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

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I want to say to my colleague is that I could have spent 10 minutes just talking about how business owners are sick of only having access to loans. They need subsidies and cash. If they want to be part of the recovery, they will need cash flow, because they are stretched very thin right now.

We are all familiar with the study from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that shows that many businesses are on the brink of bankruptcy. We need to get away from loan obligations and instead focus on subsidies.

As for the municipalities, all I can say is that this is a provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa has a responsibility to transfer this money to Quebec so that Quebec and its municipalities can look after themselves.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague agree with me that the federal government has an important role to play in Canada's economic recovery, including in Quebec, through economic development programs such as the CFDCs, which he mentioned, but also through the connecting Canadians and Canada summer jobs programs?

Does he agree with me that the federal government has an extremely important role to play, even in Quebec?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague, who I saw in my riding barely two years ago, when he was participating in an activity of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue conference of prefects.

Indeed, the federal government has a role to play because we pay half of our taxes to Ottawa. In my view, the share Quebec receives is totally insufficient. It is the Government of Quebec that is incurring expenditures related to the current pandemic. We are talking about a 35% increase in health transfers because health spending is carried out by Quebec.

The federal government's responsibility to help the provinces in the context of the pandemic would have been to simply close the borders. It is a responsibility that it has not taken and is still slow to take. The provinces are waiting for that to happen. Yesterday, Ontario decided to take its own initiative because it was tired of waiting for Ottawa to act.

I am not even talking about vaccines or other issues that are undermining our economy. The federal government must meet its responsibilities if it wants to ensure the development of the regions.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise virtually to debate Bill C-14, an act seeking to legislate elements of the Liberal government’s long-awaited fiscal update, which was announced last fall.

I would like to mention that it is my granddaughter Avery Chapman’s first birthday today, and I care very much about the Canada she is inheriting, as she goes from walking to running to embracing her future.

As proud Canadians, let us first consider where we are and how we got here. For the past five years, the Liberal government has opened Canada’s pocketbook, running up our national debt to historic levels. Despite revenues being at an all-time high because of the strong fiscal foundation left by the previous Conservative government, year after year the Liberals ran deficit after deficit. There were deficits of $19 billion in 2016, another $19 billion in 2017, $14 billion in 2018 and $26 billion in 2019.

Liberal campaign promises in 2015 of a balanced budget and a $1-billion surplus have been dropped entirely from the Trudeau Liberals’ vocabulary. The Liberals spent so freely—

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

I remind the hon. member to please not refer to the names of current members of Parliament.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

The Liberals spent so freely before the pandemic that instead of being prepared for the possibility of an economic downturn, and economies are always cyclical, the cupboards were bare long before the first case of COVID–19 was known.

The pandemic has demanded more spending, but it should also demand transparency and explanations as spending priorities are rolled out. Workable solutions that benefit the most needy and support the survival of Canadian small businesses, new and established, should be at the top of the list.

The Liberal government racked up a $381-billion deficit in 2020. This deficit equalled 17% of our GDP, which made for a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than we realized in World War I, the Great Depression or the great recession.

With the addition of this $381-billion deficit to our balance sheet, our national debt recently surpassed a tragic milestone, a debt of $1 trillion, which is a first for Canada. That is $1,000 billion for those counting. This all from the party whose leader famously stated, “The budget will balance itself”.

While these numbers may seem too big to comprehend, let me speak plainly. This is money that we, the taxpayers of Canada, collectively owe. It is debt that accrues interest each and every day. It is money that we have an obligation to repay, that our children will be on the hook for, and in all likelihood, that our children’s children, such as one-year-old Avery, will be paying off decades from now. Is this to be our legacy? We can and must do better.

What does all this debt really mean for Canadians? It is not just a number on a balance sheet somewhere. It means that Canadians could face higher taxes to pay down the debt and its interest, taxes that could further stifle the economy. It means the social supports and programs that many Canadians rely on could falter. It means that we could face another economic crisis with decreases in the value of homes, a declining stock market, loss of people’s savings, reduced pension values and the rise in unemployment lasting far longer than was necessary.

I hope members on both sides of the aisle recognize the human toll that another financial crisis would have on mental health, substance abuse, depression, domestic violence and homelessness. These are tragedies that are unfolding around us, which have already increased at alarming rates this past year. They are issues that my constituents and I feel deeply about, and that we are already studying at the justice committee, of which I am a member.

That takes me to where we are. Finally, at the end of 2020, after months of calls from our side of the House for a comprehensive budget to show Canadians where their tax dollars, and all this debt-financed spending, is being spent, the Liberals gave Canadians a “budget lite” and a “budget really lite”, which they called their fiscal update. That fiscal update included a proposed $25 billion in new spending measures and a $100-billion stimulus plan, but again, few details about how the money would be spent, or how and when it would be paid for.

The day after it was presented in the House of Commons, the deputy minister of finance, the highest-ranking bureaucrat in the government’s finance ministry, abruptly announced his resignation. We can add this to the growing list of high-profile resignations under the government, which now includes the following: Julie Payette, the former governor general; Bill Morneau, the former minister of finance; Jane Philpott, the former president of the Treasury Board; the member for Vancouver Granville, who served as the minister of justice and attorney general; Michael Wernick, the former clerk of the Privy Council; Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister; and the member for Mississauga—Malton, who served as the minister of innovation, science and industry.

