, but it also includes some intrusions. Some aspects are disappointing, for example for landlords who still are not getting any assistance for rental costs or farmers who had expenses in 2019 and are ineligible. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on some of the gaps in the legislation.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. There are many holes. In fact, there has been a few times where the government made an announcement, took way longer than many would suggest was necessary in implementing that announcement, and screwed it up the first time and then had to go back to the drawing table. For sure in one case, and I am sure there are others, it screwed it up a second time and now have to return to Parliament to see fixes to that again.

That is the problem. Had the Liberals been more collaborative in the process and listened to some of the constructive criticism that were made, including the premiers and the affected sectors, we would have been in a very different situation today than we find ourselves in and, certainly, the dollars would have been spent more effectively.

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

Madam Speaker, would the member support, as 60% of Conservative supporters across Canada do according to polls, the idea of a wealth tax on the very people who can afford to pay for the situation that we find ourselves in, instead of ordinary Canadians?

Would he be in favour of that wealth tax?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, a brief answer, please.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will not take any lessons from a member of the NDP who wants to shut down wealth creation in this country, such as the pipeline. I know he asked a whole bunch of questions on Monday about how we should simply, with the snap of our fingers, force thousands of people out of work and shut down an entire sector and somehow miraculously, maybe with some unicorn dust and a few other things, there will be sectors that simply replace themselves.

However, the reality is that Canada has a world-class energy sector that needs to be respected, and doing so is a big part of the way we can dig ourselves out of the economic challenges we find ourselves in. I would ask that member very specifically that he has to look at the things—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, but when I say “brief”, I would ask that members try to keep it as a brief as possible. I did allow for extra time, but I do have to cut the clock at some point to make sure everybody gets a chance to speak.

Resuming debate with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity.

I will start by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the WSÁNEC first nation, the indigenous people of the territory that I am honoured to represent in Parliament.

Today, we are addressing Bill C-14, which, of course, includes the legislative changes that are required as part of the fall economic statement that was tabled November 30. Although our commentary today should be limited to the legislative changes before us, and I know that some of speeches have been quite wide-ranging, I want to reflect briefly on the fall economic statement itself, then turn to the legislation before us, and then to the things that are missing from it and that we wish were there.

The fall economic statement, at over 200 pages, is definitely wide-ranging. It references a lot of hard work, and I want to acknowledge the hard work of our Minister of Finance, indeed, the government as a whole, with a good dose of gratitude.

There is no perfection to be found in the actions of any government around the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some do better than others, and some do worse than others. I think we do better as Canadians when we try to work together.

That is the intent of Greens, whether we are elected federally or in the provinces across this country. We prefer collaborative efforts, co-operation and working through consensus. However, in looking at this document, it is extraordinary in detailing ambition around a wide range of issues.

First, on the question of a safe restart, there was about $20 billion put into a safe restart. We know that this was transferring money to the provinces for things as important as personal protective equipment, PPE, and getting the vaccines rolled out, which is a subject we debated until midnight last night with a lot of emotion and different opinions, but we have vaccines. We wish that they were being rolled out more quickly, but it does take federal-provincial co-operation. It also takes dealing with global multinational pharmaceutical companies. We are also looking at day care, so for the safe restart and a number of other aspects, there was $20 billion.

There are priorities in the fall economic statement that are not COVID-related but are high-priority items for Greens, particularly working towards indigenous reconciliation and moving towards pharmacare. I do not know why it is taking so long, but pharmacare is flagged in the fall economic statement.

Specifically, we should start looking at pharmacare in relation to rare diseases. I am part of a caucus, quite an informal caucus, with members of Parliament from every single party in this place, and that is a great place for collaboration. We are working with the CF Foundation and trying to get the life-saving drug Trikafta to patients in the CF community. We work together, and I think we are better when we do so.

On the opioid crisis, again, referenced in the fall economic statement, Greens favour decriminalization. We need to move fast to stop the deaths from opioid addiction, which is an extension of a mental health issue. It is a health issue. It is not a criminal issue.

On climate, which is also referenced in the fall economic statement, Greens are very keen on improving our east-west electricity grid and also improving its potential to reach north. We applaud the focus on interties that we have begun to see out of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. However, we need more. We need more work on the electricity grid. We need more work on public transit, but it is flagged, as is the importance of electric vehicles.

Many climate-related measures are in the fall economic statement, including nature-based climate solutions. On the commitment to planting two billion trees, which we have heard of many times and look forward to seeing, it is critical that they are trees appropriate to the ecosystems in which they are planted. It is critical that we do the tree planting in ways that enhance carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity, such as along stream banks to help protect our wild Pacific salmon where they have lost so much habitat.

These are measures we support, but they are not enough. We have seen Bill C-12, and they are referenced in the fall economic statement for climate accountability, but without major strengthening, such as a fixed dark target date of 2025 for carbon reductions, it will not be worth supporting.

When we look south of the border we see the steps the new Biden administration is taking, pursuing some of the courses Barack Obama left in place. This is also encouraging. Canada has scope, as is mentioned in the fall economic statement. With carbon and border adjustments, we can move our economies in the same direction and create more jobs while doing so. These are encouraging things.

We support Bill C-14 as far as it goes. The measures are important in order to get more COVID assistance to people to get more relief.

What is missing? There are many sectors that are not just falling through the cracks, but plummeting through a chasm. They need more help. I refer specifically to all the businesses in the tourism sector, particularly restaurants, but also bus services.

The fall economic statement refers to the highly affected sectors having more credit availability, but it is capped at $1 million per piece of assistance. I will specifically mention Wilson's bus lines, which provides not only charter service but also regularly scheduled service into first nation communities. It is an integral part of our tourism ecosystem here. It is being pressured out of existence by the commercial banks. The banks are demanding repayment. The $1-million capped loan will not be enough to save Wilson's.

For other parts of our transportation infrastructure, such as regional airports, $1 million in loans is not going to help them. We need to focus on what is needed to save all of our transportation infrastructure that is at risk right now. I think the best way to do that would be for the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to talk to all the CEOs of the big commercial banks and remind them they are making profits every quarter.

This is the most recent news. If we just scan the headlines of BNN Bloomberg, we see the new quarter, post-2020 into 2021, news. It is a kick off of big bank earnings. They are doing great. They have adjusted fourth-quarter profits above the average analyst estimates. When the banks are doing well, maybe not as well as before the pandemic, but they are not struggling or about to go under, they need to help.

Similarly, we should not be leaning on Canadians who got the CERB in good faith because they thought they made $5,000 in the previous year. The qualifications to say they did not qualify came out later. Come on. Let us fix it in this bill to say that anyone who received CERB who received $5,000 gross income in 2019 is entitled. That would clear up a misunderstanding and remove the cloud over the heads of over 440,000 Canadians who received, and I think this is an Orwellian turn of phrase, an education letter.

The critical issue of long-term care homes is referenced quite a lot in the fall economic statement. It mentions long-term care home workers. One of the more disturbing stories I saw in the last few months was of an outbreak of COVID in an Ottawa shelter for the homeless. It turned out the homeless who were living there were actually workers in long-term care. They were earning so little as long-term care workers, they were living in the Ottawa homeless shelter because they could not afford a roof over their head.

We need to do much more. We need to get into those long-term care homes and make sure our seniors are vaccinated. We need to stop the senicide. We need to make sure we pay our workers adequately, whether they are front-line workers in long-term care or anywhere in our society. We really do need a guaranteed livable income to ensure equity and decency for every single Canadian.

This is just a quick scratching of the surface of what we see as a challenge to us as Canadians. The fall economic statement gives us a good direction, but it needs to be more ambitious. We need to ensure that as we come out of COVID we repair our social safety net so it is not a net full of holes, but an actual place of stability, decency and respect for every single one of our human beings in this society, whether homeless, indigenous, or a woman who cannot figure out how to go back to work. We need to rebuild. We need a society that lives up to our greatest aspirations, including acting on the climate emergency while we still have time.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Green Party talked about pharmacare. This is something that has been talked about for many years now and is, in my opinion as well as her's, long overdue. It is overdue because there are potentially many benefits to pharmacare, not just from a social infrastructure perspective, but also, with respect to the costs of medicines, from an economic perspective.

I wonder if she can elaborate on how she sees that as the right direction for Canada to move in now, how we can delay no further on it, and how we can move quickly to introduce universal pharmacare throughout our country.

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

Madam Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming and has been for a long time. We are the only country with a universal health care system that does not include necessary prescription drugs. We know from various reports, including one a few years back, Pharmacare 2020, that Canadians who cannot afford to fill a prescription end up costing our health care system more because something that was a manageable chronic disease suddenly becomes a catastrophic event where, instead of just getting their prescription filled, they end up in emergency and intensive care.

We know that pharmacare is affordable, but we cannot afford to ignore the need to bring it into place right away, as quickly as possible. It will save our economy money. That is the conclusion of all of the experts. Failure to provide pharmacare causes unnecessary illness and death.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, who cares a lot about social justice and wants everyone to do their part so that we can reinvest in programs to help those who need it most.

Social justice and investments in social programs to help people are all good things, but we also need to track our public finances. As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, many measures were implemented to help businesses and individuals who were truly struggling, but now we no longer know what is happening with our public finances.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. What does she think about the idea that the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties came up with to create this much-talked-about special committee that would examine all the measures put in place during the pandemic from a financial perspective?

Setting up a special committee to examine all of the COVID-19-related spending could help us get an accurate picture of the situation. What is more, we would be able to see whether any questionable contracts, other than the one with WE Charity, were signed, costing us a lot of money that could have been spent elsewhere. That would be unfortunate.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for answering in English. I cannot switch my channel over.

Absolutely, transparency around government spending is always a good idea. I do not particularly get excited about deviating into scandals. For instance, if we are talking about pharmacare or social justice, we need to talk about where we find revenue, and that I think means that we are looking at a wealth tax. We should be bringing in a wealth tax. We should look at going after the offshore tax havens. We need to bring in the revenue we need to ensure that we have social justice.

Yes, all government expenditures should be held to the highest levels of transparency. I think the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs more resources, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer should be an officer of Parliament, but it certainly is a step in the right direction to ensure full transparency around all government spending.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member who spoke before the member suggested that we would need some unicorn dust to fund the just transition to provide jobs right away to oil sector workers who have found themselves out of work over the last five years.

I am wondering if you have some comments about where we could find that unicorn dust.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the member to address his questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, when I heard the hon. Conservative member who spoke before me say that, I wondered where he was when the former premier of Quebec Pauline Marois did the right thing and shut down the asbestos industry because it was killing people around the world. It was a tough thing to do. Quebec has gone through the experience of a just transition for its workers. We learned some things from that. It was not quite as good of a just transition as it should have been.

We need to bring in a just transition act across Canada, as the Liberals promised in the last election. We have guidance from an excellent piece of work from a task force co-chaired by Hassan Yussuff from the Canadian Labour Congress. It is a very strong report on a just transition for coal sector workers. We also know that we do not need fairy dust—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have run out of time.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech of 2021, so I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all my parliamentary colleagues a happy new year.

In these trying times of health and economic crisis, we are treading an ever more challenging path littered with stumbling blocks. Before getting into public life, I paid close attention to political affairs. My father and I spent many hours a week keeping abreast of what politicians and the official parties, both governing and opposition, were up to. At times, I would think to myself that, if I were in their shoes, I would say this or propose that and really try to make the people the focus of my thoughts and actions.

Now I am here, actively participating in a process brought on by the pandemic. We all know politics has never seen anything like this. I am proud to contribute to the process, and I am bringing the heart and soul of an artist and a businesswoman to the table. People all around me are working to help individuals grappling with all kinds of problems, and I am right there with them. We are, by nature, hard-working people, and that shows in our efforts to help others.

In politics, and in the context of the pandemic, as career politicians or newly elected members, we have to adapt to new variables and roll with the punches. We have to strengthen our resolve and even reconsider how we do things. It is essential that every elected member of this House set aside certain electioneering tendencies, redirect their attention away from their electoral plans and campaign photo-ops, and focus on all these social issues that are also calls for help.

Helping people in times of crisis is our role. It is a matter of prioritizing public safety and our social safety net. Leading anthropologists and sociologists will say that there are three types of social security: physical, psychological and financial. Citizens put their trust in us and hope that we can stay focused on what is essential and avoid the worst for now and the future.

What is the worst? Simply put it is insecurity and uncertainty. Under the guise of an emergency and without any clear direction, the CERB, wage subsidies and business loans were handed out haphazardly by the government, and the concept of emergency grew ever broader to justify the failure to act responsibly. Clear direction and better targeted assistance would have allowed us to adapt the various programs.

What seems obvious, unfortunately, is that the government is trying to provoke an election before this all backfires. The current situation points to a very worrisome future that will have to be meticulously planned and rigorously managed through an economic recovery guided by very clear priorities. Between $70 billion and $100 billion has been announced to that end. This investment must not serve only to further increase the deficit and make the rich richer. Consistency and political courage are needed to avoid dipping again and again into the pockets of honest taxpayers in order to avoid disaster.

While huge organizations are avoiding paying billions of dollars in taxes—I am talking about the web giants—I have to wonder whether there is anyone at the controls. This country, which is part of the G7 and G20 and brags about being a model in certain areas, is depriving its economy and its citizens of such huge amounts of money. Quebec, meanwhile, has had the courage to tax the virtual economy, so yes, Quebec is the real model.

How do we begin to address the security of people and businesses in a society such as ours? To ensure physical security, we must close the border and prohibit non-essential travel. We must also look after public health and the health of the most vulnerable by providing the maximum amount required to fund health care through transfers to the provinces and Quebec with no conditions, improving seniors' financial situation, increasing purchasing power strategically and investing in pharmaceutical independence. Psychological security and financial security pretty much go hand in hand. People cannot live serenely or maintain the mental health required to get through a crisis such as this if they do not have financial security, even if it is minimal.

It will be extremely important to ensure that the government directs its assistance to Canadians and its support for businesses in the same way, that is by channelling financial assistance to those most impacted by this crisis, even if it means increasing taxes for those who were able to profit from the pandemic.

In speaking of the most impacted, I do not hesitate to say that, after considering the sad plight of seniors, who were especially hard hit by the virus, the arts and culture sector was the first to be brought to its knees and will be the last to emerge from this crisis. What did the culture sector receive? The CERB and emergency programs evaporated like the rain from a storm. Hundreds of artists, creators, self-employed individuals and sole proprietors fell through the cracks of programs and received no money for lack of funds or because the eligibility criteria did not mesh with these people's reality.

Now we are getting promises that other announcements will be made soon. That is the thrust of my speech. This promise holds the very future of our culture in its hands and, by extension, a large part of the mental health of Quebeckers and Canadians. These people will be desperately craving forms of entertainment, looking for magical places to come together, places filled with extraordinary creators, visionaries who weave the stories of our collective imagination.

Where will these places be? What will have happened to the artists? Will they still exist? These storytellers, production designers, directors, some world-renowned and others on their way there: Will they be able to continue creating without a decent income? Will our technicians be able to continue innovating and bringing our creators' imaginations to life?

Will our culture, our national pride, endure? Where will we find the stages featuring our up-and-coming architects of joy, our purveyors of the future and champions of our values? Where will we find consciousness-raisers and the people embracing free expression with ships of gold? Where will we be able to nurture our Leclercs, our budding Vigneaults or our future Beau Dommages? Where will we find our Cormiers, our Michauds, our Cowboys Fringants, our Charlotte Cardins, our Geneviève Jodoins or our Vent du Nords?

We must also think of our wonderful artists, the dancers, the circus performers, our favourite authors. Will our entrepreneurs and cultural organizations still be there to provide events and stages for all those beloved artists? How many of our museums, art galleries, festivals, theatres, cinemas, all those event spaces that drive, promote and disseminate our culture, will still be there? What about our wonderful media outlets that surround our artists, that promote and critique them, will they be forever changed? Will the individual financial assistance and programs we are asking for to support culture have been sufficient and properly distributed? Will the major legislative reforms that are necessary for the survival of the creative industy, such as Bill C-10, have been sufficiently robust and comprehensive?

Will our legislators have been courageous enough and determined enough to conduct a thorough review of the laws governing creation, creative content, its areas of application, and the obligations of users and aggregators?

To date, over 100,000 cultural workers have changed fields. It breaks my heart. We have already lost so much expertise, talent and resources that are vital to the evolution and development of our signature culture. I am asking the government and all of Parliament to recognize the value of culture and treat it accordingly. Culture is a service that is essential to society's mental, physical and financial health. It is a profitable essential service because the creative industry makes a vital contribution to Canada's and Quebec's GDP and serves as an important tool in promoting the vitality of parent economies, such as tourism. We have heard that some sectors of the economy will have practically disappeared by the end of this crisis, while others will shift to a more virtual economy. However, culture is not suited to a virtual experience, no matter how lifelike. Let us be realistic. Not everything is suited to the virtual world, particularly not culture. Arts and culture are living, breathing human things. They are about emotion and they are at the heart of every individual's socialization. Culture is vital.

Circumstances conducive to getting cultural activities back up and running may not be in place until 2022, maybe even 2023. Culture is going to need help. We all want life to get back to normal, but the only way that can happen is if we make sure artists get the support they need to stay in the business. Culture cannot and must not be the pandemic's next casualty. It is our duty to protect our society's cultural health because all forms of art immunize us against bitterness and distress. Culture is the most effective treatment for post-traumatic stress humanity has ever devised.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, to pick up on the arts and culture aspect, I was really encouraged late last year when I had the opportunity to meet with the Folk Arts Council, which is involved with Folklorama, a spectacular two-week summer event. There are literally thousands of volunteers and paid artists, and hundreds of thousands of people from across the country, most from Manitoba, participate in it. It was really encouraging that the Prime Minister took the time to meet with the board, albeit virtually, to hear its concerns. We got that first-hand experience. I know he is doing things of a similar nature throughout different regions of our country.

It is one thing to talk; it is another to get things to materialize. When we look at culture and arts, the wage subsidy was one of the critical programs. In fact, the Folk Arts Council complimented the degree to which it helped keep the doors open. I agree with the member that we can always look to our arts and cultural industries to give us the taste of life that is absolutely essential going forward.

Does the member have any other advice about something specific we could be adding to complement our arts and cultural communities in Canada?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I ask the member to keep his remarks to one minute to allow others to speak.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We agree on a number of things.

I am so glad this matters to my colleague. There are two basic things we need to do as soon as possible to help the cultural sector. The first is support for individuals, which should be adjusted as the recovery progresses. The same goes for cultural organizations. Holding events, big or small, requires predictability. Certainty around budgets is essential to planning for 2022 or even 2023, some organizations having already written off 2022.

To plan its recovery, the cultural sector needs recurrent funding for three to five years. That would give everyone some certainty.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for emphasizing the impact of the pandemic on arts and culture. It is true in all of our communities, no less so in greater Victoria than in Quebec, and artists are really finding it very hard, creative as they are, to find new ways to reach an audience and communicate during the pandemic.

In response to the question from the hon. parliamentary secretary about what he could do, I wonder if the member would join me in calling for an end to the threat to claw back CERB benefits from artists who are in need and who applied in good faith.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

That could be an option. I think that not only should the CERB be extended to people in the cultural sector, but the conditions should also be adjusted. CERB in its current form does not allow people to work or it allows them to work very little. Hours were calculated to a certain maximum number in order to be eligible for the CERB. These people have families, children, homes and cars. They have no choice. This penalized creation because at some point they had to stop so as not to lose their CERB. I agree with my colleague that this absolutely needs to be reviewed. We can sit down together and talk about it and propose something to the government.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix on her speech. She is a passionate woman who represents a magnificent part the country.

I would like her opinion on a program we have been awaiting for a very long time, for far too long, the famous program that was introduced in the economic statement, the highly affected sectors credit availability program. This affects the cultural industry, which she talked about, and the tourism industry. Since the hon. member represents a tourist region, what does she think about the eligibility criteria, which are extremely strict? Businesses will have to show that they recorded an annual drop in revenue of at least 50% for three months in the eight months preceding their application and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the member's time is up. I said that he had time for a brief question.

I urge all members to co-operate when I give them time for a brief question, otherwise I will no longer give the option to ask additional questions when there is not much time left.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix for a brief answer.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, our critic for tourism. Tourism is one of our top issues.

I agree that the highly affected sectors credit availability program, or HASCAP, lacks flexibility. We will certainly have to look at real-life experiences. This program needs to adapt to people's realities, and not the other way around. In most cases, more than 80% of applicants are ineligible because the criteria are far too strict and complicated. I obviously hope we can improve the terms and conditions of the program and make it more flexible for the very people it was designed for, and especially those who work in the tourism and culture industries.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by reminding members of a few things that have happened in recent weeks and months.

Members will all recall that, in December, the Prime Minister stood before the door of Rideau Cottage and announced that Canada would receive 125,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine every week in the first month of 2021.

On January 5, the Canadian Prime Minister once again stood before the door of his cottage and told us that he was frustrated with the pace of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. During a press conference at Rideau Cottage, he said, “Canadians, including me, are frustrated to see vaccines in freezers and not in people's arms”. That is what was reported by CBC, and those who were watching him heard him say that.

This proves that the Prime Minister had absolutely no idea what he was talking about or what was going on at that time. In fact, the Premier of Quebec was quickly rebuked by his federal counterpart when he also made a statement at his press conference indicating that all the vaccines Quebec received every week were used every week and that Quebec had the capacity to vaccinate 250,000 people per week. However, the federal government planned to send only 233,000 doses to the province by the end of January.