To replace the deputy minister of finance, the Liberals appointed Michael Sabia, an architect behind the GST, which was introduced in the 1990s. That tax was later lowered by the Harper-led government, thanks to sound financial management. Does Mr. Sabia's appointment signal to Canadians that the Liberals plan to raise taxes? Will the government really start taxing the equity in Canadian home ownership, as is being widely reported? Only time will tell.

One thing I know for certain, as an MP and as the former minister of national revenue, is that the lack of a federal budget is simply unacceptable. The budget is not just a planning tool for the government. It is the means by which the government announces in detail to Canadians from coast to coast to coast what it plans to do with billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

According to the government's own website:

The Budget is a blueprint for how the Government wants to set the annual economic agenda for Canada. And it's the job of the Department of Finance to prepare it.

The last federal budget was presented on March 19, 2019. That was 686 days ago. So much for an annual budget. So much for promised transparency.

As for some of the specifics Canadians were given, the most troubling part of the bill before us is the amendment it proposes to the Borrowing Authority Act. This amendment seeks to increase the government's maximum borrowing authority from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion, a new maximum limit on the nation's credit card. This sets another record, as it is the biggest increase in borrowing authority ever sought in our nation's history. I ask members to let that sink in for a moment. It is more than in World War II or past global recessions.

At this point, why should Canadians trust the government? We have all seen the headlines, which include: “CRA admits ‘unclear’ CERB communications led to mistaken applications”; “CERB repayment frustration continues”; “More than $636M in CERB benefits paid to 300,000 teens aged 15 to 17, documents show”; “Troubled pandemic rent subsidy program expires today – and there’s no replacement ready”; “Exclusive golf course books $1 million surplus, aided by federal COVID-19 relief”; and “$150 million more to SNC-Lavalin.” Really? The SNC-Lavalin that is mired in scandal and ethical challenges?

Conservatives want to help Canadians make ends meet. They recognize that the virus has affected millions of Canadians in a variety of ways, my family included. I know far too many constituents who have been laid off in the hospitality sector, tourism industry and retail businesses. I have heard from countless South Surrey—White Rock business owners who are struggling to keep their doors open. Throughout the riding, our once bustling restaurant and shopping scene, including many shops along our picturesque White Rock Pier, are enduring catastrophic drops in patronage and revenue, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our airline industry, which employs many in my riding, is hemorrhaging. Of course I am in favour of the emergency response benefit, the wage subsidy, and the emergency business account, but we need to ensure these programs are rolled out correctly, and that funds are timely, spent effectively, and spent in Canada to help Canadians.

We need to ensure that through these billions of dollars in spending, no Canadian is left behind. So far, that is not what we have seen. There are many new businesses in my community whose investments were all made before the pandemic hit that are not eligible for current subsidy programs because they opened their doors after March 2020. Who is looking out for them?

Given the astronomical size of our country’s debt, we really cannot afford to get this recovery wrong. We need to spend, but to spend responsibly. We need transparency and we need a true, comprehensive budget. More than anything, we need to get Canadians back to work and a clear roadmap to recovery.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind people that most of the Harper years we were in deficits. Although Liberals have spent the most time in government in Canadian history, the Conservatives built up the biggest debt. In fact, coming into this pandemic, Liberals had the best debt servicing costs to the size of the economy than any time in the last 100 years, including during all the Conservative governments.

The member talks about cutting expenditures, but members of her party, including herself at the end of the speech, asked for more expenditures for business. Which of the major expenditures that people and businesses really needed, which she mentioned she supported and her party supported, and that have led to the debt, does she disagree with?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member did not really listen to what I was saying, so I will repeat it. I said that I was in favour of helping Canadians, as my Conservative colleagues are. As he knows, we took a team Canada approach and supported many measures to help Canadians. What we do believe in is doing it responsibly and not giving flagrant amounts of money, huge amounts of money, to those who do not need it.

SNC-Lavalin's $150 million this past year is a good example of that. I take issue with the member talking about the former Conservative government and deficits without talking about the circumstances of those deficits, which was to slowly build out of a global recession, and which that government did successfully, leaving a surplus.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.

However, she paints a rather gloomy picture of the situation, compared to my colleague, who presented some innovative solutions. Does she think that the Quebec model my colleague presented could be replicated in the rest of Canada?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, actually, I am a great optimist. That is my personality. I really believe that Canada and Canadians will build their way out of our present situation through Canadian innovation and ingenuity, and through being responsible with spending and programs. We need to help, but we cannot do it without transparency. We certainly cannot do it without a proper budget and a proper plan. Right now, we do not see that from the Liberal government. I was commenting on the fact that the government had put before us its fiscal updates as opposed to budgets.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, a lot of Canadians are suffering right now. We have just seen the government bring in some very strict measures when it comes to people who have to travel abroad and come back, with figures as high as $2,000 to be spent on hotels.