That was in early January. The Quebec government also said at the time that it could be vaccinating four times as many people, but it did not have enough doses. Those statements were made at a time when the Prime Minister was saying there would 125,000 doses available per week in Canada. That is how January began.

We are currently in the last week of January, and what is happening? Whether in Quebec, western Canada, Ontario, the Maritimes or the territories, it is the same everywhere. One number comes to mind when we think of the number of people vaccinated this week: zero.

Why? Because zero is the number of vaccines Canada got from Pfizer this week.

What does that mean? Clearly, it means that no one was vaccinated this week: not one vulnerable person, not one senior, not one essential worker.

When we see what is happening in other countries, what we must ask ourselves is, why? Why did Canada not have access to any vaccine doses in the last week of January?

We do not know how many doses we will receive next week, but we are still being promised that hundreds of thousands will arrive in the coming weeks and months and that the majority of Canadians who want the vaccine will be vaccinated by September.

I would like to remind members that the Prime Minister is making these announcements when just two months ago, he was saying we would receive 125,000 doses a week from Pfizer. One month later, we are coming to realize that his plan was untenable. How can we believe the Prime Minister when he tells us that all Canadians who want the vaccine will be vaccinated by September 2021?

Why is the Prime Minister acting this way? It is simple. He prefers his daily show at Rideau Cottage. He can give Canadians information while knowing that he can give more the next month, and the next, for as long as he gets to give press conferences in front of Rideau Cottage.

Why are there no vaccines? It is because the Prime Minister staked everything on one contract, with a Chinese company, instead of trying to sign agreements with pharmaceutical companies so that we could manufacture the vaccine here in Canada.

While the Liberals were staking everything on the Chinese vaccine last spring, our allies were signing agreements with AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer. Canada did not sign agreements with these pharmaceutical companies until months later.

All Canadians are paying the price for this leadership failure, because the Prime Minister is not being straight with Canadians, he refuses to disclose the agreements signed with the pharmaceutical companies, and the Liberal government is governing by the seat of its pants, with no plan and no expertise.

The vaccination plan is chaotic at best. We still have a lot of questions to ask to find out what went wrong.

Many of our allies have vaccinated a considerable portion of their population, while we are still in lockdown and worrying about the spread of new COVID-19 variants.

Again today, during question period, the Prime Minister gave us the same empty rhetoric we have been hearing for weeks now. He said that Canada has acquired more vaccine doses per person than any other country, that we will have more doses than anyone else, but we do not know when we will get them. There was not much point in signing so many vaccine agreements if we are going to be the last to get the vaccines. Canada did not receive any vaccines this week. None.

While the Liberals were wasting precious time, thousands of Canadians lost their lives to COVID-19. Businesses had to close their doors. Canadians had to deal with the consequences of the lockdown. How many people got COVID-19 this week? How many of them will die because the government failed to provide the provinces with vaccines? Seniors are the most vulnerable. They deserve better.

Today we are debating Bill C-14, legislation that delivers on promises made in the fall economic statement. That economic statement included some important measures, such as measures for Canadian families, that the Liberals opted not to implement before the holidays. The main reason they held off is that the Liberal government and the Prime Minister are in election strategy mode.

It is obvious that the Prime Minister does not like Parliament. It is even more obvious that he does not like consulting opposition parties about anything and that what he wants most of all is an election. When he had a majority, he could make all kinds of mistakes with impunity. Now he has to contend with opposition parties whose members are not as docile as those of his own party, and his convoluted explanations for those gaffes are falling on less forgiving ears.

A recent example is the fiasco of the appointment of the former governor general. Today I called on the Prime Minister to accept responsibility. Employees who quit their job are not entitled to employment insurance. That applies to all workers except for the former governor general, who was hand-picked by the Prime Minister. Friends of the Prime Minister who leave their job get a gold-plated pension. The former governor general will get $150,000 a year for life and a similar expense budget, and this is all despite the revelations in the much-anticipated report. It has not yet been made public. It will be released at the pleasure of the President of the Privy Council, who will decide what will be published in the report and when. It is a much-anticipated report.

In the meantime, we are victims of a totally unacceptable fiasco with this minority government. This is truly wilful blindness on the part of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. They had to have turned a blind eye when they proceeded with this appointment, otherwise they would have known what happened. The Conservatives put an excellent viceregal appointment process in place to avoid this kind of fiasco. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister decided to disregard it. That was his choice. What the Prime Minister wanted took precedence over the health and future of Canadians. What Canadians want is to get out of this pandemic. They want to be healthy and go back to seeing their friends. They want lockdown to end and to get the vaccine the Prime Minister promised to provide them. They want a real economic recovery. There is nothing about any of that in Bill C-14.

Last fall, the Prime Minister and the Liberals missed a golden opportunity to use the economic statement to present a plan to return to normal. Millions of Canadians were abandoned during the pandemic because of the Prime Minister's incompetence. He put our workers and our economy at risk because of his failures on the vaccine front. There is only one way for us to protect our future. Under the leadership of the hon. member for Durham, the Conservatives will be able to ensure the safety of Canadians.

Unfortunately, what the Liberal government has taught us is that it is possible to spend billions of dollars and still leave behind millions of Canadians. As the Minister of Finance has confirmed, we are on track to having a historic deficit of almost $400 billion. The economic update clearly indicates that the Liberals still have no plan to help the millions of Canadians looking for work or the tens of thousands of businesses hit hard by the pandemic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member has a very different outlook of what the reality is. The only ones who talk about the election are the Conservatives and the Bloc. It is the opposition party members who tend to always want to talk about an election.

Our focus from day one has been the pandemic and ensuring that Canadians in all regions of our country are in fact being served by this government. That includes the creation of programs like the wage subsidy program and the CERB program. Today, we are ensuring we have the vaccines that are safe, free and effective for Canadians. We will have those six million vaccines before the end of March, the first quarter, something we have talked about for a long time.

Why are the Conservatives giving misinformation on a whole litany of things regarding COVID-19?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always astonished at how the Liberals can manipulate all the elements at their disposal in an attempt to look good. However, the facts and figures speak for themselves. Anyone who consults the Liberal Party of Canada Facebook page will see all kinds of posts by members asking the public to re-elect a given candidate, minister or member. We were not the ones who started this blitz. We were not the ones who launched a pre-election period in this country. I invite my colleague to have a look at his own party's social media. He will see that there is a lot of talk about an election.

The facts speak for themselves. We have received no vaccines from Pfizer this week. Despite saying—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I must allow time for another question.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l’Île.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, as in the case of the economic statement, the most notable thing about this bill is what is missing from it. For example, Quebec and the provinces asked the federal government to increase health transfers. We know that, in the 1970s, the federal government was covering approximately 50% of health care costs. Now, it is paying only 22%. It is choking Quebec and the provinces, which enables it to spend in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I would like my colleague to talk about the Conservatives' position on health transfers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are short on time, but I will allow the hon. member from Mégantic—L'Érable to briefly respond.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will heed your words and keep my answer brief. What we absolutely do not want is for the Prime Minister to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. We will ensure stable, adequate funding for the health care system that will increase over the coming years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will have one minute and 45 seconds when this matter comes before the House again.

It being 6:59 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from January 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by giving a shout-out to my constituents. During this unprecedented crisis, the people of Hochelaga have been and continue to be resilient, united and involved. I am proud to represent them in the House.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, over 700,000 Canadians have contracted COVID-19 and over 18,000 have died from it.

The hospitals and long-term care facilities in Hochelaga and eastern Montreal have been hard hit by COVID-19 outbreaks. Right now, unfortunately, the health and social services centre, or CIUSSS, in Montreal East has the highest mortality and hospitalization rates. My thoughts are with the family and friends of all those affected. Every life lost to this disease is one life too many.

Now that we are facing a second wave of the pandemic, an increase in the number of cases across the country and new variants of the virus, we must not let our guard down. That is why we have invested in the capacity of the health care system across the country. Saving lives is the top priority.

Ever since the pandemic hit, our government has been implementing programs to support organizations, businesses and families and provide them with what matters most: a social and economic safety net. To date, the government has invested $407 billion, or nearly 19% of Canada's GDP, in this unprecedented emergency response plan, which will carry on through 2021.

It is important to note that, since March 2020, eight out of every 10 dollars spent fighting the pandemic has been spent by the federal government. By saving jobs and helping businesses weather the storm, we have averted long-term economic damage and positioned Canada for a strong recovery from the recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

We are working with the provinces and territories to battle COVID-19 on multiple fronts. We have invested in our capacity to provide health care safely, and we have increased testing.

The pandemic is evolving, and so is our approach. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tabled the fall economic update, which includes new measures we plan to implement as we focus more on economic recovery. Bill C-14 is the first step toward that.

In addition to the many programs and supports introduced by our government, we have purchased up to 429 million doses of seven promising vaccines, giving us the most diverse and extensive vaccine portfolio of any country in the world.

This will ensure access to free vaccines for every Canadian who wants one, and ensure that all Quebeckers and Canadians are vaccinated by the end of September. To date, nearly 238,000 Quebeckers have been vaccinated.

We have also procured personal protective equipment for health care workers, investing $7.6 bilion to rapidly procure more than two billion pieces of PPE. The fall economic statement also proposes an additional $1.5 billion to continue to procure the PPE we need. More than five million gloves and 10,000 ventilators have been sent to Quebec.

We have also announced the elimination of GST and HST on the sale of face masks and face shields. We will also provide $150 million over three years, beginning in 2021, to improve ventilation in public buildings to help reduce the spread of COVID-19. The devastating COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care homes have highlighted the gaps in standards and care for our most vulnerable. That is unacceptable.

To ensure that seniors and those receiving care live in safe and dignified conditions, the federal government will continue to work with the provinces and territories to establish new national standards for long-term care.

We are investing up to $1 billion to create a fund for long-term infection prevention and control, in order to help the provinces and territories protect residents of long-term care homes and to support infection prevention and control activities.

I would like to mention the tremendous work that the Canadian Red Cross is doing in long-term care centres. In Quebec, there are approximately 280 workers in 14 long-term care centres. In Hochelaga, the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed for several weeks to the Benjamin-Victor-Rousselot long-term care facility and the Grace Dart extended care centre. I thank them for their help during Operation Laser and the assistance they continue to provide.

The lockdown and reduced social contact during this pandemic has had serious repercussions on people's mental health. We have a duty to ensure that every person in Quebec and Canada can get the help they need when they need it. During this difficult time, we are investing $50 million in additional resources to reinforce crisis centres and an extra $83 billion in support for Wellness Together Canada and the free services it provides.

We must not forget our front-line organizations, which have been working extremely hard since the start of this crisis. As mentioned in the fall economic statement 2020, in 2021-22, we will invest $299.4 million in reaching home, Canada's homelessness strategy, to help shelters prevent the spread of the virus and to ensure that everyone can stay housed during the winter. Since the beginning of the crisis, more than $2 million has been allocated to support organizations in Hochelaga that work with the homeless and to provide better safe access to housing. Funding of $1 million was allocated to the CAP-CARE shelter, which helps the homeless and is housed in the former Hochelaga YMCA.

Bill C-14 will top up the regional relief and recovery fund to provide a level of support equivalent to the Canada emergency business account. The CEBA was expanded and now provides loans of up to $60,000, of which $20,000 can be forgivable. This measure has benefited over 762,000 small businesses in Canada. Through the PME MTL network, this support has helped many businesses in Montreal and represents 56% of the assistance disbursed in Hochelaga, Mercier and Maisonneuve, all funding combined.

This bill will make it easier to access the Canada emergency rent subsidy. Once the bill is passed, businesses will have access to the rent funds before paying the rent. This fixed expense is a big financial burden for businesses and organizations, and the government's measure will alleviate a large portion of that burden. Théâtre Denise-Pelletier in Hochelaga, Café des Alizés, Pavillon d'éducation communautaire, CARE and Fondation des aveugles du Québec are all examples of organizations that could benefit from this important amendment.

Another very important measure in this bill is the increase to the Canada child benefit, which will go up by $1,200 for every child under the age of six. More than 9,000 families and 15,000 children in Hochelaga received the Canada child benefit in 2019. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.6 million Canadian families will benefit from this increase.

I am proud to be a member of a government that supports the people of Hochelaga, Quebec and the entire country. I have spoken to a number of Canadians, organizations and businesses that are receiving essential support from this government. We will continue to do everything we can to limit job losses and mitigate the impacts of COVID-19.

Once we are through this crisis, our country will be better equipped for a more equitable and sustainable recovery. I hope that all members in the House will support this bill. We must remain vigilant, united and committed in the face of this pandemic.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned in her speech that 10,000 ventilators were purchased in Quebec. I am wondering if she could expand a little further on that. We know that a contract for 10,000 ventilators was given to a company that had only been in existence for seven days prior to the award. That company subsequently subcontracted that out to Baylis Medical, a company owned by former MP Frank Baylis, for a premium of $100 million over retail price.

Can the member tell the House how many of the 10,000 ventilators that were purchased in Quebec are currently being used and how many ventilators are being used in the province of Quebec?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

What I want to emphasize is all of the support that the government was able to provide to all of the provinces and territories for their health care systems. The goal was to provide prevention and screening support to people and organizations. I think that the work the government did in the provinces and across the country has been essential for fighting the pandemic.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the deficit.

Recently, we have talked a lot about the need to set up a special committee to shed some light on how taxpayers' money is being spent. There was the WE Charity scandal and the awarding of some rather questionable contracts.

The economic statement provides a lot of specific information, but I would like my colleague to talk about the special committee. The purpose of that committee is to help us determine exactly where the money allocated to fight the pandemic is going.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

What stands out to me is the government's accessibility and the ease with which it was able to answer the opposition's questions during the pandemic. We were always here. There have never been so many questions asked and so many answers given to the opposition. I think that we are doing everything we can to be transparent and to collaborate with the opposition in order to get through this pandemic and deliver the necessary funds to support all Canadians across the country.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, as many in the House know, one of the biggest concerns for me, especially representing the constituents of Edmonton Strathcona, is how we are supporting students during this time. There are a number of students in my riding who are struggling and a number of recent graduates as well.

While we are delighted to see the government take the initial step to stop student loan interest from being repaid, I have some real concerns. We still have not seen any action from the government on the moratorium on student loan repayments until the end of May 2021, which the Liberal government promised, through a unanimous consent motion, to implement.

When can we expect the government to implement that?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's grave concern about what students are going through. There are lots of students in my riding. We have put several measures in place to help students get through the crisis. I am sure that, in the months to come, we will be able to put forward more measures to better support students and help them get through this virtual crisis.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I know how hard she is working on the ground to help the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I also know that Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has been hit especially hard by the second wave of the pandemic.

I would like her to tell us more about measures in the economic statement that will help her constituents.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Actually, the east end of Montreal, including Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, was among the first to be hit by the pandemic. It is the epicentre of the pandemic. The Canada child benefit, the Canada emergency business account, the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and many other measures are helping all—

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

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are here today debating a bill ostensibly to support Canadians given the pandemic. It is important for us to support Canadians, but we are a year into the pandemic now and I am wondering if the government is missing the boat.

A year ago, when parliamentarians came together in the midst of the first lockdowns, the restrictions, lockdowns and measures we were putting in place for Canadians to support them were designed to buy governments time to figure out exactly what COVID-19 was, how it spread, who was most affected, how to put in place testing systems and things we needed to do to produce therapeutics and vaccines, and how to get hospitals ready. That was a year ago.

I would like to pause and say that it is actually miraculous what has happened. Vaccines have been developed. Therapeutics have been developed. Rapid tests have been developed. However, these are all things that should have been deployed widely in Canada, a G7 country, by now. We are now sitting here talking about a bill, and while, yes, the support is important, the support is necessary because we do not yet have an end in sight from the federal government. That is a huge problem.

We are continuing to ask Canadians to sacrifice more and sacrifice the hope of jobs, recovery, reunion, safety and mental health without having a path forward, and it is because we do not have the information we need from the federal government to have an end in sight.

I want to talk about what this means in the context of a very personal human face. I want to talk about my cousin Eric. My dad's side of the family is a big, French-Catholic family, with eight brothers and sisters, dozens of grandchildren and dozens of great-grandchildren. None of us grew up in wealth, but everybody has worked hard.

This year at Christmas my cousin Eric phoned me. He is 27 and he is going to get married, and this is really great. Normally it would be such a big cause for celebration, but there were two things that really bothered me about the conversation we had. One of them was how hopeless he sounded. Anyone who knows him knows he has a sense of humour and is always very positive, but the first thing he said was “I do not know how we are going to get a house.” He had no idea, and it was off the table for them. That is wrong. He said it is because he and his fiancée Jessica have had very tough times.

Jessica is a business woman. She put together a dog grooming business that got very successful, but the restrictions shut it down numerous times. Eric works at a box manufacturing plant. Whenever he tells people that he works at a box manufacturing plant, I hate that he shrinks back, because he is an essential worker in the pandemic right now. How many people listening to this speech today have had something delivered in a box over the last year?

These bills are failing Eric and Jessica. The government's response has largely been classist, let us be honest. We have not really addressed the fact that people who work in box manufacturing plants, in grocery stores and on the front lines really do not have a lot of hope because their lives are on the line. They are the most at risk for transmission right now. They do not want the CERB forever. They want safe working conditions. They want a prospect to move forward. Eric and Jessica want a wedding and want to be able to buy a house. I do not see anything in the bill, or anything the government has done, that has an end date in sight.

If this bill were doing what it is supposed to be doing, it would be tied to such things as the number of vaccinated people in Canada. We should start setting targets for vaccinations and for the number of rapid tests deployed in plants such as the one Eric works at, so we do not have to continue to put restrictions on Canadians without telling them what they are getting out of it. That is the reality.

We keep putting more restrictions on Canadians, but we are not explaining to them when, or under what circumstances, those restrictions will end. That should be concerning to every member here. If everything is going so well, why can we not tell Canadians when the end will be in sight?

Yesterday I asked the transport minister the simple question of whether a vaccinated Canadian would be subject to the same travel restrictions the government put in place. He did not really have an answer for that. Why? Why can we not talk about better systems, rather than just curfews, putting people in quarantine hotels and more restrictions, when we have tools, such as rapid tests, that have not been deployed across the country?

Vaccines have not been brought into the country and we do not have a date in sight for that. The government needs to take a leadership role. It needs to work with every party in Parliament and all premiers of all political stripes to put together a plan, so we are not coming back to Parliament to debate more extensions on restrictions that require us to pay people for taking away their freedom, liberty, hope, mental health and way of doing things.

I do not accept that this is where we are. We are having the same debate we were having a year ago. Why? I could accept that and tell Eric and Jessica that is where we are, if there were not better ways of doing things that the world has produced. We need to start tying bills and measures such as this one to hard dates and hard plans for recovery. That is what is missing in this bill right now.

Frankly, we are abdicating our responsibility as parliamentarians, because the amount of money we are spending on these stopgap solutions is bankrupting the future for people like Eric and Jessica. Yes, we need to be supporting people through lockdowns, of course we do, but we keep spending more money. I know people hate talking about debt levels in this country, but we are going into so much debt as a country that the interest payments on that debt, the credit card payments on that debt, are going to bankrupt our country's ability to spend on things like affordable housing in the future.

Every time we have to make an interest payment to another country on the money we are spending now on stopgap solutions means another road, hospital or affordable housing complex cannot be built in the future. We are making a choice to continue these temporary measures versus coming up with a long-term plan. That is what is wrong. That is what is missing here.

I get that we are arguing about the technicality of these programs and extending them, but people do not want to stay on CERB forever. They do not want to stay on long-term support; they want hope and a way out of the pandemic.

We have those tools. They exist in the world, but have not been deployed in Canada. The government has to get its act together. It has to start answering questions, such as whether the vaccine will be tied to travel restrictions by a certain date, or what the data points we need are and how we are going to get to them. It should be giving status updates to Canadians. The government cannot keep taking away freedom and the hope of living a good life without a plan.

Here we are spending all of this money and I cannot give Eric and Jessica an answer to whether they will have a wedding next year. I do not know if they will be on CERB. I do not know if Jessica will be able to practise her business. For every single one of us, of all political stripes, that is not acceptable a year in. We all have to demand better, because Eric, Jessica and every single Canadian deserve better. They deserve hope, and that is what we should be fighting for.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated how the member used personal experiences to illustrate what people have been going through. The examples are countless.

I have a first cousin on my dad's side of the family, the baby of the cousins, who got married just before the pandemic. She recently announced that she was expecting. Her name is Mary and her husband's name is Matt. I had to drop off their baby shower gift at Canada Post to be delivered to them because we obviously cannot see them in person.

There are definitely so many people throughout our country who are struggling with this. However, there is an end in sight. This member asked a lot about the end in sight, and what the hard date was. Every Canadian will be vaccinated, if they choose to be, by September of this year. When we use that as our date and we tell people to look forward to that, that will motivate people to plan around that. For example, Queen's University in my riding is planning events for the fall, based on this information.

Does the member not see that as a tangible date we are able to tell people to prepare for?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the government has not said that it would lift restrictions once everyone is vaccinated, so I do not know. That is number one.

Number two, the reality is that most of the vaccines the government has contracted are produced in Europe, and Europe is about to impose export restrictions on vaccines. Our country is not on the exemption list. That is a huge problem. Also, we are two million doses short of the vaccine this week.

I actually do not know if September is reasonable. Based on all the projections we have right now, I would say it is not. That is what I am talking about. We do not have this information. The government has not been transparent. It is not talking about tying vaccines to lifting restrictions. It is not talking about implementing better systems of rapid testing. It is just vague stuff. We need more information.