As health critic for the New Democrats, I am very much in favour of strong measures to protect public health. However, I have been contacted by some constituents, some who are working class and of limited means, who have to do essential travel, perhaps for a death in the family or something similar. They find the $2,000 three-day bill to be quite high.

Would my hon. colleague share any thoughts or comments on whether there should be some form of relief for working class or low-income Canadians who might find the payment of a $2,000 hotel bill to be excessive?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague to be a very caring member of Parliament in high regard and of long-standing.

This is where we should never have one-size-fits-all policies like this. We have to take into account specific circumstances. I agree that this seems like a huge bill for people who can ill afford it and who may have been put in that situation.

The government is not being consistent across our borders. In my own riding, we have the Peace Arch Park where people are being allowed to come from all across Canada and the United States to meet up with each other, because the Liberal government has not addressed the opening on the Washington state side.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-14 on the economic statement, which is extremely important during COVID-19. The bill seeks to implement certain provisions of the November 30, 2020, economic statement and other measures.

I basically want to talk about three things. First, I will share our party's position on the measures for seniors. Second, I will speak about certain measures that are still letting some businesses fall through the cracks, and third, I will say a few words about the problems that this pandemic has created for women and about my desire to support a more feminist economy.

For the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021, the law already allows for the funding of the various health initiatives set out in the bill. That totals approximately $900 million, including an investment of over $500 million in long-term care. The safe restart agreement between Canada, Quebec and the provinces should absolutely be amended to include long-term care. In the economic statement, the government provided for an investment of up to $1 billion to create an infection prevention and control fund to help Quebec and the provinces protect people living in long-term care facilities.

What exactly is being done about long-term care?

I will quote the November 30 economic statement again:

...the Government of Canada is committing up to $1 billion for [an infection control fund] to help provinces and territories protect people in long-term care and support infection prevention and control. Funding will be contingent on a detailed spending plan, allocated on an equal per capita basis and conditional on provinces and territories demonstrating that investments have been made according to those spending plans.

Need I once again remind the House that Quebec and the provinces have extensive authority over health care pursuant to a number of provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867, including section 92.7, which gives Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals.

Moreover, all provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the direct delivery of most medical services. Clearly, therefore, Quebec and the provinces, not the federal government, have the experience and expertise to handle long-term care homes. Quebec and the provinces also pay for the vast majority of these services.

In 2014, the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimated that 73% of the costs related to long-term care facilities in Canada were funded by provincial, territorial and municipal systems and organizations in Quebec and the provinces, while 23% of the costs were borne by residents or through their private insurance.

Any funding from the federal government with conditions of any kind is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois. The federal government has only one role to play in health care, and that is funding. It does have the means to do more.

Ottawa's revenues, at 4.1%, are increasing faster than those of the provinces, at 3.5%, while health care spending in Quebec and the provinces is increasing at an annual rate of 5%. Remember, the federal government's share of health care is shrinking significantly every year.

In 2019 Quebec, the provinces and territories funded 40% of health care spending, while the Canadian government absorbed only 22%, according to Conference Board of Canada data. At the current growth rate, the federal share of health care funding will drop below 20% by 2026. That is unacceptable.

If the federal government is truly concerned about seniors then it needs to accede to the reasonable request made by the united front formed by Quebec and the other provinces and backed by the National Assembly of Quebec. Starting this year, not after the crisis, the government needs to bring its annual contribution to health care funding in Quebec and the provinces to 35% on an ongoing basis. In fact, and this is significant, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, or the FMSQ, also supports this request by Mr. Legault.

As for the possibility of bringing in national standards in long-term care facilities, let us not forget that the Canadian Armed Forces' report following their time in Quebec's long-term care facilities was very clear: Despite there being many standards and rules on contamination prevention and control, or on wearing protective equipment, they were not enough to stop the virus.

The big question has more to do with the capacity to adhere to the existing standards and rules and enforcing them. The primary reason these rules were more difficult to follow is just as clear: the labour shortage. Let us properly fund our health care system. It is not just the Bloc Québécois and I calling for that, but major seniors' organizations such as the FADOQ.

The army's report says, and I quote, “According to our observations, the critical need for CHSLDs is an improved level of staff with medical training.” The provinces and Quebec do not need federal standards for long-term care homes. They already have standards.

Quebec and the provinces need the means to properly care for seniors. The successive Liberal and Conservative federal governments need to stop withholding spending.

In addition, the federal government can and must ensure that we have an adequate supply of vaccines. Once seniors in long-term care homes and seniors residences are taken care of, seniors living alone need to get out of isolation. Even though part of the bill amends the Food and Drugs Act, the delays we have seen are increasing stress and frustration levels.

I remind members that since the beginning of the pandemic, seniors have been saying that the $300 cheque that seniors receiving old age security got in July and the $200 cheque sent to seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement have been woefully inadequate. The government needs to permanently increase old age security benefits by $110 a month, but this is not included in the economic measures.