We need information. We need hard timelines. We need clear conditions so that people can plan. No, to Mary and Matt—

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

We will have to give colleagues an opportunity to ask questions.

Continuing with questions and comments, is the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, what really concerns me is that we are in the biggest medical catastrophe in a century, the biggest threat to Canada since the Second World War, and we are being told not to worry, that by September, everybody will be okay. It is the Bobby McFerrin solution: Don't Worry, Be Happy. However, I have so many small businesses in my riding that will not be around come September. It will be tough luck for them.

The question I want to ask is about the failure to address the vaccine crisis. We knew this was coming. It was the same with our incapacity to deal with PPE. We are being told not to worry, that the Europeans will be nice to us.

That does not cut it with the new variant strain they say is going to hit us like a hurricane. The Novavax vaccine will not be ready for at least two months, and the NCR plant is still under construction.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the absolute failure of the government to seize the tools necessary to protect its people in what is the biggest medical crisis we have ever seen. We need the government to actually take a lead on vaccines, rather than hoping that the Europeans will be nice to us. That is not going to cut it when the new variant strain hits.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The government's vaccine strategy is an abject failure.

What people watching us want to know is what we are going to do to fix it. I want to point out that the colleague who just asked the question is from the New Democratic Party. I have worked with colleagues from that party and with colleagues in the Bloc. We do not agree on everything, but we agree with the fact that we need to do better.

It is incumbent upon the government to work across party lines and admit this failure. That is the first step to fixing a problem, admitting the failure and saying it is not okay. It is not Bobby McFerrin, and we need to move forward.

That is what we are all working on here in the House of Commons. I encourage the government to take these concerns seriously, because we cannot wait until September for some sort of hope that might never come.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-14, but before I do so, I would like to echo a lot of the comments that have been made in the House celebrating Black History Month. I would especially like to give a shout-out to my provincial colleague in Alberta, Minister Kaycee Madu, whose provincial riding is shared between my riding and that of Edmonton Riverbend. Minister Madu is the very first Black justice minister in any provincial or federal government in Canadian history, so I would like to give him a special shout-out and special congratulations for Black History Month.

In Alberta we have been blessed with incredible contributions from the Black community, from the legendary John Ware, our first Black cattle farmer, who was rumoured to be able to wrestle a steer to the ground and jump on cattle while riding a herd forward, to Violet King Henry, the very first Black woman ever called to the bar in Canada. It is a great month and a great contribution to Alberta.

Black History Month is the good part. Now we move on to Bill C-14, which is the bad part. I will start with all the debt the government has added during the pandemic. We have added more per capita than any country in the G7 and G20. Our debt this year is probably going to hit $1.1 trillion. That is just the federal debt. The provincial debt is going to be about another trillion. However, these numbers do not cover the federal liabilities for crown corporations or pensions.

What do we get for all that debt? We have the most spending per capita in the G7, the most support, while also having among the highest levels of unemployment in the G7. Our unemployment rate is only better than that of the economic basket cases Italy and, just now, France as well. We are barely ahead of them. We have only 0.3% lower unemployment than France and 0.4% lower unemployment than Italy. What about the rest of the G7? Our unemployment rate in Canada, despite all of the spending, is 41% higher than the unemployment average of the G7.

In May, at the height of the pandemic, our unemployment was pretty much the same as the U.S. at 14%. The most recent data from the OECD is from December, when Trump was still in power, and Trump's America had dropped to 6.7% unemployment. We were at 8.6%. The U.K., probably ravaged far worse by COVID than any other G7 country, has an unemployment rate of 5%. Italy, which is just barely above us right now, was devastated by the first wave and the second wave, and its unemployment is actually lower now than it was pre-pandemic, yet Canada struggles along.

What about going forward? What is the sign for the economy? The IMF recently slashed our growth projection for this year for the economy by 31%. It did not know why and did not state why. I do not think the Liberal government knows why. There is no plan for going forward, so it was probably just a shrug as to why. However, what if we compare this with the rest of the world? The IMF increased its forecast for growth by 5.7% for the economy around the world, while Canada's dropped 31% from the previous projection.

Getting back to the debt, if we ignore the fact that crown corporations are technically supposed to look after their own finances, they have about $400 billion or $500 billion in liabilities. The unfunded public service pension liabilities is upward to about $100 billion. When we talk about the overall debt hitting $1 trillion, it is actually about $1.5 trillion. I ask members to let that sink in. That is before the lower interest rates negatively affect the pension liabilities.

The finance minister would tell us that everything is fine, everything is good, and not to worry. My colleague from Calgary stole my line about Bobby McFerrin and Don't Worry, Be Happy, but that seems to be the comment. We are told not to worry because interest rates will stay low forever. However, and here is the thing, they will not stay low forever. We are at the mercy of a world economy. If the U.S. raises its interest rates, we are going to have to pay more for our debt.

The finance minister says that we do not need to worry, and that we have locked in this debt for a long term. When we look at how borrowing is done, the longer that we are borrowing and the longer we are locked in, the higher the rates actually are. When we look at the Bank of Canada website, it is anywhere from triple to eight times the short-term rate the longer that we lock in.

It is not a simple matter of locking in zero interest rates forever or that we never have to pay it back. Rates will eventually rise and we will end up as we were in the Chrétien-Martin era, slashing the public service and health care transfers to provinces.

What is the plan to get out of all of this? What is the government's plan to build the economy? The whole plan is built around a slogan stolen from Joe Biden. We are going to ”build back better”. That is the plan.

We have massive unemployment in tourism hospitality, but we should not worry; we will build back better. With airlines on the verge of collapse, that is okay; we will build back better. The Alberta energy industry is devastated by the government's incompetence and its inability or refusal to act on Keystone or other issues. We should not worry; we will build back better. Slogans, unfortunately, are not going pay the bills and slogans are not going to help us build back better.

We do not have a fiscal anchor. We used to have one years ago, which was “the budget will balance itself“. That was the Liberals' original fiscal anchor. Then it changed to the budget would be balanced in the third year. Then the fiscal anchor became 27.5% debt to GDP, then 30.5% and then the anchor switched to being a decreasing debt to GDP. Now we have fiscal guardrails.

The finance minister says that we should not worry, that we will have fiscal guardrails to guide us forward. What did the Parliamentary Budget Officer say about these guardrails? Besides nonsensical, he said that they were contradictory and incompatible. This is what is scary. The finance ministers says that we will have our guardrails based on hours worked and unemployment.

What does the PBO mean by saying that they are incompatible and contradictory? Unemployment levels can go down, but the number of hours worked is predicted by the PBO to go down as well because we have an aging workforce and therefore fewer people working, fewer people participating in the workforce with fewer hours worked. We have our new fiscal anchor being called nonsensical by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Again, there is no plan.

There is no plan about the Liberals' $100 billion stimulus spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that most if not all jobs lost will be regained by 2021-22, which is when the fiscal stimulus is set to kick in.

Therefore, the government basically does not know what its guardrails are. It says that it will spend about $100 billion in the coming years, but it will kick in when the Parliamentary Budget Officer expects our unemployment to be back to where it was pre-pandemic. Again, what is the point of the $100 billion? The government does not seem to know. Where is our debt going? The government does not seem to know.

I want to get back to what my colleague from Calgary was talking about in regard to the vaccines. We need the vaccines to get out of this. Thank God for Pfizer, Moderna and all the scientists and big pharma for performing a miracle and getting this vaccines out. However, they need to be in the arms of Canadians.

I have a gentleman in my riding who is 102, a World War II veteran, Fred Russell. He is a magnificent man. He still has his full faculties and still gets up and dances. He landed at Dieppe and got off the beach, probably the last 10 survivors from the Dieppe raid. He landed at Normandy, actually liberated Dieppe with the Canadian troops, fought through France, fought through Holland and fought through Germany. From about mid-September, a couple of weeks after Canada declared war, until after VE day, he was away serving this country. He is locked in his room in a seniors care facility, without seeing family, friends, without seeing anyone, because he does not have a vaccine.

This is a gentleman who stepped up for Canada. He was there for Canada when Canada needed him. Where is Canada now when he needs Canada to step up for him with the vaccine? It has disappeared between Liberal talking points of vaccines for everyone one day down the road. It is not good enough for Fred Russell, who gave everything for Canada, and it is not good enough for Canadians either.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the service of Russell who lives in my colleague's community and what he did for Canadians.

I will take a step back to some of the higher-level messaging the member set out in his speech, particularly with respect to his concern around spending and the debt level.

I find it very difficult to understand how we will be able to invest in science and create vaccines domestically without spending. I find it very difficult to understand how we can support our entrepreneurs and businesses without the spending.

Would the member like to explain how we can continue to support Canadians and invest in the domestic production of vaccines without adding to our debt level?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said that it was difficult for her to understand. It is difficult for me to understand as well when a company in Calgary has been reaching out to the government since the beginning of the pandemic for support for its made-in-Canada vaccine. What did it get from the government? Nothing. The company probably received an email thanking it, saying that the government was procuring more per capita than anyone. The government says that it wants to invest in made-in-Canada solutions, but when it had the chance, it refused.

When she talks about the spending, we just learned that the government spent $115,000 to put workers up in a luxury resort in British Columbia instead of using lower-priced hotels is Esquimalt. Fisheries and Oceans justified it by putting them in the most expensive hotels in the country.

The government is happy to spend in every possible way where it does not actually benefit Canadians, but when there is a chance, like investing in the pharmaceutical in Calgary, it turns its back.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, small businesses have been hit really hard during the pandemic and many will not survive. In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, business owners have literally remortgaged their houses to try to keep their employees employed and their businesses open. The government has failed grossly in providing adequate support for small businesses to ensure they can survive the pandemic.

Would my hon. colleague have further thoughts on this?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre makes a very good point. Small businesses are suffering. At the very beginning, the government said that the wage subsidy support would be 10%. We called for 75%, like many in the G7. Then it delayed the rollout for months and months. By the time the wage subsidy was rolled out by the government, most of these people were laid off and sitting on CERB.

On the rent subsidy, we begged the government to change its program to support businesses directly instead of waiting for fat-cat landlords to apply. The government again ignored the requests from the opposition and small businesses. It failed them utterly.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave us a lot of data to process.

Several times the member reiterated that the Liberal government had no plan. Failing to plan is planning to fail, and I do not know why the Liberal government would want to fail. Why would it want to fail Canadians? This is a crucial time in the history of Canada. The Liberals have an opportunity to lead and they are not; they are reacting. It is time to plan and it is time to lead.

I wonder if the member could talk a little more about our increasing debt levels and the potential of interest rates rising and what that could do Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked why the Liberals planned to fail. I think it is just practice. Rising interest rates are going to cost us dearly. We saw it in the Chrétien-Martin years where it outpaced our growth. If we can get growth higher than the interest rates, we will be fine. That is the problem, though. There is no plan from the government for growth, for growing the economy.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-14. I appreciate very much the contribution of my learned colleague.

The bill deals with matters from the fall economic statement, which has still kept Canadians in the dark with respect to the financial future of our great country. However, it is no surprise when the last budget presented by the government was in 2019. We are two years later and we still have not had a budget. Canadians need to be assured about the state of our finances. During these very uncertain times, we need that certainty from our government. Canadians need to know that someone has a steady hand on the wheel.

However, it has come to the point where the Prime Minister rolled over when the U.S. President, Joe Biden, cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, basically his first order of business once he was elected. We know this project would have created thousands of jobs at a time when we badly need job creation, particularly in the west, and it would have generated billions in revenue at a time when Canada needs more revenue with very quickly rising expenses. It is hard to believe that the Liberals were not pleased by the decision of the President to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline. It is an opportunity for an ideological win for their party, while dealing a blow to the Canadian energy sector.

Our greatest resource has been blocked by the Liberals who have drastically increased our national debt. How is federal spending going to position our country to come back for a post-pandemic recovery? With this never-seen-before federal stimulus spending, where is the vision for our country? How will generations to come pay for the promises being made today?

No matter what the plan is and no matter how they spend the money, the Liberals leave Canadians out of the loop until they appear at a podium to make an announcement. There is no meaningful consultation. The government has announced $100 billion infrastructure spending over the next 10 years, but nobody knows what the plan is for that. How are they going to get that money out the door? How is it that going to be distributed and what projects will be priorities? We are left to wonder if there is a plan.

We know that it would be totally unlike the government to just focus on a flashy announcement with no actual real substance. No matter how much the announcement or what the results will be, Canadians continue to be left in the dark on how their money will be spent. Therefore, how can we expect to make this great Canadian comeback, which we desperately need? How can we get back in the fight with both hands tied behind our backs, with our greatest resources being stifled and attacked by the government?

Our manufacturing sector has been taxed and regulated to death, to the point where manufacturers across Canada, including in my riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, are packing up and leaving for jurisdictions with friendlier governments where there are not the regulations and never-ending mounting taxes. For them the uncertainty of their future is too great, knowing they have spent their time, talent and treasure to create jobs in their communities. The burden becomes too much to bear.

Our energy sector, which employs folks from coast to coast and all points in-between, has been hobbled and stymied by the Liberals at every opportunity. Their anti-energy ideology does not respect the fact that people in my community have to drive to work and heat their homes. This is not an option. They must use oil and gas in their day-to-day lives.

I cannot imagine a Canadian government that would prefer we use oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, where we know that there is horrific treatment of women and minorities and where people are persecuted for their sexual orientation, rather than using ethical, clean oil from Canada's west. It is produced to the highest environmental standards in the world, and while I cannot imagine a Canadian government that would want something different, that is what we are seeing. Conservatives know we should empower the Canadian resource sector to produce, employ and innovate. The story of the great Canadian comeback starts here at home in Canada, with knowing our strengths and playing to them.

When we see, at the first opportunity, a government look to reward its friends and well-placed insiders, we see that it defaults to corruption instead of to a team Canada approach. It certainly gives Canadians pause and it does not give them the confidence they need in the face of very uncertain times.

The resignation of the Governor General is disheartening, to say the least. As a former member of the Canadian Forces, I hold the office of our commander-in-chief in the highest regard, but it does not come as a surprise, when the Prime Minister had his finger on the scale in selecting the Governor General, that it would end poorly. That is the modus operandi of the government. It will always put its Liberal friends first. We see examples regularly of Liberals coming first and everyday Canadians coming second.

We need to make sure that we have a government that is willing to collaborate with opposition parties not after the fact, but before legislation is put in place. We have seen Liberals fix legislation, but often the fixes were recommended by opposition parties before the legislation came to the House. However, because opposition parties and the Conservative Party are committed to a team Canada approach, we have not delayed their unanimous consent bills when they looked to implement help that Canadians needed. We recognized that Canadians needed that help very badly.

On Liberals' spending plans, Canadians are left in the dark. The same is true of their plans for our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, helping Canadians get back to their regular lives and end the lockdowns. We are in a position where Canadians are not receiving the vaccines that we need. We are in a position where rapid tests have not been deployed in a way that would allow us to get back to our regular lives and earn our livelihoods.

Canadians, and the residents of my community in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, are counting on the government not to just talk the talk, but walk the walk. We need a clear plan from the government. We need to make sure Canadians are able to unleash their full potential so we can get back in the fight stronger than ever. It requires transparency, co-operation and a real team Canada approach from the government, and Canada's Conservatives are committed to being a part of that team.

Throughout this pandemic, the government has been scrambling for quick fixes, trying to ram bills through without proper debate and consultation and letting Canadians slip through the cracks along the way. From the get-go, I was hearing from folks in my riding that they had been left behind by the government's poorly thought out and poorly executed moves, such as small business owners who did not qualify for the CEBA, those who knew a 10% wage subsidy would not cut it and all those people who were ineligible for CERB, just to name a few. Instead of getting the help that Canadians needed to them, the government was more concerned with helping its friends. We do not have to look any further than the sweeping powers the current government tried to snatch in the early days of this pandemic, which would have given it the ability to tax and spend without parliamentary oversight for years. That blank cheque is not the team Canada approach that the government claims to use, and that Canadians so badly want to see.

Regardless of how the Liberals have bent or broken the rules to serve themselves, Conservatives will continue to hold them to account. We know that during this pandemic the Prime Minister took the opportunity to reward his friends at the WE organization, the organization that had given half a million dollars to members of his family. Then we saw the government give a half-billion dollar contract to his friends to administer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague's assessment is not right. In fact, it is pretty far off when he talks about helping friends and says we did not do enough with CERB, the wage subsidy or the rent subsidy programs, and that we could have issued more money and support. Nine million is a lot of friends, Canadians, to have received CERB. Millions received the wage subsidy program, and tens of thousands received the rent subsidy program.

On one hand he is criticizing the government for not spending enough money on these programs, yet the Conservatives are saying we are spending too much money and they are concerned about the deficit.

Can he provide clarification? Are we spending too much money or not enough money?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is shocking not to see the parliamentary secretary in the House. I know he prides himself on spending a great deal of time here, so it is very unusual to be in this position. It is nice to hear—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I hate to interrupt the member's video clip, but we should not be referring to the physical presence of a member in the House. There is no difference between being here virtually or in the House. We are all considered to be in the House, and we are equals whether we are virtually or physically here.

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

I remind the member we do not refer to the absence or presence of other members. As well, we are in a hybrid format so the member is considered present.

Please proceed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I know the member totally respects the rules, as I do. The member for Kingston and the Islands is wrong, because my Conservative colleague was not referring to individual members. He was referring to the number of members, which is a different issue.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We have an individual member—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but that is debate. There was a specific reference made to the parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has the floor.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, no good deed goes unpunished. I looked to say a nice thing about my colleague from Winnipeg North but will be sure to stick to the point.

The Liberals are trying to measure progress by the amount of money they spend, with no regard for the efficacy of the way they spend it. They are not giving a plan to Canadians. They are spending first and making a plan later. Canadians expect better and deserve better.

If we are going to stick to the business of it and dispense with the pleasantries, Canadians want a plan from the government. The parliamentary secretary owes answers to Canadians, and we are here to get them.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, the aerospace industry has been completely left out of Bill C-14.

For ages, the Bloc Québécois has been repeating that this industry is in need of support. The aerospace industry is one of Quebec's biggest exporters.

Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is home to two big companies: Pratt & Whitney and Héroux-Devtek. The landing gear for Apollo 11, which was the first to touch down on the moon, was manufactured in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. This is a huge achievement. A plane can be fully manufactured in Montreal, but the government refuses to support the industry during this crisis.

Why does my colleague think the government refuses to do anything to support the aerospace industry?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, at this point in the pandemic and the government's mandate, it is quite confusing why we have not seen a plan to help a whole range of sectors: the airline sector, the tourism sector, small and medium-sized enterprises, and folks in the restaurant industry and the hotel industry. We have not seen a clear plan.

I am not sure what the Liberals are waiting for. They prorogued Parliament. They had lots of time on their hands when they shut down Parliament for their cover-up from August to October. They had lots of time then. They had lots of time when they were filibustering at committees for dozens of hours. They certainly were not engaged in helping Canadians. They could have at least done the work of creating a plan to help sectors like the one in the member's riding.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on many points and important issues. When listening to the debate all morning and on previous days, one of the things we have not heard about is our vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities. We hear crickets about them from the Conservatives and Liberals. We do not know when the pandemic is going to end, yet we hear about new programs for them, but we do not know when.

Does the member not agree there should be immediate help for our vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities who are facing high costs and do not know if they should be eating or paying their rent and hydro?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, we saw that priority was not given to seniors and Canadians with disabilities by the government, with its delayed and slow rollout of the pandemic relief it offered to them.

We also know that the costs for folks living with disabilities and seniors have gone up because taxes have been increased by the Liberals this year, so we certainly need to see a plan from the government on how it will specifically help Canadian seniors and Canadians with disabilities.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am on Robinson-Huron treaty territory in the traditional lands of the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek. I am happy to be joining the House today from my home in Sudbury, Canada's mining capital.

I am pleased to speak to a bill that lays the foundation for a green and prosperous post-pandemic future—

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

The hon. member seems to have a bad connection.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Indeed, Madam Speaker. It keeps freezing.

I have gone months without any issues, but now when I am starting a speech, I am having problems.

Can you hear me now, Madam Speaker?

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

Yes, we can hear you well.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start again and hope there will be no further issues.

I am happy to join the House from my home in Sudbury, Canada's mining capital. I am thrilled to address a bill that lays the foundation for the prosperous, green future that awaits us after this pandemic.

I am proud to be part of a community that for generations has played a key role in Canada's natural resource economy. We helped create the wealth that funds our hospitals, our schools and our roads across the country.

I am also proud of the way we support each other. Although Sudbury has grown and become more diversified, there is still a true sense of belonging to the community. This year, many in my community have made simple yet meaningful gestures, like helping a neighbour, a friend, a family member or even a stranger. Some helped an older neighbour stay safe and healthy by going to the grocery store or pharmacy for them. Others volunteered for organizations like the local women's shelter. A group of classic car owners drove around town honking their horns in support of our health care workers.

One of these kind people is Kass Bazinet. This 22-year-old woman lost her job because of COVID-19, but she did not lose her musical talent. She put her creativity to work when she learned that a friend's little girl was having nightmares about the pandemic. One day, she stood in the parking lot under the balcony of the apartment where the little girl and her family lived. While Tiffany listened wide-eyed, Kass sang songs from her favourite movie, Frozen. The nightmares stopped. Kass then sang other songs for other frightened children and for seniors living alone.

Unfortunately, there are some things that volunteers cannot do. When small businesses close and workers like Kass are laid off, the Government of Canada needs to take action, and that is the purpose of Bill C-14. By adopting this bill, we will be implementing the many measures set out in the fall economic statement. As the Minister of Finance said at the time, this is part of the most important economic assistance program since World War II. The economic statement describes the measures taken by the government in response to COVID-19. At the same time, the bill will lay the foundation for an economic recovery once we have conquered the virus.

Others emphasized the measures set out in Bill C-14 to help individuals, communities and businesses get back on their feet. I would like to mention the measures taken, including one in particular that enhances the excellent work that Natural Resources Canada is already doing for Canadians. With the adoption of this bill, Natural Resources Canada will receive $150 million over three years to improve our zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. The network already includes more than 400 charging stations, and we are working to build twice as many. This will boost the public's confidence in the availability of charging stations when and where they are needed.

The government is proposing $2.6 billion over seven years to help homeowners make energy-efficient improvements to their homes. Grants of up to $5,000 will help up to 700,000 landlords and homeowners save money and make their own contribution to helping Canada meet its Paris targets by achieving net-zero by 2050.

Finally, and this is the point I want to focus on today, if Bill C-14 passes, Natural Resources Canada will receive more than $3 billion over 10 years to plant two billion trees. This investment in particular resonates with Canadians because our forests are very important to us. Urban parks make our cities more livable. They allow us to reconnect with nature and ourselves. They are a place where children play, where couples fall in love and where families, especially those who live in apartments, can spend the day outdoors.

Residents in our city can go to Bell Park in Sudbury to play or simply go for a walk and breathe in nature's beauty. They can also attend a summer concert in the afternoon or evening at the Grace Hartman amphitheatre in the park, overlooking magnificent Lake Ramsey. A few kilometres away, we can visit the Laurentian Lake Conservation Area. It is famous for its spectacular birdwatching activities and panoramic hikes in the summer. We can also go snowshoeing and cross-country skiing after a good snowfall.

These places are a part of the Canadian soul. People travel to Europe to see cathedrals and to Asia for temples. These forests are our cathedrals and temples. However, forests are about more than bringing health, laughter and memories; they will also help us save this planet from the worst impacts of climate change.

Their capacity to absorb carbon makes them a key part of our government's broad-based plan to reach zero emissions by 2050. That is why my colleagues, the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Environment and Climate Change, will soon appoint an advisory committee of experts.

This committee will be made up of people who can help us maximize emissions reductions through nature-based solutions, such as increasing the capacity of our forests, grasslands, wetlands, marginal—

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

We have lost the hon. parliamentary secretary.

We will come back to the hon. parliamentary secretary once the connectivity problems have been resolved.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am joining members today from sunny Saskatoon, and it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-14.

It not not news to anyone in Canada that we have been in an unprecedented situation in 2020 and 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the way Canadians live their lives, run their households and businesses, manage their finances, pursue their education and so much more. As a result, millions of Canadians are out of work, and many businesses have been forced to either limit their services or shut their doors altogether. Some, unfortunately, will never have the opportunity to reopen.

In Saskatchewan, we lost more than 8,000 jobs from November to December 2020, which is just one month, and we have seen a decrease of over 27,000 jobs from December 2019 to December 2020. We need to be sure that we are responding in a way that supports Canadian families, workers and, of course, our businesses.

Early on in the pandemic, as members know, we saw programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which were targeted at helping out-of-work Canadians pay their bills and struggling businesses to keep their employees working. However, there were, from the outset, some inherent flaws in these programs. For example, the wage subsidy was originally too small and the response benefit ignored many workers and students. With the opposition's input and pressure on the government, some of these problems were remedied. The wage subsidy was increased to 75%, for example.

However, some major flaws remain in the lack of programs and supports for certain sectors. At the heritage committee, we heard about the problems from artists, festivals, local and national sports organizations, museums, newspapers and other institutions that are crucial to our communities in Canada.

Between February and July of 2020, the GDP in the arts, entertainment and recreation sectors fell by more than 50% compared with the GDP of all Canadian industries, which fell by about 5% to 6% over the same period. Employment in these sectors also fell by over 50% compared with approximately 20% for total employment. These groups told us of the lack of funding available for them and their organizations, and that the money the government kept announcing was not trickling down to them in a meaningful way. They feared having to close their doors for good.

Even when the pandemic is in our rearview mirror, whenever that will be, it will not simply be business as usual. It will take a long time for businesses and organizations in these sectors to rebuild their consumer base and build up means and financial reserves to support production and staff at pre-COVID levels. These flaws are not just creating short-term problems; they are ensuring long-term ones.

When we look to other industries to see where the Canadian economy is taking a hit, we come to the cancellation out west of the Keystone XL pipeline. When the new President of the United States announced that he was cancelling the permits that had been granted by the previous administration, it was a major blow to the industry and the western Canadian economy, which was already struggling. The reality is that we need to get as many people in every part of Canada and every sector back to work as quickly as possible, and the Keystone XL project needs to do just that.

Unfortunately, much like he did when the Obama administration first blocked the Keystone XL expansion, the Prime Minister seems perfectly content to roll over and allow the Americans to simply scrap it without much contest. The loss of this project, and the many others the Prime Minister himself has either cancelled or regulated into oblivion, is only going to make the recovery that much harder, particularly here in western Canada.

We also need to consider the importance of procuring and distributing vaccines in the road to rebuilding our economy and helping Canadians get back to work. There is no recovery without widespread vaccination.

This brings me to a question that I hear from constituents every day: When is that going to happen? The truth is that we do not have a clear answer from the government. As much as the government loves to proclaim its success in procuring vaccines, we are falling behind our allies. The United States, Israel, the United Kingdom and other countries around the world are still well ahead of Canada in vaccinating their populations.

My office receives calls from care homes and seniors residences and from individuals who are at high risk or immunocompromised. When is it going to be their turn? It is a good question. Businesses are wondering when they are going to be able to reopen properly, without fear of being shut down again.

Canadians hear the stories about people being vaccinated in other countries with clear timelines and they are frustrated by the snail’s pace that our federal government is travelling at. The provinces have been clear: They do not have enough vaccines and cannot meet the demand. Sunday, in the province of Saskatchewan, only 88 people were vaccinated. This is a province of nearly 1.2 million people and only 88 people were vaccinated.

As a consequence, the lockdowns and closures are going to last much longer. The pressure on individual and family finances, the difficulties facing businesses on the brink and the strain on Canadians’ mental health are going to last, unfortunately, much longer.

From the public numbers and news reports, it is clear that Canada is falling further and further behind. Last week, we did not receive a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Premiers and other world leaders were actively on the phone with Pfizer over this issue, but the Prime Minister could not be bothered until he was pressured by the public and the opposition. That is not the leadership we need today in this country.

I want to highlight the importance of looking ahead and planning for life after the pandemic.

Canada now has a deficit that far exceeds anything we have ever seen in our lives. The national debt is at record level. We have lost thousands of jobs, and far too many businesses have been forced to close.

We know that the economy we see post-pandemic will have some significant differences from the one we knew pre-pandemic. We need to be prepared.

We also know that the recovery is going to take time. I spoke with Tourism Saskatoon. It believes the recovery will not take months, but years. I talked to the new CEO and she admitted to me last week that maybe the tourism industry in this province and in Canada can look ahead to 2024. In the news today, it was reported in Saskatoon that a number of downtown hotels are on the verge of closing for good. This is not good.

We need a plan in place that will provide economic stability and give Canadian businesses, big and small, the tools they need to grow and re-establish themselves. We also need to have plans to encourage new businesses. We need a plan that recognizes the realities facing our country while respecting the need to reduce the deficit and provide stable and responsible economic management.

Unfortunately, as I think Canadians have become all too used to, the government does not seem to have a plan. There is no clear path forward. Rather, the Prime Minister is governing by the seat of his pants. His only plan is to call an election whenever it is most to his advantage, which may be this spring.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk about unemployment, and other members from the Conservative Party have spoken at great length about the employment levels and our economy during their speeches. It is true that Canada has one of the higher unemployment levels in the G7, but what is left out of that very important discussion is the fact that we have one of the lowest levels of deaths per million population in the G7. As a matter of act, earlier someone else referenced that the United Kingdom has a 5% unemployment rate, while we are over 8%; however, the number of deaths per million population in the U.K. is three times that of Canada's, and if we compare ourselves with the U.S., the statistics are even worse.

One of the main objectives of the government intervention and spending in 2020 was specifically to get people to stay home, to shelter in place, so that we could control this pandemic. If we look at the statistics on the fatality rates throughout the G7, we see that Canada has fared very well, obviously at the expense of having a slightly higher unemployment rate than some of the other countries that have fared much worse. Would the member not agree that a temporary bump in our unemployment rate is worth potentially saving millions of lives?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, what is interesting is that it took the government a year to finally realize that international flying was one of the major issues facing COVID–19 in this country. Then it cherry-picked the closures of international flights. We still have flights coming in every day from Florida, Arizona, California and other parts of the world. The government took almost a year to shut down international flights. That is one of the major issues with COVID–19, yet the government has been very slow to react to it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I have the pleasure of sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He spoke briefly about the impact on the cultural community, industry and the media, among others.

I would like to hear his opinion on the measures' implementation and on the impact they could have given that fact that they are too little, too late. I would especially like to hear what he has to say about the fact that we are losing cultural resources and artisans who are making a career change because the current situation prevents them from earning a living in their field.

What will be the impact of the long-term cultural and media losses?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Drummond. He is a valuable asset on the Canadian heritage committee.

Yes, we have seen drastic changes made in 11 months to the arts and culture industry in Canada. I am fearful it will never recover, or that if it does, it could take up to a decade.

We are going through the changes proposed to the Broadcast Act in Bill C-10 at the heritage committee. What are we going to do with the big multimedia giants like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple and Disney? These Canadian media giants really have no investment at all in Canada, and they are forcing a major issue here.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention. I quite enjoy being on the heritage committee with him and I admire the work he does on behalf of artists.

As my colleague will know, Edmonton Strathcona is the heart of the arts community in Alberta, where we have the Edmonton International Fringe Festival and the Edmonton Folk Music Festival.

I too am very concerned about this long tail of COVID–19 and the impacts it will have on the arts community in Canada and in Edmonton Strathcona in particular. How does the member feel about a guaranteed basic livable income for artists as a potential solution for the arts community?

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

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood may give a very short answer.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona is absolutely right about artists. Saskatoon piggybacks on anything that her community does. We also have a fringe festival here in Saskatoon, or at least we did in 2019. These are people who were vulnerable from the start. They are looking for an opening to make a big name for themselves. I am very worried about the arts and culture community in this country. Like the tourism industry, it has been decimated, as I said in my speech. I do not see a lot of progress being made by the government, even though it dished up—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, before starting my speech, I would like to point out that this week is National Suicide Prevention Week, and that this year's theme is “Talking about suicide saves lives.” I would like to acknowledge and salute the exceptional work done by the people at the Drummond suicide prevention helpline, who are saving lives. We need to talk about suicide, especially this week.

There are three topics I would like to address. They are dear to my heart and I think we can do better.

The first is the development of high-speed Internet and telecommunication technologies in general, because I also want to talk about cell phones. We have spoken a lot about this in recent months and years. We even managed to get everyone to admit that effective and fair access to high-speed Internet was an essential service for all Quebeckers and Canadians.

If we are bringing it up again today, it is because not much has been done, despite the fact that we know that it is an essential service. I admit that there have been a lot of announcements, and that a lot of money has been invested in various programs. However, high-speed Internet is now more essential than ever during the pandemic and the resulting lockdown and the need to follow health guidelines. Families have to work from home and use a lot of bandwidth, and students are learning from home and also using a lot of bandwidth, not to mention that a lot of our entertainment is Internet-based. In short, high-speed Internet is an extremely essential service, one to which Quebeckers and Canadians have very uneven access, especially in remote areas.

Given how essential high-speed Internet is, the $1.8 billion we invested to accelerate its rollout may not be enough. The Quebec government aims to connect all Quebeckers by fall 2022. Some say it is a pipe dream, while others have faith. I think that it is entirely possible if we do what is necessary. I believe it is high time that the government work harder than it has been. Not only must it invest more money in the rollout of high-speed Internet, specifically in the regions, and I know it wants to do this, but it also needs to put conditions on the subsidies it provides. These conditions could include requiring that the beneficiary of a government subsidy undertake to connect every building in the sector in which it is rolling out the service.

The same goes for cell service. It is unthinkable that cell and Internet coverage is totally insufficient in densely populated areas relatively close to urban centres. I am thinking about Saint-Majorique-de-Grantham, a municipality in my riding about four minutes from downtown Drummondville; the situation in Saint-Joachim is similar. This situation is unacceptable in 2021, especially when people are being asked to stay home, work from home and learn from home.

I think that we can do far better in this regard and that we need to do it fast, since the economic recovery will depend on it. We will not automatically go back to our old ways of doing things as soon as the pandemic is over. There will be a greater need for Internet services and economic development in the regions, where businesses must often choose between moving to an urban centre and staying in the town where they were established. Many of my constituents are wondering when all this will be taken care of. I am sure that the same problem exists in each of my colleagues' ridings, except for those in very densely populated cities.

The second topic I wanted to discuss is the regional media and culture. My colleague spoke about this earlier in his speech. Before the pandemic and the crisis hit, we were already talking about the extreme vulnerability of the print media industry, especially regional media, and we were already implementing programs to come to the aid of the regional media. Then the pandemic happened, and it only made things worse.

Along the way, a few measures were proposed and well received. I must admit that, and I must acknowledge the Minister of Canadian Heritage's understanding and efforts to implement various measures.

However, the media is now asking how the government is managing its priorities. The fact that the GAFAM web giants are taking over the regional media's advertising share, their bread and butter, is an emergency that no one is doing anything about. Action is being postponed to some time in the future. The latest news was that something is coming in the spring, which is encouraging, but for the regional media, this is a matter of survival, and we have been saying so for months and sounding the alarm. We wonder whether anyone really hears us and understands the urgent situation our print media is in.

Tourism and major events have also been affected, and these sectors are recognized as being among those hit hardest by the pandemic. Tourism is a sector that relies on predictability. The people who work in this sector are extremely creative. They are being told that things have to change and that they have to adapt, and they are the ones who are best equipped to find creative ways of reorienting their activities and complying with the various public health guidelines.

Consider for example the Village québécois d'antan, an historic site in Drummondville that has a theme for each season. In the summertime, interpreters bring the village to life. In the fall, the haunted village becomes a major tourist attraction for Halloween. During the holidays, the village turns into an illuminated, magical place that transports visitors back to the Christmases of yesteryear.

During this pandemic, the village staff has had a few months to plan ahead for the pandemic and has prepared a fantastic tourist attraction for visitors to enjoy. The team was able to pull this off because it could plan ahead. However, no one knows what this summer will bring. If the team could be reassured that they are getting a certain amount in financial assistance, they could develop ideas and create something, reinvent themselves and welcome any visitors who come through our wonderful region of Drummond. However, this requires predictability.

The highly affected sectors credit availability program was announced two months ago, but no details have been given since then. Tourism businesses like the Village québécois d'antan need to know the details and need to know how much funding will be available in order to successfully create new attractions.

Lastly, I would like to talk a little about the environment and climate change. We receive a lot of emails from our constituents asking us to consider the environment and climate change when planning the recovery. We are being asked for a green and fair recovery. In December, the government introduced its greenhouse gas reduction plan to tackle climate change. However, once again, we see that they do not necessarily walk the talk.

I will give the example of Soprema, a company in my riding. In 2017, Environment and Climate Change Canada announced changes to the Ozone-depleting Substances and Halocarbon Alternatives Regulations, which would require manufacturers of plastic foam insulation to use a foaming agent with a lower global warming potential, or GWP. At the time, companies were using foaming agents with a GWP of approximately 750, but now that level had to come down to 150.

The three companies that share the blowing agents market, Dupont, Owens Corning and Soprema, took on the task in 2017. The first two of these companies are U.S. giants. On June 18, 2020, Soprema announced that it met the deadline and was ready for 2021. However, in August, we learned that Dupont had been granted an exemption allowing it to continue using its product, which is five times more polluting, on the pretext of economic infeasibility, which is a joke.

Efforts were made to overturn this ridiculous decision that created an appalling inequity in the market, especially since the new product was of course more expensive to produce. That gave Dupont an absolutely unacceptable economic advantage. Steps were taken, but there was no response, nothing happened. Then, in January, we learned that, instead of correcting their mistake, Environment and Climate Change Canada also granted Owens Corning an exemption, in addition to offering Soprema assistance in obtaining an exemption of its own.

This means that, instead of applying the new regulations to fight greenhouse gases and climate change, the government is lowering its standards to the lowest common denominator, punishing the good guys and penalizing Soprema for millions of dollars in losses, rather than rewarding it for its efforts.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his comments.

I lived in the Eastern Townships for a number of years, so I am quite familiar with his area, Drummondville. It is a wonderful city that, as he said, has an extremely vibrant arts and culture scene. As we know, those who work in arts and culture often have trouble making ends meet and sometimes face certain obstacles.

My question is quite simple. Does he agree with the idea of a guaranteed basic income, as proposed by the member for Winnipeg Centre? Does he believe that having a guaranteed basic income would improve the situation for those living in the regions? In Drummondville, the cultural community is extremely vibrant, but artists sometimes have a hard time making ends meet.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions.

Indeed, the arts community is very up and down and unstable. However, artists need some level of security. It so happens we are working on that with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, among others, as we emerge from the crisis.

Quebec has the Status of the Artist Act. In addition, the Union des artistes works extremely hard to gain recognition for artists and ensure they have access to the various programs that can help meet their needs when things slow down for them.

It goes without saying that the arts community is pretty vulnerable, but it also fares quite well in Quebec. We will always be open to suggestions for improving the status of artists, because the arts in Quebec and Canada are important to us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we actually need to recognize and provide substantial support to our culture and arts community. That community plays a very important role in our society, and there is no doubt it has been hit very hard because of the coronavirus. Many cultural shows were cancelled and artists have found it very difficult, and so I am wondering if my colleague could continue to provide his thoughts on how this industry plays a critical role in our communities, whether in terms of jobs or just our Canadian heritage. That is why it was so important that we reached out and supported that community through some of our programs over the last 12 months.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention.

Indeed, it is a very important industry in Quebec and Canada that represents tens of billions of dollars. In fact, if my most recent figures are correct, it is a $53-billion industry.

It is true that some programs have been quick to help the cultural industry. In our recent studies of these programs, we found that the artists were often the last to actually get any money. Of course, organizations such as broadcasters and producers have been helped as much as possible, but at the end of the day, the most vulnerable—the unemployed artists, technicians or contract workers—do not benefit from the subsidies that are provided to organizations and broadcasters.

This is a shortcoming that must be addressed quickly because we do not want to lose this talent and this resource, which generates not only significant economic benefits, but also great cultural wealth.

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

Before continuing, I would like to thank technical services and the hon. parliamentary secretary for their patience and goodwill. We will now let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources resume his speech.

He has the floor for four minutes. Afterwards, there will be five minutes for questions.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to resume debate. I would also like to thank technical services for their support.

We plan to increase our forest cover by 1.2 million hectares, an area twice the size of Prince Edward Island. Doing this will cut overall emissions by up to 12 megatonnes by 2050, all the while we are creating more than 4,000 jobs. There are additional benefits. This commitment will also create more habitat for wildlife, improve biodiversity, and enhance our ability to restore habitat for species at risk, like the boreal caribou and migratory birds.

Still, this is a complex undertaking that takes time. We must work closely with provincial and territorial governments that own and manage 90% of Canada's forests. Of course, we must work with indigenous groups, continuing to build capacity and focusing on partnerships.

We also have to contend with delays caused by the pandemic. That is why, early in the pandemic, our government put up $30 million to help small and medium-sized businesses in the forestry sector, including tree planting companies, to offset the costs of COVID-19 safety measures. This helped keep workers in nearby communities safe, all the while that more than 600 seedlings were successfully put in the ground.

The main reason we are approaching this carefully is that planting trees is a complex and delicate undertaking, as I said. We must plant the right tree in the right place at the right time, and ensure that seedlings in nurseries and young trees survive, providing us with their long-term benefits. For instance, which trees do we choose to ensure that new forests or reforested areas can withstand a warming climate, or which trees and techniques will restore particular habitats, and how do we ensure that newly planted trees near city streets survive their urban environments?

Clearly, the federal government cannot do this alone, which is why we are also talking with municipalities and community groups, non-governmental organizations and green entrepreneurs, philanthropic and conservation organizations, universities and colleges, indigenous communities and organizations. This is indeed an enormous and complex initiative, and one of the most ambitious tree-planting endeavours in the world. We believe it will pay dividends over generations, well beyond 2050. We are going to start by planting trees in urban areas across Canada this spring.

I will wrap up by saying that this pandemic has been tough, and often frightening for our youngest children and vulnerable seniors, but it has also helped us see the forest through the trees, to recognize what we value, including our natural world, its ability to restore our planet's health and its role in helping us rebuild our economy the right way, with sustainable jobs and vibrant communities.

I urge all members to support Bill C-14 so we can make this happen.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who is always a joy to work with on the natural resources committee, but I am going to question his virtuousness around planting trees. We have an industry that plants 600 million trees per year. It regularly plants three trees for every tree it cuts down. The cycle of carbon in a tree, of course, is such that the tree actually absorbs carbon in its mid-life. It is not going to be absorbing much carbon when it is a seedling. The member seems to think that it is going to happen in the next 10 years, but it is actually not going to happen until at least 2030 when the effects of greenhouse gas reductions are going to be well upon us.