Second, many people in the riding of Shefford work in the sectors most affected by the pandemic, those associated with tourism in general, such as hotels, restaurants and major cultural events. All these sectors are essential for the economic vitality of the riding. I am thinking of such well-known cultural institutions as the Granby international song festival, the Palace de Granby, the Maison de la culture de Waterloo, the Yvonne L. Bombardier Cultural Centre and the Maison de la culture de Racine, to name but a few.

We have a lot of questions about the terms of the highly affected sectors credit availability program, HASCAP. Why is it that almost two months after announcing this program, the Trudeau government is still unable to provide details on its terms?

Let us remember that, from the beginning of this pandemic, the Bloc Québécois has demonstrated how important it is to develop assistance programs tailored to each industry, since one-size-fits-all programs really do not work. On May 13, 2020, the Bloc Québécois was already unequivocally calling for targeted assistance for seasonal industries, particularly the tourism industry. Some of the programs that had already been rolled out, such as the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, were poorly designed for these sectors and turned out to be a real disaster.

We then suggested that a real assistance program to cover fixed costs be implemented. In the spring, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development even came to tell members of the Haute-Yamaska chamber of commerce that those sorts of measures were coming. Several months later, it is clear from talking to tourism operators that the measures announced so far are insufficient. Many concerns remain, particularly for Quebec's sugar shacks, a key symbol of our heritage. They are still wondering whether they will be able to benefit from the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

We must not forget that tourism is a vital industry for the regions of Quebec. More than 400,000 workers benefit from the tourism industry, which generates $15 billion for Quebec's economy. Two-thirds of those businesses are located outside the metropolitan regions of Quebec City and Montreal and employ fewer than 20 workers, making them crucial to keeping our communities alive. Tourism is one of the industries that was hit hardest by the pandemic, and stakeholders are still waiting for the federal government to show some more empathy.

In closing, I want to point out the importance of making an economic she-covery a priority because the pandemic has hit women harder than men. Some programs, like the Canada emergency business account, have been harder for women to access. Groups such as Femmessor told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women about the importance of developing programs that are a better fit for female entrepreneurs. I heard that again earlier this week from a Bank of Montreal representative who wants more programs to do a better job of taking female entrepreneurs' reality into account. Family tax credits are not going to help women. They need programs that will help them leverage their economic power and escape poverty. Helping mothers is good, but enabling them to achieve their goals is even better.

The women who own the store Orange coco la vie en vrac, for example, work incredibly hard but do not seem to qualify for any of the programs.

In conclusion, we are in dire need of measures for seniors, for the cultural tourism industry, for restaurants and for women, all of which have been hit harder than most by the pandemic, along with measures for a greener, fairer economic recovery. Let us make that happen.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on her very good speech. We appreciate the determination, devotion and passion that fuel her commitment to the well-being of seniors.

The pandemic has exposed the effects of the chronic underfunding of health care. Let us not forget that the Conservatives reduced the escalator from 6% to 3%, which did not cover the cost of the health care systems.

The Premier of Quebec described a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada and his provincial counterparts as a missed opportunity. The Prime Minister left immediately to announce that the government would increase health transfers in due course. However, we all know that now is the time to tell the provinces and Quebec how much leeway they have to get out of the pandemic.

What does my colleague think of this attitude, and why does she think the Prime Minister of Canada is turning a deaf ear?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for the question.

I do not know why. This has been going on for far too long already. That is why, in my speech, I talked about the power to withhold spending.

Since the days of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, successive Conservative and Liberal governments have made cuts to health. Now they are trying to teach us a lesson and imposing national standards on us.

I was listening to the Prime Minister's response at noon. He said he would wait until after the pandemic to invest more in health transfers. That is unacceptable. Our health system needs help now. It is on life support.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague from Quebec. We have been working on a number of issues from across the country.

This particular bill would raise the debt cap for Canada. Is she at all concerned about the new levels of debt that the government is taking us to, and does the Bloc Québécois have any plans to help repay that debt?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have been working with him recently on the issue of modern slavery and human trafficking, a subject that we will be revisiting shortly.

To answer his question, I would say that in the early days of the pandemic, the Bloc Québécois was the first to try to hold the Liberal government to account. How many times has my colleague from Joliette risen in the House to demand an economic update?

In order to know where we are going, sometimes we need to know where we stand.

I think the economic statement came late. We needed this update much sooner. Of course, we are concerned about the whole issue of transparency in funding and programs. The Liberals have a habit of not wanting to tell us everything and of making investments that reward their close friends, the emergency wage subsidy being a prime example.

When Liberal members tell me that political parties like the Liberal Party need help as much as businesses in Shefford, I find it deeply insulting.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that pre-pandemic, one in five Canadians was not going to see the dentist regularly, and 6.5 million Canadians had no dental coverage at all. The expectation is that two million more Canadians will lose their benefits because of COVID-19 and the economic impact of it. We spend about $246 billion a year on health care. The NDP plan to cover all families that have incomes of $90,000 or less and ensure they get dental coverage would cost about $1.5 billion, versus the $246 billion we spend on health care.

Does my colleague agree and support that universal health care should cover everything from head to toe, including dental coverage, and does she support the proposal that was tabled today by my colleague from St. John's East?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that health care is the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It is up to them to make their own decisions.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, $1.1 trillion is a lot of money. That is what the national debt will be at the end of this fiscal year in accordance with this fall economic statement that we are debating today. It becomes very intimidating when we measure that national debt against gross domestic product, the GDP, in analysis of how well the economy can manage the debt. Just a few years ago it stood at 30%, but by the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 2021, in accordance with this fall economic plan it will stand at 55%, uncomfortably close to its 67% level during Canada's debt crisis in the mid-1990s.

We have heard many times from the Liberal side of the House that we can afford it, we have the fiscal room and we have the muscle power to manage this debt. That is true because, when we managed to get that 1995 debt crisis under control, we had a series of good, fiscally responsible governments that managed the economy, including through the Harper years.

Today, the big debt, $1.1 trillion, is going to be affordable only because interest rates are as low as they are. The federal government can borrow money at less than 1%. Money is almost free. Why would the Liberals not borrow as much as they can? However, any economist will tell us that interest rates will not stay low forever. Central banks will respond to inflationary pressures. It has happened throughout human history and that is not going to change.

In a debate in the House a couple of months ago, the member for Carleton, who is the Conservative Party's shadow minister for finance, asked what a 1% hike in interest rates would cost the Canadian treasury. It was a rhetorical question because obviously the math is very simple. One trillion dollars is a one followed by 12 zeroes. If we multiple it by 1%, it is now a one with 10 zeroes, which is $10 billion. That is $10 billion every year if interest rates go up only 1%. That is $10 billion that is not available for the federal government to spend on other important programs, including health transfers and giving Canadians the help that they need. That money is now going to be taken away from Canadians who need help and who have come to rely on these programs. That money is now going to go to international bankers and pension funds and make them richer.

I know that the middle of a worldwide pandemic is not the time to talk about cutting costs. The Conservative Party recognizes that the federal government has a big role to play in a time of crisis: to keep liquidity in the marketplace and confidence in the minds of the public, and to keep the economy going so that people can keep on working, earning paycheques, taking care of their kids, paying for university, and paying the mortgage or rent. We recognize that this is important. The Conservative Party has stood right along with the Liberal government to support these programs that Canadians need so badly to get through this economic crisis.

Where do we go from here? We are happily seeing a light at the end of the COVID tunnel. We are not there yet, but we are optimistic that there is a post-COVID world that we need to plan for. Canadians want to get back to work and they want to see their government get its fiscal house back in order. We need to see a plan that will move us away from a credit-card economy to a paycheque economy. The problem with the current Liberal government is that it does not have a good record of managing the economy.

Many people remember that leading up to the 2015 election the Liberal Party campaigned on a promise of a few small to medium-sized deficits, somewhere around $10 billion to $15 billion per year for three years, but that in the fourth year of the Liberals' mandate they were going to balance the budget. They did not even come close to that. The deficit was multiple times higher than what the Liberals had promised, and by the 2019 election campaign they had given up all pretense of ever wanting to manage to balance the budget. Therefore, Canadians are rightly concerned about the current government's record of poor fiscal management and its ability to manage a post-COVID relaunch of our economy.

There is another aspect of the government's response to the COVID-19 crisis I want to highlight that has frustrated many Canadians. Even though our COVID relief spending is the highest among all our trading partners on a per capita basis, we also have the highest unemployment rate. How could that be? We are spending almost $400 billion more this year than we are taking in, in government revenues, yet millions of Canadians are being left behind.

I have a couple of examples from my riding. I was talking to a husband and wife who are family business operators. They run a dance studio. Business was pretty good until the provincial public health officer shut them down. They were happy the federal government came out with an emergency rent subsidy program, and it looked like they would qualify. Certainly, if one looked at their bank account and balance sheet, they qualified. However, when they filled out the application, they realized because of their corporate structure, and because they could not answer that they were operating at arm's length, they were disqualified. Like tens of thousands of family-owned businesses across the country, they have a dual corporate model, where one company owns the land and the building and the other owns the company that operates within the building. It is required by many bankers to mitigate risk and manage commercial operations. I can hardly imagine the government had intended for that to happen.

The operators of a hotel chain here in British Columbia are another example. They qualified for the rent subsidy, but had to share the subsidy across a whole group of properties. They complained to me, saying that if each of them were an individually owned hotel property they each would have individually qualified. Because they had to share the rent subsidy across the whole family, the rent subsidy became almost meaningless. They said to me that it looked like the Liberal government was taking the “M” out of SME, small and medium-sized enterprises. Medium-sized enterprises like theirs do not qualify.

As my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo said, the government is a day late and a dollar short, and a lot of Canadians are suffering on account of that.

Bill C-14 has seven parts. My party is going to support most of it, but we have trouble with part 7, which is about future spending. We wonder why the federal government feels it needs to have a total debt ceiling of $1.8 trillion, when all it really needs is $1.1 trillion to get through this fiscal year. Does it not trust Parliament to do the right thing at the right time? The government should come back when it needs more money and we will respond, as we have in the past and throughout this crisis. We will look at the legislation and question it and the proposed programs, because we are the opposition and that is what we do.