This virtue signalling in doing something with planting trees is thus a bit of a non-starter if we look at its actual effects on reducing carbon. We need to do more than this. I am going to challenge my colleague's virtuousness because he has not costed this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the government has not costed this correctly. The government is only thinking of this plan as it goes along.

Could the member please explain further how this would actually result in carbon reduction in the next 10 years?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my colleague at the natural resources committee.

I would certainly beg to differ with the conclusions of my colleague that planting two billion trees will not help the environment. Our goal is to be at net-zero emissions by 2050, so the fact that the member is stating that we should not even start is absurd, given that we need to start somewhere. This is engaging communities, families and the provinces to get this done.

I must say that in my region of Sudbury, where the landscape was devastated 40 years ago, we have planted 14 million trees over the past 30 years, which has done much for our community. The member says that wanting to plant trees is virtuous and is virtual signalling. Again, I bet to differ.

On another note that my colleague raised, with respect to the PBO, if he reads the report, he will see that the PBO says that basically it is hard to make these estimates and that they might be off, but that this is the basic estimate. That said, a lot of organizations across Canada have reached out to me and said that the PBO report, in its calculations, is quite wrong. The calculations are based on Ontario at the cost of three dollars per tree to be planted, whereas most of the ones I have heard about cost less than a dollar a tree to be planted.

Let us stick with the facts. This program is good for Canada, it is good for families and it is good for everyone.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rather pleased that the parliamentary secretary was able to finish his speech. It really resonated with me when he spoke about the fight against climate change earlier.

I hope that my colleague was able to hear me earlier when I spoke about how the Department of Environment and Climate Change granted exemptions to two American giants that have a technology they are ready to put on the market. They were granted exemptions for economic reasons, while a Quebec company that is part of a small group of suppliers of a particular product had to play the obedient student and suffer the consequences for doing so and trying to do what it could to help fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I did not hear my colleague from Drummond's entire speech.

However, I can say that our strategy is to ensure that all SMEs can play a role and that they have the technology. We are here to support them. There is funding for that. Over the past six years, we have even increased our contribution to several funds to support these businesses and create this innovation, which will allow us to meet not only our Paris targets, but also those related to achieving net-zero by 2050.

I would be pleased to talk with the hon. member for Drummond to see how we might provide our support. We could at least have a discussion about that business in his riding.

We see a lot of innovation in Quebec, but also across Canada. Clearly we need to continue to support these technologies and these innovative entrepreneurs who create these opportunities, not to mention support this green technology that will also create jobs and wealth in Canada.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start with a special tribute once again.

We have been talking about this for a long time, as we have been in the midst of a pandemic for a year. I want to pay tribute to health care workers, especially people working in hospitals, the nurses, orderlies, doctors and so on. We see them on the news, we see the images and reports. This is a matter of mental health as well, given all the stress and anxiety people feel. These people are on the front lines, they are right there, and I would say they are on the front lines of the war we are waging.

Our job is to plan so that they have the tools to do their job. Unfortunately, that is not enough. That is one of the problems. For the past year, the Bloc Québécois has tirelessly asked for health transfers. The federal government has spent money during the pandemic, but had it responded to the provincial government's call for increased health transfers over the years, we would not have gone through what we have gone through. We would not have gone through this crisis in the way we did. That is a major problem.

All of the provincial premiers called for the federal government to increase health transfers, but the federal level did not do so. An increase in health transfers would have helped our people on the ground and our health care workers who are working day in and day out to protect us from this pandemic, but it did not happen. I want to pay tribute to all the health care workers who are there and to all those people. I sincerely thank them.

Today, I want to talk about the fact that we often hear people, especially government members, say that they are pleased to talk about the subject in question when they rise in the House. It is quite the opposite for me. I am not at all pleased, because the things that I am going to talk about next are major problems, particularly housing.

Housing is one of the most powerful indicators of poverty, and I am not pleased to have to say that we are not doing enough. The government is not doing enough, and we are not doing our job, which is to provide housing for people. For example, in the bill to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced by the Minister of Finance, the government announced the expansion of the rental construction financing initiative as a new measure.

That was already in the national housing strategy. It is not a bad thing, but it is mostly loans for the construction of housing units that, 80% of the time, are not affordable. When they are affordable, rent for these units can be as high as $2,000 in Montreal. I do not know who in Montreal can afford $2,000 in rent, but that is what this program has to offer. It can even go as high as $2,400 in Quebec City and Gatineau. That is not what I call affordable housing.

Quebec's approach is known for being more socially and community focused. I have talked to federal government colleagues who are involved in housing in Toronto and Vancouver. They recognize the Government of Quebec's social, community-focused approach, which enables people to find housing for less than 25% of their income. That is important, and it is called social housing. We want investments in social housing.

Housing is a provincial jurisdiction, as is health. We keep having to remind the federal government to mind its own business. Health is none of its business; housing is none of its business. These are provincial jurisdictions. All we are asking of the federal government is that it provide the funding so we can house people, especially given that we send half of our taxes to Ottawa. Quebec sends $50 billion to Ottawa. That is significant. It would be nice if the feds would toss something back our way so we can protect our citizens.

The Government of Canada announced the national housing strategy on November 22, 2017. It is a major strategy, and Ottawa put a lot of money into it. Since housing is a provincial jurisdiction, Quebec should have had its share of investments. However, that took three years of negotiations and agreements. Some funding was finally released last fall: a total of $3.8 billion, with $1.9 billion being provided by the federal government and $1.9 billion by the province. That money can help build between 2,000 and 4,000 housing units, but four times those numbers are needed.

During those three years, the Government of Quebec could not move forward with building social housing units. There was no money. This summer I went for a walk. There were tents along Notre-Dame Street. There were people experiencing homelessness, but it went beyond that. The crisis is, of course, difficult for the people with mental health and addiction issues who are traditionally associated with homelessness. It is very difficult for them.

However, the pandemic has created a new type of homelessness. People who were in precarious work situations and lived in shared housing were already on the precipice and the pandemic pushed them out onto the street. If the agreement had been signed in 2017, if the federal government had resolved this dispute with Quebec, these people might not have ended up on the street. We could have avoided what we saw on Notre-Dame Street. We could have housed our fellow Quebeckers. That is important. It is huge.

I would take it even further. Two weeks ago a homeless indigenous man died, likely from the cold, in a portable toilet just steps from a shelter he frequented. If the agreement had been signed a few years ago, this man would not have died. We could have built housing units for homeless indigenous people in downtown Montreal, which would have saved this man's life. This is having serious and often tragic repercussions, all because this agreement went three years without being signed. I cannot believe it. I repeat: Housing is one of the most powerful indicators of poverty, and the agreement went three years without being signed.

I cannot help but think that, if Quebec were independent, the issues related to health and housing would have been quickly resolved. We would be spending money where it is needed. We would be sure to house and care for our people. Independence is the magic solution for Quebeckers.

I want to give another example of a situation where Quebec would have been better off on its own. In the fall, the government implemented the rapid housing initiative, which is not a bad thing in and of itself. The federal government invested $1 billion to house our fellow citizens during the pandemic. That is good, except that Quebec got the short end of the stick once again. Only two cities in Quebec received a share of the first $500 million for big cities. Fifteen big cities in Canada were ranked by their homelessness needs. The government decided to give Toronto $200 million. That is huge.

Quebec represents 23% of Canada's population, yet it received only 12% of the first $500 million allocated under this initiative. That is completely unacceptable. The federal government allocated $56 million to Montreal and $8 million to Quebec City. There was nothing for Gatineau, Longueuil, Laval, Rouyn-Noranda, Jonquière or Gaspé, even though there are problems everywhere. We got the short end of the stick.

For the other $500-million stream, Quebec put its foot down. It decided that it would have control, which is logical and to be expected. Consequently, it was able to invest $116 million in projects, which is not bad. However, we need to invest more in housing. It is essential that we do so to help our fellow Quebeckers. It is still a serious issue in Quebec. There are 300,000 households considered to be in dire need of housing, and that is a significant number. In addition, these are pre-pandemic figures.

Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante said a few weeks ago that homelessness needs have doubled in Montreal. There used to be about 3,000 homeless people in Montreal, but there are now about 6,000. In Quebec, 80,000 households spend more than 80% of their income on housing. These are pre-pandemic figures. This is unacceptable.

Currently, 40,000 Quebec families, including 2,000 in Longueuil and 23,000 in Montreal, are on the waiting list for low-income housing. In short, there is a huge need. I am running out of time. We never have enough time to talk about the important things in this Parliament.

My message is this: we have invested in housing, but the needs are 10 times greater than what Quebec has invested in the past year. The government must therefore invest. We have to take care of our people and provide housing for them. Again, it is one of the biggest indicators of poverty. Having good housing helps a lot. We must provide housing for our people. We must take care of them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned, which has been reinforced by my constituents and Canadians from all regions of the country, is that there is an expectation that goes far beyond Ottawa just providing cash for health care. We can see that when people raise the issue of standards in long-term care and reinforce the need for pharmacare involvement. There seems to be a real tangible desire that we build back better on the health care file.

I wonder if my colleague recognizes that Canadians in all regions of the country expect the federal government to play more of a proactive role in the area of health care, given that it is such an important issue to all of us.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a provincial responsibility. We need to stop talking about it. I am not sure how else to say that.

If the fathers of Confederation had wanted it to be a federal responsibility, they would have said so in 1867. It would have been settled. Then, the federal government would have hired doctors, built hospitals and done preventive health, but no. All of that is under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has the expertise, and the provinces have the expertise. The Government of Quebec is the one looking after people. It is the expert. When folks in Ottawa try to take over, it does not work.

The federal government's job in this pandemic is to supply vaccines. As we can see, that is not working right now. In a report published in The Economist, an independent committee contradicts the Prime Minister's assertion that all Canadians will be vaccinated by the end of September, stating that it could take until the middle of 2022.

All we are asking the government to do is its job: supply vaccines.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague.

I found the content of his speech quite eloquent, particularly with regard to housing. I would like to ask him a question about that.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, just completed a study on indigenous housing. The need is absolutely desperate, and the testimony we heard expressed the same message to us all.

Funding definitely needs to be increased. What does my colleague think has to be done, particularly under the rapid housing initiative that was just adopted, to ensure that it meets the needs?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Funding is obviously the key. The needs are there, and we know what they are. On the ground, people are ready. We are fortunate to have experts on the ground who are ready. We need to listen to them.

We have experts on issues related to domestic violence, seniors, and children with disabilities. This requires a special approach and special services that we have in Quebec. We have developed them over the years. This is recognized across Canada. The federal government just needs to fund them adequately.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the worst vacancy rate in Quebec is in Saint-Hyacinthe, with a rate of 0.3%.

Real estate is a very complex and speculative field and has been the source of economic crises in the past. Still, I would like to know how such a vacancy rate is possible and what has caused it.

How can a city that is so dynamic in many other respects have a vacancy rate of 0.3%?

What should I tell the groups and residents in my riding who are worried?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I do not know the answer for Saint-Hyacinthe specifically, but I do know that there are disparities across Canada.

For example, of the $500 million earmarked for the first stream of the rapid housing initiative, $200 million is going to Toronto. Obviously, rents are very expensive in Toronto, so the real estate market is very high. Low-income earners have an even harder time finding affordable housing in Toronto and Vancouver.

However, that is not our problem. In fact, we are sort of being penalized for the fact that Toronto and Vancouver cannot sort out their real estate markets. This means that the federal government provides more funding to those folks, who do not appear to be very good at looking after the most vulnerable. As the rest of Canada is not good at it, Quebec has developed an approach that works pretty well. The same is true in many areas; we would be better off if we were independent.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a novel sensation to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-14, for several reasons. First, it is always a tremendous privilege to rise in the House, even though it is not as populated as it has been in the past, to represent the constituents of Provencher and speak to the issues of the day regarding this great country of Canada. Second, it is novel to speak to an economic statement that does not typically lead to legislation. This is an unusual speech in that respect.

Third, this marks the very first meaningful budget-like document that the Liberals have produced since 2019, almost 650 days ago. To be sure, this is not a budget. However, I am grateful to have the opportunity to address Bill C-14 given the fact that the Liberals have flat out refused to present a budget since 2018.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is just now concluding its pre-budget consultations and entering the drafting stage of the report. It is now time for the committee to review the recommendations from Canadians, and to consolidate into the report all the needs that have been identified by Canadians from coast to coast to coast to present to the finance minister. My hope is that the Minister of Finance will take this process seriously, that her response will be thoughtful and that she will come up with a realistic plan for our nation's finances.

Conservatives have been clear right from the beginning that we want to make sure that Canadians struggling as a result of COVID-19 have the support they need. We recognize the challenges that so many are facing, including those of us living under stringent public health restrictions that have dramatically impacted our well-being. The government has a duty not only to help Canadians get through the crisis, but to develop a plan to help us get out of it. I said earlier today in the House that it seems as though the government has no plan, and failing to plan is planning to fail.

It is perfectly fair for governments to react quickly when faced with a crisis. One cannot get everything right when trying to sort out something new and unexpected on the fly. However, a year has now passed since COVID-19 came on Canada's radar in a real way. By now, the government has had plenty of time to prepare a solid, long-term plan for Canada's economy. By now, we know where the damage is most significant. We know who is hurting, and with this knowledge comes the power to plan for the future: to show Canadians a way out and a plan for things to return to normal.

One tangible way that the Liberals could do this immediately is by setting a fiscal anchor. A fiscal anchor is driven by rock-solid foundation principles and will be an anchor or reference point to hold things together and provide stability on which we can establish policies. The principles of financial anchors are missing from the Liberal government.

The Business Council of Canada defines fiscal anchors as follows:

...notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits, and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy. They serve many purposes including:

1 Retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets...;

2 Establishing a positive investment climate for businesses;

3 Providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government...; and

4 Ensuring that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

In practical terms, this is about creating good jobs for Canadians. It is about creating the conditions for local small businesses to succeed and thrive. It is about moms and dads being able to put food on the table for their families. However, it is also about governments being able to sustainably fund the social services that many rely on: health care, education and the social safety net. Fiscal responsibility, or a fiscal anchor, signals to Canadians that the government is not merely acting for its own immediate interests today, but for the good of the country and its future.

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page told the National Post in October, “There’s a cost to having effectively no fiscal plan. And right now it’s fair to say we have no fiscal strategy.” He added, “This is about where the government’s rudder is. Where is the policy strategy that guides us through the pandemic, and to the post COVID-19 recovery? We’re missing that.”

In a November piece for The Globe and Mail, Mostafa Askari, Sahir Khan and Mr. Page write:

All governments need constraints. Politicians do not like to raise taxes. There is a bias toward deficits. Higher debt can create the risk of future economic instability. It can reduce fiscal room to address the next economic downturn. Constraints also signal future policy intentions of governments and are essential to promote accountability.

The Liberals' refusal to adopt a fiscal anchor is such that they continue to avoid accountability for their spending. We are facing a historic deficit of almost $400 billion. The total federal debt will reach $1.1 trillion this year, and the federal debt, as a percentage of GDP, has risen dramatically. If ever Canadians deserved transparency and accountability, now is the time.

With this in mind, I want to speak about part 7 of the bill. In this section of the legislation, the Liberals propose to amend the Borrowing Authority Act and the Financial Administration Act by increasing maximum borrowing authority for the federal government of Canada from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Even as someone with years of experience in the financial sector, those figures seem very daunting to me. This increase is considerably more than the government needs to get through this next fiscal year. Moreover, it authorizes a massive expansion of the national debt all while the government refuses to identify a fiscal anchor and refuses transparency.

If the Liberals were swiping their own personal credit cards during these transactions, it would be one thing, but they are swiping the nation's credit card, knowing full well that hard-working Canadians will ultimately be stuck with a bill that will likely have to be paid through tax increases and will be passed on to future generations. This is money out of the pockets of real people, real families, and not just this generation.

Young parents trying to set aside money for their children's education, small business owners trying to meet payroll for employees and seniors on fixed incomes will all be affected by this increase to our national debt.

In the real world, when Canadians want to obtain a line of credit they have to show the lender that they are good for it. They have to show they will be able to make payments. They have to show that they are responsible stewards of the money that is being lent to them. That is how the three Cs of credit work: character, collateral and capacity. I, for one, do not see why the House should authorize such a significant increase of the government's maximum borrowing authority when it cannot even establish a baseline for its spending. Liberals have not demonstrated the ability to be responsible for increased debt.

This is about taking care of Canadians today and tomorrow. We owe it to future Canadians to ensure our public finances are sustainable. Debt is a moral issue: It is something that is owed to one by another with the understanding that what is owed must be paid back. This is a basic principle, and one that is almost universally understood within the context of business, finance and even personal relationships. If we borrow money from the bank to finance the purchase of a home or vehicle, there is an understanding and a binding agreement as to how and when that loan will be paid back. The borrower is taking on that debt, and with it the responsibility to repay the amount borrowed from the lender. A commitment has been made to restore the financial situation of the lender. The refusal or failure to do so will result in penalties, or at the very least adverse effects to the credit and financial well-being of the borrower.

To borrow without the ability or a clear plan to repay is foolish. While in our culture some debt is usually unavoidable, it is a reality that most of us try to avoid it. We do not want to be in debt. We do not want to be enslaved to interest payments. We want to be free. The government does not have its own money, it only has the money that it receives from the taxation of its citizens. When it needs more money, the government only has three choices: raise taxes, cut spending or borrow.

As my colleague, the member for Carleton, has so succinctly put it, paycheques are the solution. Canadians need opportunities to work. This puts food on their tables and produces tax revenue governments need to provide important services. It is time that the Liberals focus on creating opportunities for Canadians. There are many ways to achieve that objective. Stop raising taxes such as the carbon tax and the CPP payroll tax. Accelerate project permit application processing for infrastructure. Repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Ideas like these create space for a real recovery.

Let us pursue sustainability and fiscally responsible policies that get Canadians not just through this economic slump, but actually out of it.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote something from that fine old socialist newspaper, The Globe and Mail, which said:

Once the world gets past the worst of the pandemic, and growth returns to more normal levels, the economies in most industrialized countries should expand substantially faster than the interest rate on their debt. This means the size of their government debt should shrink steadily as a portion of GDP. In Canada, for instance, it makes perfect sense to borrow at 0.7 per cent (the current yield on 10-year Canada bonds) to support an economy capable of growing at 3 per cent or more.

Given that our debt service costs today, with the additional deficit, are $4 billion less per year than they were in the fall of 2019, how does the hon. member justify the alarmist narrative that he has been delivering?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the hon. member to look at what the International Monetary Fund has to say about the situation of our finances.

We know that the forecast for our economic growth has been reduced by 30%. The Liberal government does not have an explanation for that. If we are reducing our economic growth, we are also reducing the ability for this government to collect tax revenue. When we incur additional debt without incurring the additional ability to pay for that debt, we run into some very serious problems. In the real world they call it insolvency when one does not have the means to cover one's debt.

Yes, interest rates are low, and we can fool ourselves into thinking that now is the time to amass an incredible amount of debt that is going to look after itself. I think it was this very Prime Minister who said that “the budget will balance itself”, and that we did not have to worry about that, which seems to be the attitude I am sensing from this Liberal member.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow Manitoban for his comments.

The member talked a little about trying to assist people during the pandemic, but we know, certainly in the province of Manitoba, that there are many people who have been left behind. I have seniors residing at Lions Place who did not get proper support even prior to the pandemic, and are worried now about ending up on the street. How abhorrent is it that, in this country, seniors are not even given an amount that would allow them to remain housed? We also know that students have been left behind and, certainly in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, people with very severe mental health and trauma issues who were left behind before the pandemic are now even more vulnerable, as we saw with the cases of trench fever that occurred in my riding prior to Christmas.

Knowing all of this, I wonder if my hon. colleague would support a guaranteed livable income to ensure that all Manitobans and all Canadians could have their minimum human rights assured and guaranteed.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her question. I recognize her passion for the less fortunate and underprivileged in the world, and certainly her community in the heart of Winnipeg is no exception.

I also want to acknowledge an organization in the member's riding, Adult & Teen Challenge, and its former executive director, Steve Paulson, as well as Daniel, who is now in charge. It does a tremendous amount of work. I talked to some organization members recently, and they indicated that they were running at capacity. Adult & Teen Challenge is an organization that offers hope to people struggling with addiction and substance abuse. It has a very effective program that reaches people in the area, which is right in the member's riding, and I know that she is connected with them, and that is tremendous.

I think we need to give people the opportunity to succeed financially and to earn a living. The best way to lift people out of poverty is to provide jobs for them so that they can look after themselves. We also need to keep our eye focused, as I said, on part 7 of the bill before us, because it would increase our national debt level to the point that we would have to increase taxation, and we would reduce the wiggle room we have to provide adequate social services for folks who really need it, such as folks in her riding.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the debate on Bill C-14.

As the House knows, the Bloc Québécois has already stated that it will vote in favour of the bill because on the whole it will provide long-awaited support to our SMEs and our families.

I could have talked about a pile of programs that met certain needs because, again, families and SMEs do not have access to assistance. They either do not meet the criteria, their application has not been processed or it is waiting on a pile, or they are having a hard time getting through to anyone by phone to help them navigate the various programs.

Instead today, I want to take the opportunity to speak about and shed light on some very important issues that are a priority for parliamentarians, but also for my constituents, the people I represent in the riding of Salaberry—Suroît.

On page 81 of the 2020 fall economic statement, the government acknowledges that “Canadians in many rural and remote communities who still do not have access to high-speed Internet face a barrier to their ability to be equal participants in the economy.”