I submit that the emergency programs Canadians are now relying on are very much better because of the work we and other opposition parties have done. Canadians want transparency. They want to know bills are being debated in Parliament and that the government does not have unfettered power to do as it wishes. When it needs more money, it should come back and ask for it, and prove to us that its spending plans will actually help the Canadians who need it most.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what world the member is living in when he says this government has a poor record of managing the economy. Before the pandemic, we had the lowest unemployment rate since we started recording it in the sixties. We had one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7.

Yes, it is true our unemployment rate is two points higher than the U.S. and the U.K., for example, but their death rates per population are three times higher than in Canada, because this government took the position that we needed to invest in and protect Canadians. It is one thing to say the economy is not in a good position, but it does not mean it is right because he is saying it.

The reality is we had one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. We had the lowest unemployment rate in over 40 or 50 years, and we are investing in Canadians now so we can get back to that on the other side of this.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind Canadians that the Liberals ran an election platform in 2015 of balancing the budget in year four, which would be 2019. By the time we got to the end of that mandate, they were nowhere near that. They had given up any pretense at all of ever aspiring to balance the budget. Yes, the economy was strong during their first four years. That is the heritage of the good fiscal management leading up to their being elected in 2015.

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

Madam Speaker, I asked a question earlier of a Conservative colleague of the member who is speaking right now. I talked about the nine million Canadians who have had to go to predatory alternative lenders who are charging between 30% and 50% annually in interest, despite the Bank of Canada's base rate of less than 1%. The response from the member was that we needed to create better paying jobs. I cannot agree more that we need to make sure there are more jobs with a better living wage for Canadians and that we are tackling inequality.

Do the Conservatives believe that we should be putting in federal legislation to safeguard and protect vulnerable Canadians from these predatory lenders? I would actually call them vultures. Legislation would ensure they are protected and are not paying these abhorrent rates that are completely out of control. Anyone who is in that cycle, which I will refer to as being on a hamster wheel, knows exactly how difficult it is to jump off. It does not matter how good the job is; the government needs to intervene. I hope my colleague will support the call for the federal government to implement legislation and cap these predatory lending rates.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear he agrees with the answer my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock gave. I listened to the answer and thought it was very good. We want to get Canadians back to work. We want to get away from a credit card economy and move to a paycheque economy. I am sure all Canadians agree with that. People should not have to go into debt just to stay alive and keep their families operating.

That said, I am sympathetic to anybody who ends up in a debt cycle and I would be interested in carrying on that conversation with my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, would my colleague do the honourable thing and consider that, with regard to the disastrous impact of the pandemic being linked to the fact that health care has been underfunded for years, his government's cuts from 6% to 3% when it was in power were inappropriate?

The Prime Minister of Canada says that he will deal with health transfers after the pandemic. Does my colleague believe that that is a responsible attitude?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, health care is obviously a very important aspect of people's lives, and certainly during a pandemic. I think there is a misconception that the Conservative Party would cut health spending. It would not. We recognize how important it is and we will be there to help Canadians when they need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have this opportunity to participate in the debate today. I have listened intently to previous speakers. It is very interesting to hear the Liberals' questions and the different types of points they are trying to make in the debate.

We heard the member for Yukon a little while ago talking about the Harper record going back to the economic meltdown in 2008 and criticizing the Harper government's spending, which was many times less than what we are talking about right now. I was elected in 2006. The hon. member was around during that time as well. He might recall that during that time we could not spend enough to make Liberal members of Parliament happy. Certainly, one of the absolutely critical things we did was to lay out a road map during a very difficult time to get back to balanced budgets. We had a surplus leading up to that point, very different circumstances from what we find ourselves in at this point, and we laid out a seven-year plan to get back to budget balance. I had the opportunity to serve on the cabinet subcommittee that evaluated plans from departments and ministers to get back to balance, and I am pleased to say that by 2015 we maintained that schedule and got back to balance. There is no conversations right now with the current government on the long-term impact of the spending we are now undertaking.

There is a lot of talk about deficits and previous governments' deficits. When we take a look at the deficit cycle of governments from 1968 until today, it is easy to trace back exactly why we wound up having the fiscal situation and debt we have right now. We can go back to 1968 when we had almost no debt in this country. We had the Pierre Trudeau government at that time, which made a very deliberate decision to run deficits in 14 out of 15 years.

We ran those deficits in 14 out of 15 years, and then by 1984 the country was in crisis. Rates were through the roof. Interest rates were in the high teens and 20s. In the previous years the Liberals, like the current government, had run an absolutely disastrous energy plan, which was devastating to the people of my constituency in Alberta. Yes, in the Mulroney years the deficits were even higher, but if we look at those Mulroney years, those deficits were actually almost entirely made up of interest on Trudeau's debt. It is very important to understand that. Because interest rates were so high, the Mulroney deficits were almost entirely the interest on Trudeau's debt.

Then we fast-forward to the late nineties and another Liberal government, the Chrétien-Martin government. That generation of Canadians had to pay for the debt that was accumulated back in the seventies and early eighties under the Trudeau government. It was a generation later, and we can see there is a parallel here and a predictor of the future. The impact then was that the Trudeau-Martin Liberal government cut $35 billion from health care, social services and education transfers through the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer. There were devastating cuts down the road because of the spending that happened in the late sixties, the seventies and the eighties.