In 2018, just 41% of rural households had access to high-speed Internet, which is defined as a download speed of 50 megabits per second and an upload speed of 10 megabits per second. The speeds I get back home in Ormstown are laughable. I think I have two speeds: slow and non-existent.

That percentage accurately reflects my reality. Allow me to compare that to urban areas. That same study showed that 98% of urban households in large and medium-sized population centres had access to high-speed Internet. I find this unacceptable. This inequality between rural and urban communities is inexplicable and untenable.

I am proud to represent a rural riding. My riding does have some urban centres, but the vast majority of it is rural. No matter where you go in my riding, you are about 30 to 45 minutes from Montreal. In my own home, I am about 50 kilometres from Montreal and I do not have access to high-speed Internet.

I am not using my personal circumstances to elicit sympathy. No one in my neighbourhood or in my town has access to fibre, which would help us join the 21st century just like the people living in cities or urban centres. Every week I have constituents asking me, not always politely, why we are not connected yet, when they will be connected and when the Internet will finally reach their home. I think that we are very patient. We have been waiting a long time. Quebeckers and the people of the riding of Salaberry—Suroît do not understand why it is taking so long to get connected.

We have to buy technological gadgets. I have bought cellular equipment.

I have a lot of equipment. I believe I have spent $1,500 on equipment because companies sell me new technology that will supposedly provide high-speed service. We install it, we get our hopes up, but it does not work.

Teleworking during the pandemic has been a nightmare for people like me in Salaberry—Suroît living without high-speed Internet. It has been a struggle getting the children to do their school work when three or four computers are connected to the same network. It has been an ordeal trying to study or work remotely.

In Salaberry—Suroît, I am lucky to be able to rely on cable companies that have a social conscience and want to develop the fibre optic network. I am thinking in particular of the co-operative CSUR. There is also the private company Targo. They know exactly which parts of my riding do not have high-speed Internet.

These cable companies have submitted project proposals for various subsidy programs in Quebec and Canada. The programs are not coordinated, however, and plans to connect families and households are completely disorganized, especially in rural areas. Neither the CRTC nor the government can say when the projects will be approved.

That is not all. On November 26, the CRTC's chairperson and CEO appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for its study on the accessibility and affordability of telecommunications services, which the Bloc Québécois had requested. Here is what he said about deployment plans submitted in June: “we have received almost 600 applications from all regions of the country. They add up to a total of $1.5 billion. We have our work cut out for us. We are working quickly to assess those projects and we'll move forward. All of those are targeted areas that do not have acceptable levels of broadband service.”

In other words, there is a desperate need. People are ready, and they are feeling very impatient. We still do not know who will benefit from that money because the CRTC has a lot of work to do to assess the projects.

Still, we can say that there have been some advances. Bianka Dupaul, the executive director of the CSUR co-op, told me that during an installation on a rural road before Christmas, residents were crying at the prospect of a reliable connection. They felt lucky to get access to this connection before Christmas. It was a real blessing for them.

Sharing this good fortune is not complicated: the various levels of government need to coordinate their efforts to connect rural areas to high-speed Internet. Big companies like Bell Canada need to be brought into line, since they are engaging in legal obstruction and hindering the Internet rollout.

It is not just a matter of getting connected. There is also the whole issue of maintaining the network. For example, the CSUR co-op requested access to a specific pole and received a $14,000 bill for the work required to make the pole safe. Before the fibre optic cable could even be run, $14,000 had to be paid to secure the pole and gain access to it. This is far from reasonable. It is exploitation. We do not understand what is going on right now. Why do cable companies that want access to the poles end up with such whopping bills? I have written letters denouncing this situation, we have approached the media, and we have written emails to the minister and municipalities and sent resolutions.

We feel like the federal government is listening but not taking any action. No one is tackling the issue of high-speed Internet head on. No one is taking it seriously or acting with the urgency required. A new minister is taking care of this file, a minister from Quebec who also represents a rural riding. He can be sure that the Bloc Québécois will be there to remind him of his commitment to get all rural regions connected to high-speed Internet so that they can enter the same century as urban areas.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. As she knows, I am very familiar with Salaberry—Suroît because I have visited that beautiful region about fifteen times. The people there are very hard-working.

She spoke about accessibility, but is this not a matter of fairness as well? Rural regions often do not get the investments they should. That is why I want to ask her this question.

The matter of income is not addressed in Bill C-14. Many people, in the NDP and throughout Quebec and Canada, think that there should be taxes on wealth and excess profits. Since the beginning of the pandemic, billionaires have become $53 billion richer and some companies have been making huge profits. Does the member agree with the principle of a tax on wealth and a tax on excess profits?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is quite right to say that there are hard-working people in the beautiful region of Salaberry—Suroît. Unfortunately, economic development, access to distance education and telework are all more challenging because of poor Internet coverage. This is a fundamental problem. One large corporation has a monopoly and is making a profit. It complies with the law, but it is still deliberately obstructing the deployment of high-speed Internet.

It is not right that the subsidies given to cable companies allow Bell Canada to upgrade its poles and all its infrastructure before even running the fibre optic cable. The government must demonstrate a stronger political will and bring this large corporation, which owns the infrastructure, into line. It also needs to give the CRTC greater powers to ensure that high-speed Internet is deployed within a reasonable time frame. Quebec is expecting this in 2022, and we hope the new minister will bring the CRTC into line.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his very cogent presentation.

All of us in rural ridings have similar connectivity problems. I find it ironic that I can listen to satellite radio out of the United States, but I cannot get a cellphone connection everywhere I go. I know it is not the same technology, but when we think about it, a wave from Quebec does not reach everywhere while the one from the United States does.

My question for my colleague is this: Are we also addressing the issue of good “corporate” citizens? Last spring I attended some meetings of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and many people pointed to certain companies that had the towers, but were not making enough of an effort to ensure that there is connectivity everywhere.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has identified a very important problem.

High-speed Internet will not reach rural areas without giving the CRTC the proper tools and introducing policies with some teeth. The government must have greater political will and rein in the major companies that own the infrastructure. This would make it possible for smaller cable companies to move to fibre optic and provide access to high-speed Internet to those who do not have it.

The same applies to cellular technology. Towers are put up, but there are areas without cellular reception. This clearly demonstrates that high-speed Internet is not a government priority. If it were, the CRTC's performance would have improved a long time ago. We have to give it the means to do its job and rein in the corporations that own the infrastructure so that all of Quebec can have high-speed Internet.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to rise today to talk about the economic statement.

Members have heard me speak a lot about wild salmon and small business, but affordable housing is also something that is dear to my heart. We know that for many Canadians, finding affordable housing was a crisis well before this pandemic, and this crisis has just made things even worse. In my riding, for example, housing prices have soared, while many people have been left behind.

Nothing in this legislation actually addresses the housing crisis that is raging across our country, especially for many people who have lost their jobs. Young people are already feeling the pressure on their mental health from the pandemic, and many of them are working two or three jobs just to pay rent.

We know that the Liberals have made many promises around housing, but it was the Liberals who pulled out of the national housing strategy in 1993.

In the 1970s and 1980s in Canada, co-op and non-market housing was around 10%. In Europe it is actually around 30%, but today, we are at less than 4%. Personally, I know how important it is because I am a product of co-op housing. It made a huge impact for me and for my family. It gave my parents a chance.

We can look to Europe, which is at 30%. We are at less than 4%. right now. The Liberals made a lot of promises that they would start to invest in affordable housing; we have not seen that promise delivered in communities, especially rural communities. I can speak from a rural lens, and we have not seen those critical, much-needed investments there. In fact, the federal government has downloaded dealing with the housing crisis and this huge lack of housing units onto the provinces, and in turn the provinces downloaded it onto local governments. Now, as members can imagine, after 27 years, the accumulated need has become literally hundreds of thousands of units. In fact, we hear that over 300,000 units are needed just for homeless people, never mind working people who are barely able to make ends meet and are living in precarious housing.

There are opportunities. We know that when we invest in affordable housing, it helps small business owners. The chambers of commerce in my riding are united in their top couple of priorities, and affordable housing is at or near the top of everybody's lists. Most businesses cannot continue to grow, because they cannot find employees. The pressure is on many working families who are working two or three jobs to make ends meet, and even on small business owners who cannot find safe, secure and affordable housing. This is something everybody should have access to. It is about priorities, and governing is about priorities.

The Liberals said they were going to invest in affordable housing, but we have not seen that roll out. We heard their commitment around veterans. We all made a commitment in this House in the last Parliament to end veterans' homelessness by 2025, but we have not seen an investment in housing for veterans. In fact, two previous rounds of funding went by, and the Qualicum Beach Legion cited this in an application to get funding to end veterans homelessness. They needed to get some data to start that planning stage to build affordable housing similar to Cockrell House in Victoria, where homeless veterans are housed and given a safe, secure place to live and the supports they need, especially if they have been struggling or suffering from disabilities or from PTSD. Cockrell House has saved many lives, but there is only one place, on South Vancouver Island. There is nothing north of the Malahat, for example, and the Legion just got a rejection notice from the national housing strategy research and planning source.

People are just frustrated. They want to help to protect those who put their lives on the line overseas to protect the most vulnerable. They signed up to serve our country and they are not getting the support that they need and deserve. People are looking to make these really important steps, but they are not able to.

Another thing is that indigenous people are overrepresented in the housing crisis. I live in Port Alberni, where two-thirds of the people living on the streets are indigenous. The overrepresentation of indigenous people is clear. We can see it any day of the week. In fact, a week and a half ago we counted 38 people in doorways at night in a small rural city, and most of them were indigenous.

I was speaking to a lot of them. The next morning I was bringing coffee, hot chocolate and some snacks to people who were living on the streets and having a chance to catch up with them. They all had something in common; most of them, but not all of them, were living with health or addictions-related issues, but they all cited that housing was absolutely number one and that they could not rebuild their lives or get a fresh start without a safe, secure place to live.

It is so expensive to have people living on the street. They talked about their struggles and challenges, and we looked at the opportunities and what the solutions what might be.

We can look at Portugal, which has done a really good job of putting the most vulnerable and marginalized citizens into housing. They have opened up therapeutic treatment centres and facilities to help support treatment. It is long-term treatment, because we know that 28 days is not enough for treatment, although that is what the government still continues to offer, in most cases, because it simply cannot afford to deal with the issue right now. We are downloading dealing with housing, homelessness and the opioid crisis onto the provincial governments, and we need the federal government to step up to the plate. The provinces just cannot be left holding the bag any longer.

Portugal did that. Its government said it was going to get involved, take responsibility, lead and be leaders in tackling this really scary crisis when it was dealing with addictions. Portugal proved, through a strategy of making sure people have affordable housing and safe supports, that they could tackle their issues. Portugal had the highest levels of overdoses and addiction in Europe, and now they are the second lowest, so it has been proven that it can work.

I also want to talk about the cost. I have shared a story before in the House of Commons about a man whom I am going to call John. He has an addiction to alcohol, and every day he would drink and pass out. Fire, police or an ambulance were called, and he would get ferried up to the West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni. Then he would either stay in an acute care bed or be put in a cell, and he would be out the next day. This would happen day after day for years. I will ballpark the cost of this at $2,000 per day, and I would say that 300 days of the year this would happen. That is $600,000. They found a place for John in a low-barrier non-profit housing unit. Of course, B.C. stepped in and is building half of the non-market housing in the country, and they really need a federal partner. He stayed there for five years, and it was $500 a month to house this gentleman, which is $6,000 a year.

We have a choice: $6,000 a year, or $600,000 a year. There are those who do not think we should be investing in affordable housing and helping those people in need, and that it should not be coming out of taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers are paying for it already, and it is critical that we invest in this.

There was also a really important study that came out, the report of B.C.'s blue ribbon panel on crime reduction. We know that many people who end up homeless, especially those who end up living with addiction, feed their addiction by stealing or committing property crime to get by and to make ends meet. The report says that 80% of all crime comes from 20% of repeat offenders, and a male in that category typically costs more than $1.5 million to society through property crime, the judicial system and the health care system. I could speak all day on this. They say that every dollar spent in prevention, treatment, health, judicial reforms and helping people rebuild saves society $12. We could be saving literally millions of dollars while helping to support these people in rebuilding their lives.

When it comes to housing, we need a robust investment. When it comes to the opioid crisis, thousands of people are dying on the streets of our country. The Liberal government has still not declared it a public health emergency so that the necessary resources would be invested. We still have not decriminalized it, so people are living with a stigma in what is a health crisis. We need critical investments in therapeutic treatment centres, like Portugal, as well as investments in housing.

I would love to speak more on the many other issues that I touched on, such as small business, wild salmon, seniors and people living with disabilities, but today it is really important that we talk about the most marginalized.

If we are going to have a COVID recovery, it has to include investments in affordable housing. We have put in a rapid housing investment application and we are waiting for the federal government to decide on it. Literally, people are dying right now on the streets of Port Alberni and throughout my riding. We are looking to the federal government to be a partner, to help save lives, to help rebuild people's lives.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated today's intervention by our colleague from the NDP. He raises a very important point, which is that housing has to be one of the very basic amenities people must have in order to build a foundation for everything else they require and need in their lives.

The federal government is there with the national housing strategy, and applications are being received daily by CMHC and being reviewed. The CMHC has been directed to work with applicants to make these applications successful so that housing can be implemented.

I am sure that the member must be in favour of that program, given the impact it could have with the $50 billion attached to it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are coming out of a crisis. The government has announced 3,000 units for the whole country through the rapid housing initiative, but we need over 300,000. That is less than 1%. It is about 300 units for B.C.

There is an application in from Port Alberni. The government was supposed to announce all the details of who the lucky recipients were and which communities had been selected by January 31. We still have not heard anything.

The other thing is that we do not have Reaching Home status in most rural communities, so rural communities are being left out even though they are still dealing with this incredible housing crisis. I have lost three of my friends' children on the streets in my community just in the last six weeks. It is not working. The government is not moving quickly enough.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up some very good points. I know housing is a big issue, and it definitely needs to be dealt with, as well as the opioid crisis. However, my concern is more with the mental state. We definitely need to do more for the mental state of these people. It is not good enough to just give them a house if they do not have the capacity to understand how to manage it.

Could the member give us his perspective on how we need to deal more with the mental crisis and in this way alleviate a lot of the other problems as well?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Complex situations require complex care. People living with mental health issues and addiction need more than housing. The member is absolutely right. They need treatment centres, with therapeutic supports, so that they can move forward and get the support they need to live a healthy life.

In B.C., the previous Liberal government closed down places like Riverview and support centres. We still have not really embarked as a nation, as Portugal has, on building therapeutic communities to give people the supports they need. That is what we need.

We need the federal government to step up to the plate, stop downloading on provinces and come up with an overarching strategy to deal with this crisis, whether it be the mental health crisis or the opioid crisis. We need therapeutic treatment to help support people living with trauma. It is absolutely critical, and I want to thank the member for that very good question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it really worries me when the Liberals talk about their rapid response on housing. What will that turn out to be? Is it maybe three units per community per year? That is ridiculous.

In my region, in the city of Timmins, a community of 45,000, we have 800 homeless people. When we add in the opioid and fentanyl crisis, people are dying at staggering rates, and yet we see indifference. Housing is not just for those who are dealing with the opioid crisis; seniors cannot get proper housing and families cannot get proper housing.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the vexatious way that the Liberals play with people's hopes on housing but refuse, year in and year out, to actually deliver a coherent plan to get people proper housing so they can be safe and live a good, decent life.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has been fighting the same fight for the most marginalized people who do not not have a safe, secure place to live and need the supports to move forward.

We have been hearing from the Liberal government for five years about its robust investments in its national housing strategy, yet we have not seen it. I am in Port Alberni where we have the same situation he has in Timmins—James Bay: people do not have safe, secure housing and are dying on our streets. These lives can be saved.

Everybody deserves a right to a safe, secure place to live. It is one of the United Nations sustainable development goals. It is a priority in the list of 14 sustainable development goals, yet the government likes to talk the talk but never walks the walks. As well, 3,000 units to deal with a crisis of over 300,000 homeless people in our country is absolutely appalling and shameful. The government needs to do something quickly. This is our opportunity for a proper COVID recovery.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. He went off the beaten path and talked about his riding's unique characteristics. I am going to do the same in my speech today. People talk about economic measures in such general terms and try to fit everyone into the same box to the point that we forget how different ridings across Quebec and Canada are from one another.

Many aspects of Bill C-14 deserve to be debated, but I would like to offer a more regional perspective.

People know I love faraway places. When the Government of Canada talks about the regions, it does not mean regions like the North Shore or Gaspé. Its meaning is broader. The regional relief and recovery fund, the RRRF, is built around the Pacific region, the Atlantic region, Ontario and Quebec. Those regions are as big as countries. To put it in a nutshell, that way of designating regions is practical for the government because then it can create programs based on thinking that seems arbitrary to us, the people of the North Shore, programs that adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

I will be basing my remarks on that example, because this approach has been, and continues to be, problematic in my region in terms of what the government is offering for COVID-19 through the RRRF, for example. This one-size-fits-all approach means that the money cannot be spent, although it is absolutely needed, of course.

I want to come back to the specific needs of the regions. My colleagues from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou can talk to you about their economies, which include natural resources, forestry and agriculture. People from those regions are concerned about jobs. There is also the Eastern Townships region. My colleague from Shefford might want to talk about agriculture and maple syrup—of which there is a seemingly unlimited global supply—but also about all the economic development and recovery projects happening in her region. The same is true for the Gaspé region.

I would like to look to the future. In the recovery that is just around the corner, we do not want drilling projects. There are the projects in the economic update, but there are also all the future projects that will be undertaken to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Magdalen Islands and the Gaspé want to revive the seal industry, which is a regional feature here too. There is also forestry, heritage and lighthouses to be saved in the Gaspé. My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia would also be willing to talk about it.

The same is true for Charlevoix, which relies on tourism, culture, gastronomy and international tourism. My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix could tell you all about it. There is also Montreal, with its aerospace and artificial intelligence industry. We could discuss it with my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is a proud Montrealer. There is also Quebec City, the national capital of Quebec, where our National Assembly is located and where culture and tourism are also very important.

Companies like Davie would also like a little boost as part of the economic recovery. We need to put the economic statement in the context of the current needs while looking at what is ahead for us.

I could go around Quebec to showcase all its regions here. What I want to show is that it is difficult to use a “one-size-fits-all” approach when designing programs and proposing measures, because that means people will not be able to access them.

That is why I feel it is important to talk about this heterogeneity. Although we want to collaborate on projects that affect all of the regions, we need to consider regional particularities, because every region has its own issues and challenges. When you have a one-size-fits-all program that does not benefit these people, everyone ends up penalized. Every region is distinct and has its own challenges and its own aspirations for development.

Speaking of regions, I have to talk about my own. I am the member of Parliament for Manicouagan. Like all members, I am biased. My riding, all 350,000 square kilometres of it, is the most beautiful. It might as well be made up of six countries. There are six RCMs, each of which has its own very different reality. One of my RCMs is the richest in all of Quebec, yet it borders the poorest one. As a member of Parliament, it is my duty to adapt, listen, be understanding and find different solutions for each one of these six different regions that make up the North Shore.

I am very fortunate to represent this riding that includes 1,400 kilometres of waterfront, forests, mountains and fauna. It is a veritable paradise, but at the same time we are facing our own specific challenges. I would have liked to talk about these challenges and the issues that the public would like us to be working on now and in the future. Obviously these are regional issues, but I think it is important to talk about the differences between these places so that people feel listened to and so that we can work better for them, including by adapting programs such as the RRRF. It would be a win-win situation.

There are many challenges in my riding. Take, for example, indigenous issues, which I am very concerned about. In my riding, 15% of people are members of the Naskapi or Innu first nations. These people live proudly in Nitassinan. I would like to lend my voice to the first nations in my region and make their wishes known. There are many issues to address. There is the issue of language, which is currently very important for first nations. This issue is not necessarily being addressed from an economic development perspective, even though it is an economic development issue. It affects education, culture and the importance of preserving the first nations' relationship with the land, water and forest. There is also the issue of police services, the funding for which was cut. There is less and less funding for that.

There is also the issue of housing, which was mentioned earlier and which is very important in my riding. The population is growing by leaps and bounds. The issue of protection officers is also important. Communities need them because fishing is part of their development. There is also the issue of first nations health. There are so many examples that I could give, but I will stop there because my time is running out. I could keep talking about these issues for a long time.

There is also the issue of roads. In my riding there are no roads within a 400-kilometre area. We border Newfoundland and Labrador and there is a ferry. The interprovincial link was not created by the Canadian government. There has to be a way to open up the North Shore and build a road that would also benefit the people living east of us, our neighbours in Newfoundland and Labrador. It could be a development project in our area. As we saw yesterday, there may be exploratory drilling on the lower North Shore. I would prefer that a road be built so that people could travel and we could develop tourism or have more respectful development of the environment, which is what my constituents want. I could go on talking for a long time.

I talked about the regions in general, but, zooming out, my integration model would apply to all of Quebec. We have put forward our agendas for seniors, the environment and health, and I would like the government to listen to what Quebec and the regions want so it can harmonize programs and budgets according to people's needs.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, although I have to say I am a little disappointed that she described her riding as the most beautiful, when she knows perfectly well that Drummond holds that title. Let us just say that in a beauty contest, her riding on the North Shore would be the runner-up.

Seriously though, she talked about concerns specific to the regions. Her riding is immense and has a lot going for it. Her riding also has problems with high-speed Internet. Our colleague from Salaberry—Suroît talked about this earlier, as did I. I know that my colleague's riding, Manicouagan, made a lot of progress in terms of expanding high-speed Internet access when people took matters into their own hands and got some great projects up and running.