When we listened to question period today, it does not seem to matter what question is asked. All three main opposition parties can ask very legitimate questions about vaccines, testing or spending programs, and they are almost always answered with derision and condescension by the Prime Minister and other ministers, but particularly by the Prime Minister. Almost every question is met with an accusation of our playing political games, and again, it does not matter which party asks. Then we get this sort of throw-away line, without the ministers ever really answering the question about when vaccines might be coming, or answering the legitimate question today about how many Canadians would need to be vaccinated, and what the evidence shows, before we can start to come out of the lockdowns. These are things that my constituents desperately want to know.

We hear this throw-away line that the government has Canadians' backs. What does that actually mean? First of all, it is a line that gets used for almost every question without the person actually giving a response to the question. It is very calming. It is presented in a very calm fashion by someone who has clearly been trained in delivering lines, but it does not say anything.

If we look closely at that, when they say the government has Canadians' backs, it is not really the government that has Canadians' backs, it is not the Prime Minister who has Canadians' backs, but our kids and our grandkids who ultimately have Canadians' backs right now, because our kids and grandkids are going to be paying for the deficits we are running right now. It does not mean we should not be doing it. Absolutely, I think members from all sides, from all parties, believe that we should be spending and running a pretty significant deficit right now.

However, as we are putting forward these plans for spending, there needs to be some hope, some vision for the future, and a consideration, an acknowledgement at least, that the spending we are undertaking right now is a trade-off. There is going to be a trade-off from that spending down the road. In other words, future generations of Canadians are going to forgo a certain level of their quality of life because this money will have to be paid back, or money will have to be spent to pay for the interest charges on the debt we are incurring right now. That money will not be able to be spent on other things.

The previous speaker eloquently brought up the member for Carleton's question about interest rates, which has been asked a lot. I remember the night we had a debate with the finance minister and the opportunity to ask him those questions. There was a complete refusal to acknowledge that interest rates can go up at some point in the future and that there might be a cost to that.

If we take a look at the interest rates in the situation we saw in the 1970s, there is a clear lesson in this. Back in August 1971, the interest rate in Canada, the overnight rate, was 5%. By August 1976, the interest rate was 9.25%. That was very high, obviously. However, it was nothing, because by August 1981 the interest rate had risen to an astonishing 20.78%.

The lesson for us here is that in August 1971 the Trudeau government would never have envisioned an interest rate of 20.78% as it was just starting on the road of ramping up its deficits. In 1976, things had started to get out of control; things had changed in the energy market and there were all sorts of factors that were leading to that interest rate going up, but the government had kind of lost control a little.

By 1981, we were in a spiral. At the same time, there was a national energy program that was devastating on the revenue side. I will not have enough time to get into that. Maybe someone could ask me a question about it and the parallel it has with our policy today. I would love to have that opportunity.

By 1981, we had a 20.78% interest rate, and ever since that time, governments have run deficits or we have had significant debt in this country, and we have been making interest payments on the debt that was run up during that time and forgone the opportunity to pay for things that we could have used those revenues for.

I have lots of other things I could say. I could talk about the government's absolute inability to generate innovation or take advantage of the substantial innovative capacity here in Canada around testing and the development of rapid testing, the development and procurement of vaccines, and the possibility that spending on those things early on might have resulted in a decreased need to spend the $30 billion a month we are spending on support programs right now.

I will wrap up here and look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, talk about cherry-picking the data. The member talked about the debt that Liberals ran during the last three or four decades; for the nearly two decades that Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper were in this place, they ran only two surpluses in those nearly two decades. I got a real kick out of how the member justified that by saying that they had to make the interest payments of the previous governments. No, they did not have to. As a matter of fact, Stephen Harper decided that he was not going to run a deficit, and what happened in his minority Parliament? He almost got taken down by the balance of the members of this House. Then he decided that maybe he needed to play ball. That is actually what happened.

If the member is so concerned about the supports that have been given to Canadians over the last 10 months and the debt that these supports created, why did he vote in favour of them, quite often through unanimous consent motions? All he had to do was stand up and say no, he would not give unanimous consent, but he never did that. He voted in favour of them. Why?

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

Madam Speaker, I love how the member talked about cherry-picking data and then cherry-picked his own data. He criticized the Harper government for running deficits and then, in the same sentence, accused the Harper government of being reluctant to run deficits.

It is almost as though he has talked to some of his colleagues who were around at the time and may have reminded him that, yes, it did go against the DNA of the Harper government to run deficits. We did it anyway, because it was the right thing to do at that time and, as I mentioned earlier, we could not spend fast enough to satisfy Liberal members of Parliament at that time. In fact, they threatened to band together with the separatist Bloc and the NDP to bring down the government because the deficits just could not possibly be high enough for them.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain the Conservatives' thinking on the unanimous demands with respect to health transfers.

His party says that there will be predictable, stable transfers. When the Conservatives cut health transfers from 6% to 3%, they were predictable and stable, but we have seen the disaster that chronic underfunding of health care has caused. What does “stable” and “predictable” mean to the Conservatives?