There are still challenges though, and I would like to hear her opinion on programs that subsidize rolling out Internet access in the regions and on what the federal government has been doing in this area.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Drummond. I would say that Drummond and Manicouagan are tied in terms of the beauty of our ridings.

High-speed Internet access is very problematic in my region. As has been mentioned, the riding is very large. These days, high-speed Internet is the driving force of economic development and vital to keeping our people from leaving. A lot of businesses know this. We see it ourselves with teleworking, where we have to use the Internet every day. Not having Internet access means the devitalization of our communities and poorer populations. We need only think of education and the people who cannot attend class online. There are even some witnesses from my riding who cannot appear before parliamentary committees because they do not have access to Zoom. One might not expect it, but it is an essential service.

I think this is taking too long. The money needs to get out quickly. The Quebec government has a faster timetable than the federal government, so I urge the feds to give this money to Quebec City, which can then deploy these services. It is urgent, it is essential, it is necessary and the people are waiting.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for the love she has shown for all our regions in Quebec.

I know that my colleague is quite concerned about her region, which has its own specific needs and whose economy relies mostly on seasonal industries. When it comes to the government's vision and specific approaches, what would be her position and recommendations to best respond to the needs?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her question about the importance of seasonal work in Manicouagan. I did say seasonal work, not seasonal workers. Seasonal work is essential because many people work in tourism, the fisheries or the forestry sector, which are the economic pillars of my riding. These people live in small communities of 200, 300 or 400 people. There are 45 communities in my riding.

These people do not necessarily have access to other employment, and we do not want them to leave, either. We do not want these villages to die off. On the contrary, we want to maintain and develop them. Amazingly, we now realize that the fact that these people have access to EI not only gets them through the spring gap they once had to live with, but also enables them to stay and help develop the region. The EI program has become a tool for regional economic development. I hate to say it, but it is truly an insurance, no pun intended.

The government is introducing many new benefits, and I am pleased that there is money for those who are sick and for caregivers. I truly hope that the available funds will not be divided among more people. I hope that contributions will be adjusted accordingly rather than reduced, which would allow us meet everyone's needs. Our regions really need seasonal work to be recognized.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic that on this day, Groundhog Day, not unlike the plot of the movie of the same name, we find ourselves back in this place making further adjustments to the government's response to the pandemic. I do not offer that comment as a criticism of the government. I raise that point to serve as a reminder that we have been here before.

I also raise the point because we should all recognize that we may be here again, doing something similar in the future. I believe all of us would agree that, ideally, we would prefer that would not be the case. I am certain we would much rather see these troubled times put behind us. However, we know that the vaccine rollout has not, to date, gone well for Canada. We know that new and more deadly variants of this virus are being identified in different parts of Canada, and that should be concerning to us all.

For the record, I do not mention the slow pace of vaccine rollouts in my comments today as a political tack. I am certain that the government, like any government, would like to see a more timely and successful vaccine rollout. I would also add that that is not what we are here to debate in this bill today.

I am raising these concerns for a different reason, and I will come back to that. Let us first acknowledge that this bill proposes measures that we all support.

We support the enhancements to the Canada child benefit. The political notion of providing direct support to families was actually developed by a Conservative government in spite of the Liberals' claims at the time that parents would waste the money on beer and popcorn. When they came to power, the Liberals adopted this program and made other improvements. I have to give them credit for that.

In Canada, during the pandemic, the official opposition also supported programs such as the CERB, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account. There may have been some disagreements about the best way to implement them, however, in principle, we agreed with these programs.

For that reason, I will not be focusing today on the elements of the debate on which we agree. As many of us know, this bill is essentially divided into seven different parts. The official opposition supports most parts of the bill. However, we strongly disagree with part 7.

Part 7 of the bill proposes to increase the Borrowing Authority Act, basically to add another $323 billion in incremental borrowing until March 31, 2024. The official opposition would prefer to split this from the bill so that matters we do agree on can be voted on separately. We believe it is important to have a separate debate on that borrowing, which significantly increases our debt. Before some might say to themselves that I am being a typical Conservative, I would ask that everyone hears me out.

First, let me summarize briefly where we are. In 2015, the Liberal government promised to run modest deficits before returning to a balanced budget in 2019. Every person, whether in the chamber or here virtually, knows this did not happen. I am not here to revisit that, but simply to place it on the record as being a factual point.

In 2019, given the absence of following that fiscal plan, a new fiscal plan came from the government, and it was based on debt-to-GDP ratio. The Liberal thinking told us that as long as our debt-to-GDP ratio remained within certain parameters, everything would be fine. However, every person participating in this debate, whether in the chamber or attending virtually, knows that the debt-to-GDP targets are have now been thrown out the window. Again, I raise that because it is factually true.

We are now in a new situation, where the latest Liberal thinking has it that we cannot afford not to borrow more money, since interest rates are so low. Just because interest rates are this low it does not mean that it is okay to borrow so much money.

One has to wonder: What would happen if this plan, much like the Liberals' previous financial plans, proved to be wrong? What will happen if, or rather when, interest rates rise?

It is our job to be asking these questions. We need to ask ourselves how the decisions we are making today will affect Canadians in the future. If we are being honest with ourselves, how would we answer that question?

Some may say that hypothetical questions are irrelevant and that we need to focus on the now, since we are in the middle of a pandemic. I would like to take these people back to the same period last year.

One year ago, we had a health minister who told us that border closures would not work, and that travel restrictions would not only not work, but also could actually be harmful. We were told that they could stigmatize others. On that same note, we were also told that wearing masks was not recommended, as they would provide a false sense of security and should be avoided.

Now we all know how those polices turned out. I am not looking to belittle the government or government members. I am simply looking to point out how spectacularly wrong this advice was. How and why does this matter in the bill that we are debating today? It is because we have to accept that we have new and more deadly variants of this virus and that we are well behind in the vaccination fight against the original variant.

We may be in this fight for much longer than any of us would have ever anticipated or want to be. Obviously, we all have to hope and work hard to ensure that that is not the case. At the same time, we have to be prepared. That brings me back to part 7 of this bill, which fiscally proposes unprecedented borrowing to continue the firehose-like spending.

I would like to believe that most of us, even if it is not all of us, understand that the federal government cannot keep spending at the same rate as it has been. These expenditures are not sustainable in the long term. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said so, as did other leading economists.

Obviously, the government is very much hoping that this record spending will help us get through the pandemic. However, at some point, we will have to step back and ask ourselves whether the rate of spending is commensurate with how long we can actually fight the pandemic.

That brings me to my next question. Do we want these issues to be asked, debated and examined by Parliament or do we want to continue to allow the Liberal government to sign blank cheques and trust it to spend money in secret, just as it has been doing so far?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

We have an official opposition, and a third and a fourth party for a reason. It is to hold the government to account and now, more than ever, we need to do that job. I am hopeful that other members of this House will see the benefits of splitting part 7 from this bill and will agree.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a number of Conservatives over the last week and a half go on about how we were told back in the day to not wear masks as it was not important versus where we are today. It goes without saying that the entire world learned and adapted to what it came to understand and know about the virus and the way it spread.

Yes, in the beginning we were saying just washing our hands should be enough. As the world started to understand more and more about this virus, it changed and adapted behaviours and recommendations. I cannot understand why the Conservatives are continuing to critique advice given a year ago versus the advice we have now based on the information we have come to know.

For example, I am wearing this mask, and I do even when I speak. I realize that when I speak, the particles in my mouth might go further than two metres and there is a desk full of people sitting right in front of me. We adapt, we learn and we change our behaviours as we move along.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I support health measures based on science. The point of my speech was that some of the assumptions the government made decisions on a year ago based on expert advice did not turn out to be true. If people came to me and said that they were going to do a two-day trek across the desert but were told by someone they only needed a certain amount of water and they would be just fine, I would tell them that it is always best to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Unfortunately, if members on the Liberals side will not question the government, then it remains up to the official opposition. As I said, there are various viewpoints from the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and independents. However, in this case, as a member of the official opposition, I am asking for a particular section of the bill to be cut out so we can debate it more intensely.

We should not be making such large-scale decisions in such a limited amount of time. Every time we have done that, it has turned out badly for every—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his French. It is unfortunate we do not always sit together on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, because the rate at which I am learning English is not the same as the rate at which he is learning French.

I understood what he said about the expenses involved. I would like him to talk in more detail about how that money will be spent. I would like his answer to go beyond the amount of money that is planned. With respect to the economic statement, I am critical of the fact that for some issues there is no sound and no picture as to the sustainability that needs to be given to the issues of health transfers, seniors, the sectoral approach that the government needs to take in areas that are still in crisis because of the pandemic. There are people who are unemployed and without income. It seems to me that the recovery plan must take these issues into account. We must have a vision in this regard.

How does my colleague see spending in this area?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the member and miss the opportunity to sit with her on the HUMA committee.

The fall economic update by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance presented a lot of eye-popping numbers with very little detail. It is my hope that we start discussing. This is why I suggested carving out this section, because I think many members on the Liberal side would agree that there were not enough details as to what $100 billion would do for stimulus.

Doing that over three years, when we do not have a good grasp on where we are at or where we will be based on some of the variants and various issues, is dangerous. This is one the reasons we should be carving out the section so we can be asking questions.

Anything that brings value for money is important, but some of my constituents have asked why there has been more money set aside for WE Charity than for domestic vaccination production. We an announcement by the government today that it would be far later than what other countries presented. We need to start asking, “What if we are wrong?” What kind of prepare for the worst but hope for the best thinking can we find collectively? This chamber is built for that kind of thinking and consensus building.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the fall economic statement.

I miss being in the House of Commons for these speeches, but it is an honour and privilege to speak in the riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in the traditional unceded territory of the Snuneymuxw, Snaw-Naw-As, Stz'uminus and Lyackson First Nations.

In the House, I represent the constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, but I also feel a responsibility to speak for the 1.1 million voters who voted Green in 2019. If we do the math and average the number of votes by the number of MPs elected, I represent 387,000 Green voters. By comparison, the Liberal Party received five times more votes than the Green Party but elected 50 times more MPs, averaging 38,000 votes per MP. This is not a true representation of the democratic will of Canadians.

The fall economic statement contains a long list of much-needed spending to help Canadians get through the COVID-19 pandemic. The Green Party welcomes many of the initiatives that are listed in the fall economic statement. Our leader Annamie Paul is particularly pleased to see the government commit to exploring the implementation of carbon border adjustments to protect Canadian businesses and encourage climate action abroad. This is something for which Ms. Paul was advocating.

What is remarkable about this fall economic statement is what has been left out. This was an opportunity to implement much-needed reforms and improvements to our social welfare and health care systems. There are minor reforms to our tax system, but they do not go far enough to create more fairness in the system. There is program spending for indigenous people, but not enough to deal with the systemic problems with which they are grappling. Minor programs deal with the climate emergency, but not enough bold action to deal with the existential crisis.

I know that members of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, have been cuddling up with conspiracy theorists, with their questions and speeches referencing the World Economic Forum's great reset. Quite frankly, the Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. I am no fan of the World Economic Forum and its gatherings of unelected billionaires at Davos. These billionaires talk a great game about social responsibility and protecting the environment, while they continue to press governments for more tax cuts for the wealthy and fewer regulations for corporations. It is not a conspiracy theory; it is unfettered greed in action.

The Conservative agenda has been much the same as the World Economic Forum agenda all along: tax cuts and deregulation while pretending to care about working people. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, he spoke at the Davos conference several times, including the 2012 meeting, which planned for the so-called great transformation: same agenda, different title.

Canadians deserve better. It is time for bold action.

It is time for a guaranteed livable income so we can eliminate poverty by creating an income floor under which no Canadian can fall.

It is time for universal pharmacare to complete our universal health care system. We are the only country with universal health care that does not include universal pharmacare. It could save us billions of dollars in health care spending. We also need to fund proactive therapies, treatments and programs that keep Canadians healthy, and include these in the Canada Health Act.

It is time to fully include the mental health care services and counselling under the Canada Health Act. We need more than half measures to deal with the mental health crisis in our communities. This is particularly true as we near the one-year anniversary of pandemic restrictions.

It is time to fund universal child care and early childhood education. This is especially important to ensure that women can regain the ground they have lost in the workforce as a result of the pandemic.

We need to increase funding to deal with the affordable housing and homelessness crisis.

We need bold action to deal with the opioid overdose crisis.

It is time for much deeper reform of our tax system to ensure that the billionaire class, the big banks and the multinational corporations pay their fair share and cannot use loopholes and offshore tax shelters to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

We encouraged the government to roll out and expand programs such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy to ensure that workers and companies could survive the economic lockdown. However, we were also very clear that government emergency support should not be used by companies to pay CEO bonuses or shareholder dividends as had happened in the past. The government did not include these conditions as part of the relief programs, and this has led to abuse and to corporate welfare.

A recent report found that billions in wage subsidies were paid to 68 companies which turned around and paid more than $5 billion in dividends at the same time.

For example, Imperial Oil received $120 million in wage subsidies and paid out $324 million in dividends during this period. The big telecom companies took in almost a quarter of a billion dollars in wage subsidies. Bell Canada received $122 million, despite having $5.2 billion in available liquidity.

For-profit companies running long-term care homes for seniors have also used government COVID emergency tax dollars to line the pockets of CEOs and shareholders, while the death toll in their facilities continue to climb.

The Green Party is happy with some of the environmental initiatives, but they are clearly not enough to deal with the crash in biodiversity or the climate crisis we face.

There has been a lot of talk about the government initiative to plant two billion trees as part of the Canada climate action plan. This sounds great, but I would like to point out a few flaws in this idea.

A 500-year-old tree sequesters far more carbon in a year than an acre of seedlings can. If the government is serious about using trees as a carbon sink, it should fund an immediate halt to the destruction of old growth forests, especially in B.C. and on Vancouver Island where only 1% of the big tree old growth forests outside of parks remain standing. The B.C. government talks about preservation, but continues to allow old growth forests to be cut down. This needs to stop. Let us allocate tree funding for old growth.

The other trees we need to protect and preserve are in the boreal forest. The boreal forest is Canada's equivalent to the Amazon and provides enormous ecological benefit to the planet. It is time to leave the virgin forests alone and preserve them. There are plenty of places in Canada where second, third and fourth growth forests can be used for timber supply. The forest companies must be required to replant trees after they have harvested both on Crown or on private forest lands. It is the cost of doing business and should not be subsidized.

The Green Party welcomes spending on consumer initiatives addressing the climate crisis, including funding for home energy retrofits and zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. However, the climate crisis demands more than consumer initiatives. It is time for the government to take much bolder steps, starting with the cancellation of the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. Experts have stated that this project is not financially viable and is predicted to become a stranded asset. It will not help finance climate change initiatives.

Fossil fuels will continue to be used in the foreseeable future, but in dwindling amounts. We need to end all subsides for the oil and gas industry.

The truth is that if we do not take bold action to address the climate crisis, the spending needed to deal with mitigation and the disasters resulting from climate change will make what we are spending on the COVID-19 pandemic look like chump change. Canada is a climate laggard. Canadian governments have committed to nine international agreements and produced zero plans to meet the agreed targets.

Eight provinces and three territories representing 85% of the Canadian population met the Copenhagen target in 2020. However, two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, increased emissions so much that they completely wiped out the progress of the rest of the country.

Canada has the worst record of the G7 for climate action. The UK, the country with the best record, has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 41% from 1990 levels, while shamefully Canada has increased emissions by 21%. In order for Canada to catch up with the rest of the wealthy countries, we need to set new targets to reduce emissions by 60% by 2030.

Average Canadian consumers could take their emissions to zero and it would not mean a thing as long as we allow the oil and gas industry to continue to pollute our atmosphere with climate killing gases. The government should not let the conspiracy promoting MPs continue to intimidate it from taking real action. Be bold, that is what our children and grandchildren expect from the government.

Bill C-14 contains some much-needed spending and actions. In our view it needs to be much bolder. The Green Party will support the bill and we will continue to press the government to take bold action.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member's comments. He seems confused about whom he is holding to account with his comments about the Harper government. He has a very interesting perspective on conspiracy theories, given his history with the 9/11 truth movement, and has been involved in looking to free Meng Wanzhou. He also talked about all of the things the Green Party stands against that the government is putting forward, but said that he is going to support the bill anyway.

My specific question for the member is about the parliamentary leader for the Greens celebrating the demise of thousands of jobs for western Canadians and billions of dollars in revenue for the Canadian treasury. While he is supporting the government's initiatives, as he has said, and standing opposed to its plans for the environment, I am wondering what the member's plan is to fund his proposals in the short term, because it seems as though he is happy to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to start with, we need a just transition for oil and gas workers. It has already been looked at. We have done this before with asbestos. We know that we need to take bold climate action, and now is the time to do that.

Clearly, the Conservatives do not see things the same way I do. I see a lot of good things in the fall economic update. However, I do not think it is bold enough and that we are take the steps we should be taking to ensure that Canadians get the kind of support they need and that we deal with the climate crisis. These are the existential problems we face.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.

This week, the leader of the Green Party met with Premier Legault. They no doubt spoke about health care, and Mr. Legault surely reiterated the demand that all provincial premiers have made for health transfers to be increased from 22% to 35%. The Bloc Québécois has shared this demand with the federal government.

Can we count on the Green Party's support? Will the Green Party members support the Bloc Québécois and all provincial premiers in demanding that health transfers be increased?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I believe that the provinces should get the health transfers they need. We have seen continual cuts to health transfers, and the way the Harper government set this up cut it back even further. We need to go back to the plan we had originally and ensure that the provinces have enough funding to take care of their own people.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about having a bold agenda, and the NDP has actually been doing that in real time.

I wonder if the member supports Bill C-213, the pharmacare bill we put forward; Motion No. 46, which would guarantee a livable income and dental care; and certainly Bill C-232, my private member's bill that supports a bold climate agenda. It is a climate action emergency framework that is about bold work. The NDP is doing it in real time.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely support all of those things. They have all been in our platform for many years. A guaranteed livable income is something the Greens have been putting forward for over a decade, and for universal pharmacare it is the same thing. Bold climate action is something we want.

I have actually signed on to a number of these private member's bills and motions, and I look forward to working with the hon. member to push the government to enact these bold changes for Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the member think the investments that have been made in Canadians to date have been the right move for our country? I know there was unanimous support for them throughout the House, but the Conservatives seem to be criticizing the fact that we invested in Canadians previously. How important is it to get us through this and out the other side?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have been making the right investments. There have been some mistakes, but that is the nature of a changing pandemic.

I am quite confused by the Conservatives. On the one hand they want more spending to protect Canadians, but on the other hand they want cutbacks. I am not sure if they talked about this as a caucus or not.

We need to take bold action to protect Canadians during this pandemic to ensure that our small businesses survive and that Canadians pull through this healthy, safe and economically sound.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join debate today on Bill C-14, which would implement measures put forward in the government's fall economic statement.

Many residents of my riding have been very hopeful for some time to see a new plan from the government to get our economy going again. However, time and again the government has disappointed, and I am afraid this economic statement is no exception to that.

We know the pandemic has touched the lives of all Canadians one way or another. Far too many have lost a loved one and others have been separated from friends and family. Small businesses across the country are struggling to get by, if they have not already closed their doors.

That is why the Conservatives were in favour of new programs to support Canadians through this unprecedented time. Every step of the way we worked with the government to bring forward very thoughtful amendments to improve many of these unprecedented and much-needed programs, such as the recovery benefit and the wage subsidy, as many Canadians found they were falling through the cracks regarding these programs. We also know that we need a long-term economic recovery plan moving forward that will result in jobs and paycheques for Canadians, not just more debt and uncertainty. We need a return to normal life, not another year or more of restrictions.

As mentioned, this pandemic has devastated small businesses across the country. Many relief programs were not sufficient for many business owners, in particular for many seasonal operators in the riding of Kenora, and they were unable to keep their doors open. I also believe a flawed rollout of these programs and, in many cases, poor communication on the part of the government have made this difficult time much worse for small business owners.

The Conservatives spent much of the spring and pretty much all of the summer calling for improvements to these programs to help reduce some of the barriers to entry and help more Canadians get the supports they need in this desperate time. Unfortunately, we saw the Liberals drag their feet. What should have been very simple fixes in many cases came far too late or in some cases have not come at all.

None of this has stopped the Liberals from wanting to raise taxes on Canadians. That does not surprise me and should not surprise any members of the House or any Canadians who may be watching, because it is always the ordinary hard-working Canadians who are struggling to get by who have to pay the price for the government's mismanagement.

A friend of mine in the riding of Kenora recently had to close his business, and his wife had to close hers. They are unsure of their next move given all the uncertainty moving forward. According to the CFIB, one in six small business owners is in a similar situation. They are considering closing their doors permanently. This paints a very frustrating picture of the current situation and of the urgent need for a robust recovery plan.

Last spring, lockdowns and other restrictions were put in place by governments not only across Canada but across the world in an effort to buy time. It bought the government time to get access to more permanent solutions, such as vaccines and rapid testing. We now know that other countries are well on their way to vaccinating most of their populations and are making use of rapid testing as well, but the current government has positioned us at the back of the line for vaccines and without widespread rapid testing. These are vitally important tools that are enabling other jurisdictions to position their economies to reopen, but many Canadians will have to wait half a year or more before they can get a first dose of vaccine.

This is incredibly troublesome for my region because tourism is a massive contributor to the economy there. Campgrounds, hotels, outfitters, regional airlines, restaurants and local shops have thrived in the past thanks to visitors from outside of the riding, primarily those from the United States.

To put it in perspective, for all members of the House, in my riding the American clientele for tourism outfitters is important. Based on the sheer population, there are more people living in the state of Minnesota than in all of northern Ontario, Manitoba and, I believe, Saskatchewan combined. I might need to be fact-checked on that, but we know that the market for domestic tourism is incredibly small when compared with what the American market brings in.

When the border closed last year, the business dried up. What made things even more difficult for many in my riding was the uncertainty around what conditions the border may be able to open in some capacity. Business owners did not know if they should be recruiting staff, paying insurance or setting up their facilities for visitors, who of course in the end were not able to come last season.

Not only did these business owners lose a whole season, with no income, but they also spent thousands of dollars on overhead costs that turned out to be unnecessary, because of a lack of clear communication and a clear plan forward from the government. I am afraid that history may be repeating itself, as we get closer to the spring and have yet to see a plan forward from the government.

In the House yesterday, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill asked whether people who had been vaccinated against COVID-19 would be exempt from the Liberal government's new quarantine laws. I believe it is safe to say that the answer from the government was non-committal.

It truly begs the question: If Canadians are not able to travel freely after they have been fully vaccinated, when will they be able to do so? What criteria is the government using to decide when and whether the restrictions would be lifted, or is the entire plan just to continue with the status quo forever or for however long it takes?

I believe my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill said it more eloquently yesterday, but there is a better way of doing things. There is a way we could begin to return to normal while still protecting the health of Canadians and, of course, keeping those who are most vulnerable safe.

I believe the strategic use of rapid testing could allow Canadians to go about their business more normally, but of course the government has not deployed tests in a way that would allow that. Vaccines, as I have noted, are vitally important, but we know the government has botched the procurement process.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that as of January, roughly only 2% of Canadians had received a single dose of a vaccine. That is why we need the government to bring forward a plan. We need the government to have success in bringing vaccines to Canada. We know that until the majority of the population is vaccinated, we could be faced with more restrictions and more lockdowns. More workers could lose their jobs and entrepreneurs could lose their businesses. More Canadians could struggle with isolation and their mental health, and unfortunately more Canadians could become sick and there could be more deaths.

Canada's Conservatives know that Canadians are frustrated and are looking for hope from their government and a clear path forward. That is what we are fighting for. We are fighting for every Canadian to have access to a vaccine. We are fighting for rapid testing and other measures to alleviate the impact of this pandemic. We are fighting for adequate support for our hospitals and health care systems. We are fighting to ensure that entrepreneurs who make our country stronger will have a fighting chance.

We can and we will beat this virus. However, once we do, we will have even more work to do to revive our economy and secure our future. I will end it there. I appreciate any questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the topic the member for Calgary Nose Hill raised about when and if vaccinated individuals could travel and what loosened restrictions there might be for such individuals. I do not have the answer to that, but I am going to go out on a limb and say the government is going to make its decisions on that based on advice from medical professionals, including our chief medical officer of health, rather than from MPs giving their personal opinions on the floor of the House of Commons.

Would the member agree that the best people to advise the government on making those decisions would be the public health officials who are spearheading us through this pandemic?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course we know that public health officials and the experts have to be the ones guiding these decisions. However, to my colleague's point, I would say that the lack of transparency by the government about what it is hearing from public health officials has caused a lot of frustration. There have been a lot of mixed messages, and I believe, in many instances, the Liberals have allowed their own political rhetoric to get in the way of some of the information from public health officials.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the member's observations about the vaccines.

The problem with the government is that it is always a step behind. We do not have the agreements to know about the number of vaccines. We know that we have reserved industrial quantities of them. We could give some to the rest of the world. However, the problem is that we are not able to get enough vaccines to conduct mass vaccinations. That is what we need.

Quebec is waiting. All of our vaccination sites are ready to go. The staff are ready to go, but we cannot meet demand.

I agree with the member on this, but since the government is a step behind—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from the Bloc mentioned, we do agree that the government has botched the vaccines procurement process. We have seen a very slow rollout across the country, which has resulted in a lot of frustration and uncertainty for Canadians.

Moving forward, we really want to see the plan from the government on how it is going to move forward and distribute vaccines in a way that can help get our economy going again and secure our health and future.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member's area very well, having passed through it a dozen times. Kenora is the linchpin between eastern Canada and western Canada, and I know that the folks in his riding are very hard-working. I know they are as concerned as all Canadians are about the very slow trickle of vaccines. The new Biden administration just confirmed that over the next couple of weeks, it will be delivering 10.5 million doses of vaccine. In Canada it is just a few thousand, a trickle.

My question is very simple. What is the impact, in his community and in communities across the country, of Canada trailing dozens of other countries in the actual rollout and administration of vaccines?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think, as for all Canadians experiencing the impact of the lack of vaccines, there is a lot of worry. A lot of people are feeling uneasy about what lies ahead. Specifically with regard to my region, as the member will know, there are many remote first nation communities and vulnerable populations who have begun to receive vaccines, but that has not been enough to ensure that all of those who are in a vulnerable situation can be vaccinated in a timely manner.

That is something we need the government to succeed on, so that we can ensure that all vulnerable Canadians and all Canadians who want a vaccine will be able to get one.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be in the House once again.

When the fall economic statement was delivered some months ago, I made very clear my expectations for the airline sector, on which the government has yet to deliver. The pain and desperation across this sector continues.

I will start with a letter from a childhood friend of mine in Calgary Midnapore, who is now in the aviation sector. His parents are still my constituents. He asked me personally to read this letter and I told him I would. It reads:

“January 12, 2021.

“To the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada and Right Hon. Minister of Transport:

“This letter is a first for me as I do not usually engage elected officials to convey my disappointment regarding the state of an industry to which I have devoted over 25 years of my life. However, having worked in the Canadian aviation sector in an operations control management capacity and experienced executive leadership which successfully met the challenges of recessions, rising energy prices, 9/11, SARS and H1N1, to name just a few, it saddens me to see that in nine short months the Liberal government is on track to severely weakening or destroying strong companies that have taken decades to build.

“Was this intentional? I'm almost certain it was not, but lack of Liberal proactivity and collaboration with leaders in the Canadian aviation industry have led the industry on this path. CERB and CEWS are not silver bullet solutions that will fix this problem alone, contrary to popular belief. The industry needs strong leadership in the form of aggressive procurement of expedited COVID testing and results within hours of flight departures and arrivals, not two weeks of quarantine upon arrival and testing of Canadian citizens 72 hours prior to their return to Canada.

“Facilitating conditions for safe travel will help this industry recover and rapid, reliable COVID testing will play a major role in boosting consumer confidence. It does exist, but the Liberal government needs to aggressively pursue it and have a plan.

“Currently, I do not see a coherent plan. If Liberal actions continue on this path of reactivity, myopic leadership and decisions made in a vacuum without consultation with industry, then Canadians may wake up in the near future to view the slow death of our nation's main carriers, a renegotiation of our airspace sovereignty because Canadian-based airlines are not financially able to serve all communities due to poor Liberal policies, U.S.-based airlines operating point to point domestically and other foreign carriers facilitating travel for Canadians abroad.

“Does the Liberal Party really want to have the legacy of leading to the demise of our aviation industry with proud innovative roots”—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there until we get back to the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore after question period later this day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore has seven minutes remaining.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I will conclude the letter from my childhood friend. I grew up with him in Calgary Midnapore, and he is now in the aviation sector.

“Does the Liberal Party really want to have the legacy of leading Canada to the demise of our aviation industry with proud, innovative roots in history? For the sake of half a million aviation employees right now out of work and the future of our industry, the time to act decisively and collaboratively is now.

“I would like to thank the right hon. member [for Calgary Midnapore] for reading my concerns. As the shadow transportation minister for the Conservative Party and an old school colleague, she has well represented Canada's aviation industry in the past since the start of the pandemic.

“Sincerely, Grant Caswell.”

I would like to say hello to his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Caswell, who live on the same street I grew up on, Lake Bonavista Drive, in the riding.

For months I have been advocating, in the House, for support for the airline sector, which was announced yet again in the fall economic statement. I will add that it was also in the supplemental mandate letter to the Minister of Transport. It is long past due that this sector receives some type of support. Unfortunately, as I have indicated in recent days, the inaction and incompetence of the government is going far beyond the airline sector and is now reaching out to touch all Canadians.

I am sure members are very well aware that on our side of the House we pushed extensively for rapid testing in the fall in all facets of life, which would have facilitated many things within our communities and our society. However, as the shadow minister for transport, I pushed for it specifically in regard to air travel.

I am very proud of YYC, Calgary's airport authority, which took the initiative to have an on-arrival pilot project. We could have duplicated this across the nation initially, instead of giving the sledgehammer response that we have seen. It could have been avoided if the government had listened to our calls for rapid testing and then rolled out testing on arrival. We spoke of this again and again to the deaf ears of the government.

Now, very frankly, we are seeing this with vaccines. There was an inability to recognize the necessity to be at the head of the procurement line. This is not an excuse, nor is it acceptable. The government should have foreseen this and should have had a plan B as well, which it did not. It is not only the airline sector that has suffered terribly, as I have mentioned over and over again, but now all Canadians.

I even question the pharmaceutical approval process. I am very glad that my good colleague, the member for Foothills, brought this up last week specifically in regard to Solstar Pharma, which has an incredible antiviral project. In fact, my own leader mentioned this in the leaders' round of question period last week.

I have sheepishly led many individuals who have contacted me about the approval process. I have given them the website and perhaps written a letter of support, and left them in the queue with the wish and hope that there will be some good outcome for Canadians, because we need it so desperately. I am happy to see that we have the advancement with Novavax today.

I also want to talk to Canadians today about why they should care about the loss of the airline sector, because that is the direction we are going: the complete demolition of it. It will not be there, and why should Canadians care? It is because we will come out of this one way or another, through the stumbling and falling of the government in its attempt to manage this.

However, what will be there? Canadians gave up their summer vacation, gave up their winter vacation and are giving up their spring break. It looks like they will be giving up their summer vacation once again, according to the government. However, when the time comes for them to travel again with their families, will there be an airline sector to take them places? I am not sure today.

For Canadians who want to visit their families in remote parts of the country or in any part of the country, places where we have seen loss of service include St. John's, Gander, Goose Bay, Fredericton, Quebec City, Prince Rupert, Kamloops and Yellowknife. This is a result of the government's inaction. These routes are not there now and they will not be available when Canadians want to travel. When my friends in the 905, in Vancouver and all across Canada want to go to see their extended family in India or in Hong Kong, those flights will not be there, given the way we are going right now. All Canadians have an interest in the survival of this airline sector.

Canadians should be asking if their sector is next. I will tell the House as a member of Parliament from Alberta that I have seen the current government single-handedly destroy the energy sector here. That is one sector. I have seen them single-handedly destroy the entire airline sector. That is two airlines. Every Canadian, the ones on CERB, the ones who have jobs and the ones who are Uber drivers, should ask themselves if their industry is next. The government will come for their industry as well. It came for mine, it came for the airline workers and it will come for theirs.

Finally, as many of my colleagues have asked, I ask when this will end. When does this end? It is a year later, and I thought my life would be a lot bigger and a lot more open, as well as my family's, and it is not; it is smaller. It is the result of the incompetence and the inaction of the government on so many things I have mentioned here today.

For me, it started with the airline sector, and it is far beyond that. It reaches all Canadians now.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for talking about airlines. They are important to us.

The small northern airlines provide service to the northern communities, but to be able to do that, they need the revenue from the flights that go south. To get that revenue, they need to interline with the big airlines, but reasonable interline agreements with the big airlines have not yet occurred.

I wonder if the member, and hopefully all members in the House, would join me in encouraging the large airlines to make meaningful interline agreements with the small northern airlines that are so important to us.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the member for Yukon after serving with him for some time on the House procedures committee.

The member for Yukon is actually, in my opinion, very fortunate, because the north is possibly the only specific region that has received any attention from the government as far as airlines are concerned. However, he raises an excellent point on interline agreements. I have had many conversations with carriers that are interested in interline agreements. My leader, the leader of the official opposition, was on a call with me, and I will have members know that he also supports interline agreements.

I think this is a wonderful idea brought forward by the member for Yukon, one we have also been asking for and one we also support.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I want to pivot to, a subject we have not touched on.

We know that CBC Marketplace has just outlined that over nine million Canadians right now have low credit ratings and are going to alternative lenders, who are charging outrageous rates of interest, between 30% and 50%. People are caught in that trap. Someone identified it as being in a hamster wheel. It is absolutely outrageous, since the Bank of Canada floor right now is less than 1%.

Does my colleague agree that there needs to be a better process and that the federal government needs to intervene and cap these rates? Right now it is on the backs of the provinces. We know more and more people are going to be falling into this trap, especially with COVID, job losses, and people losing their businesses and struggling to make ends meet and pay their bills. They are looking for help, but they do not qualify for financing.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to step in? I am sure that in every riding across this country, we can find these alternative lenders preying on everyday Canadians who are in trouble.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really believe that at the root of all this is the economy and that it is necessity that has brought Canadians to these positions my colleague speaks of. It is the economy. It is the loss of good-paying jobs.

Now we have added billions of dollars to the debt. We are at $1.1 trillion, with a $400-billion deficit projected for this year, and looking forward, we see no way out of it, as I have talked about for the last 12 minutes.

I definitely share the concerns the good member raises, but more importantly, why were Canadians brought to this place where they have to consider these conditions for loans, and what we are all going to do to get out of it?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the government's bumbling with the lack of testing in airports when it said it was testing and really missing the boat in treating the COVID crisis the way it should have been.

Looking in a positive way, as I know the hon. member understands, what do Canadians need to look forward to? I see there is a hopeful future for us, but there really is a change necessary for that to happen.

What does the member see as the big change that needs to occur for us to have hope once again in Canada?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague shares the same sunny disposition as I do, and we should be positive, because there is so much opportunity for us as Canadians, families and workers coming out of this pandemic.

I believe my colleague is right when he says a change is needed. Canadians have to ask themselves who will best lead this nation forward for the best economy possible and the most jobs possible. My answer is that it is my party, the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been focusing on the importance of the economic recovery for quite some time. We must look to the future. We must think beyond the next election.

There are many federal mechanisms to get Canada back on its feet. In Quebec, the recovery will centre on local initiatives, the regional economy and the development of our nation, its towns and its villages.

Green, responsible innovation must be at the heart of our efforts. To be effective, these innovations must flow from current and future programs that are flexible and tailored to the situation of the regions and municipalities. The Bloc Québécois believes that each nation must take responsibility for itself and use appropriate mechanisms that fit its situation to meet the challenges to come. For our economies to recover, we need more than low-interest loans. We need more vision. Here is a wish list of what the government must do to restart our economies.

First of all, the government needs to look after Quebec's interests. Infrastructure offers a way to stimulate the economy and jump-start development projects in our towns and villages. Quebec has more than 1,800 towns and villages spread out over the 18th largest territory in the world. Nearly 80% of Quebec's towns and villages have fewer than 3,000 inhabitants. Infrastructure can connect our territories, be it on the ground, in the sky or in the digital realm. This will take long-term investments from the government.

Towns and villages know their own needs the best. That is why federal infrastructure funding, to the tune of $100 billion over 10 years, must be transferred to Quebec and to municipalities, which are in the best position to manage that money.

In the same vein, the government needs to pick up the pace on getting the regions connected to the Internet. This is a huge need in Quebec. It is hard to imagine these days that there are still people who are isolated and living without Internet access. I am thinking of business owners, farmers who have limited access to technology and innovation, and the many other sectors that will lead the recovery, such as the tourism, culture, social development and knowledge-based sectors.

Quebec is ready to get all Quebeckers connected in the short term. I want to remind members that Internet access is an essential need that gives access to technology so that entrepreneurs can innovate, as they do so well when given the means. One way of accomplishing that is to force telecommunications companies to provide service to all of Quebec.

Even more surprising is that in addition to not being connected to the Internet, many first nations communities still do not have clean drinking water or even running water in their homes. Can the first nations get the infrastructure they need for their development? They need clean drinking water and housing. The situation is heartbreaking.

Many villages have been built all over Quebec. Quebec's tourist destinations are known for their hospitality, their food scene, their local products and their cultural vitality, as demonstrated by the emergence of many festivals. These are places that have a wonderful quality of life. They are known for the quality of their festivals, their sports and adventure infrastructure, or simply for their scenic beauty.

We want to preserve and enhance these economies for our future common good. We need to foster our spirit of pride and acknowledge our heritage. We need to protect our lakes and forests.

Individual and collective entrepreneurship drives development in our regions. To prevent the decline of the regions, we must maximize secondary and tertiary processing initiatives because they create wealth and value added.

Let us invest in Quebec's innovative spirit and the next generation. Let us get young people involved so they can put their creativity to good use. For the development of our regions in eastern Quebec and for our marine economy, all the way to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we must repair the ports and other infrastructure. They provide income for many middle-class families. The Davie shipyard, which is recognized for its expertise in America, is a fine example.

We must implement national aerospace strategies for the development of greater Montreal, one of the most important innovation hubs in North America. This development also requires that we support innovation at the Port of Montreal, one of the largest in the world. We must invest in shipping infrastructure and supply chains to have the most effective, sustainable and greenest flow of goods possible.

We must also fund research on how to make heavy-duty vehicles more environmentally friendly and even run on electric power. We must also modernize digital data sharing platforms.

Generally speaking, it is important to support those of our industries and businesses that embrace the circular economy and to evaluate a product's environmental impact throughout its life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials through manufacturing, distribution, use, repair and maintenance. We need to make our industries greener and more efficient. To achieve that, we need to fund low-carbon energy systems.

Quebec has 760,000 square kilometres of forest. That is almost half its territory. We have no shortage of forest resources. Quebec needs to leverage its forestry innovations to develop the regions. Forestry companies are among the most innovative companies in the world. Quebec's forestry industry is reinventing itself, and it is doing so with very little investment from Canada.

We have to produce innovative, high-quality forestry products. Forest fibre, such as low-carbon forest residue, can be used to make thousands of different, innovative products. We have to develop markets for these innovative forestry products, and that means enhancing the forest innovation program to adequately fund things like forest biomass supply chains and bioenergy research and development.

There is also aluminum. Quebec is the largest and most environmentally friendly producer of aluminum in the world. The transformation of aluminum into carbon neutral aluminum needs to be financed.

To revitalize our villages, we have to revive agriculture by promoting organic farming and greenhouse cultivation and using green energy. Local products need to be promoted and showcased through tasting events. This will encourage people to buy local, quality, fresh and organic products.

Seafood products also have to be supported by modernizing processing plants and subsidizing research into innovative secondary and tertiary processing products. Quebec's extensive expertise in innovation must be preserved and continually developed.

That is why investments are needed in R and D and in Quebec's research centres, particularly in the regions, in colleges and in universities so as to foster the acquisition and adaptation of green technologies for the benefit of Quebec's SMEs.

To kick-start the economy, Canada is proposing a plan worth between $70 billion and $100 billion over three years. It is not yet clear where the government is headed; it all seems uncertain. I have proposed several possible solutions, and I have an excellent idea for the government.

That would take regional funds administered by and for the regions of Quebec, as well as regional councils, in collaboration with Quebec, citizens, researchers, entrepreneurs from the private sector and the social economy, agencies and institutions. For example, the CFDCs would be able to act through a regional council of businesses and agencies to contribute to setting up new innovative projects.

We need an actual local innovation support program with local people who could put their talents to use to come up with solutions to revitalize our economies and our ecosystems. Through their creative strength and innovation, the communities themselves are in the best position to target the appropriate innovation zones for their area and the new potential markets. We will rely on their talents and strengths.

Also, it is important that the innovation respond effectively not only to market challenges, but also to the challenges faced by the locals, their community and their region. People in the regions are losing out in this pandemic. They need a win in the recovery.

With regional funds, the regions will become more dynamic. The participation of civil society will increase the sense of belonging and pride and stimulate creativity and collaboration. Regional funds will increase the innovation capacity and appeal of our towns, villages and regions. With regional funds, the innovations created in the regions will have an impact on the major issues of this century.

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

Madam Speaker, I have three quick questions.

First, the member mentioned reducing carbon in mining. Would he support the idea of getting off-grid mines to use less carbon and get off of diesel?

Second, I was delighted to hear the member mention nature and clean areas. Would he also help celebrate President Biden's efforts to protect the Yukon-Alaska Porcupine Caribou herd?

Finally, does the member agree with Canada's recent record investments in nature and in protected areas of land and water?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like begin by thanking the hon. member for his sensitivity on a number of issues, including the issue of reducing carbon in mining.

My colleague talked about diesel. I have heard that in Malartic, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, trucks consume about 100,000 litres of diesel every day. This is obviously a site that has become huge, even bigger than the city. Solutions must be found, and the electrification of transportation is one of them. The government will have to take this path, because electricity is very strong. It is a powerful driver.

An industry like the mining industry could promote charging when its trucks are on short-haul trips. There are opportunities here.

I liked that my Liberal colleague talked to us about nature, clean areas and especially the Joe Biden effect. I am indeed satisfied with the response of Joe Biden, who opposed Keystone XL. I will not have time to say more about this third point.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in addition to the hon. member's very distinguished tie, his speaking at length about municipalities is near and dear to my heart. As a former city councillor, multiple times I heard the federal government make big announcements about supports to municipalities, but they would often come in a one-third, one-third, one-third funding agreement.

Would the hon. member agree that we ought to have a program in place, as he has identified, that would provide predictable, direct funding to municipalities so that it is not either held up by the province or shortchanged at the city level?