Does this meet the unanimous demands of Quebec and the provinces, yes or no?

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

Madam Speaker, again, I was in government for almost a decade, and having actually been there, I can say that the Conservative record is stable over the entire time. There were stable increases of 6% every year through the entire time Conservatives were in government. If the member wants to look at stable funding for health care, let us avoid the rhetoric, the talking points and the revisionist history. The fact of the matter is that under Stephen Harper's government at that time, we increased health transfers by 6% a year.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard the new president, President Biden, talk about a buy America strategy. We have heard that in the U.K. they have a COVID recovery strategy that implements the United Nations sustainable development goals of 2030 when it comes to procurement. In fact, every dollar they spend has a strategic social, economic and workforce impact that is analyzed as to how it will play out.

The member spoke a lot about vaccines. I really appreciate his commentary on the lack of capacity and the importance of building capacity here in Canada, but we have also seen what happened to distilleries in Canada when the government flooded the Canadian market with foreign sanitizers. Does he agree that part of our COVID recovery should be a strong domestic procurement strategy that would ensure that we analyze social, environmental and workforce impacts and do it quickly?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about supporting Canadian business. Let me give an example that hits really close to home for me.

The fact of the matter is that right now in Atlantic Canada, we are importing 600,000 barrels of oil every single day. The third-, second- and fourth-source countries for that oil are Algeria, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. That oil is not subject to the same strict regulatory regime as oil from—

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

I must interrupt.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Housing; the hon. member for Kenora, Indigenous Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government's economic statement in November gave us all a lot to think about.

We have heard about many measures in today's speeches on Bill C-14 and certain provisions from the economic statement. My colleagues have given us a thorough rundown, and I thank them for that.

Spending is up, and this is necessary, given how the pandemic is ravaging our sectors. Our caucus is also pleased to see that some of our party's suggested measures were adopted. We are working together. Naturally, there is a cost to helping workers, small businesses and families in Quebec. We expect that.

However, with the government's deficit now estimated at over $381 billion, it makes no sense that it refuses to heed another of the Bloc Québécois's requests, namely to create a special committee to study all COVID-19 spending. All of this spending needs to be studied. No amount is too small.

Nobody can blame Bloc Québécois MPs for speaking up when hundreds of millions of dollars are being, or were intended to be, squandered all over the place, some of it through WE Charity, or when we hear about a shady contract awarded to a former Liberal MP, or when the Parliamentary Budget Officer repeatedly insists that there is a transparency and accountability issue with federal spending. I should also mention that the government promised to create such a committee. Those of us on this side of the House are not surprised to find that this promise will not be kept, and who could blame us? We are getting used to it.

Quebeckers and Canadians need to be sure that federal authorities are also contributing to our collective effort. Creating this committee is crucial to shedding light on the structure of support programs and on the nature and extent of planned spending. Most importantly, it is crucial to ensuring full transparency during an unprecedented economic recovery. This economic statement once again leaves us in total darkness regarding $100 billion in planned spending. I will elaborate on that at the end of my speech.

My colleagues and I are getting calls from constituents who are concerned because they have been the victims of fraud. Some are worried because CERB payments were requested in their name, while others never received their cheques. There have also been some glitches with the transition from the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, to the Canada recovery benefit, or CRB, which have left families dealing with uncertainty and stress that they did not need.

Taxpayers' money is more precious than ever. The pandemic has demanded so much effort and sacrifice from families that the government and elected officials must treat the public purse with the utmost care. Yes, workers are important. Yes, business owners are important. Yes, families are important. The government must play the role of universal benefactor. I want to emphasize the word “universal” because, since 2020, the government has been a somewhat self-serving benefactor. Let me explain.

We submitted questions about all of the government's spending on fossil fuels and renewable energy. We are talking about loans, grants and any other government programs. We received a 105-page response less than a week ago. We began analyzing it and found that three letters came up frequently in the searches conducted by the Library of Parliament analysts. They were E, D and C, which is the abbreviation for Export Development Canada. I want to take a few moments to talk about that.

The government has in no way slowed down on environmental measures during the pandemic. I am not talking about measures to protect the environment or key renewable energy projects. I am talking about big, concrete measures that will negatively affect our environmental record and the climate crisis. The minister has taken hundreds of meetings with lobbyists representing the oil and gas sector, and the nuclear sector as well, while coalitions of citizens concerned about climate change have not been able to speak to the minister.

The government does not want to leave Export Development Canada out of its post-pandemic plans. The government needs EDC because there is a lot of money there. However, there is no transparency. A number of observers have criticized Export Development Canada for its practices and status. The Globe and Mail talked about the pattern of secrecy and the lack of transparency at this government agency.

Prior to COVID-19, EDC contributed up to $14 billion annually to the oil and gas energy sector. That is 13 times more than the total funds allocated over five years for renewable energy. This means that EDC's incorporating statute needs to be reviewed, since it is profoundly inconsistent with the targets that are desperately needed to address climate change.

I mention EDC because Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money is directly involved in its practices through what is known as the Canada account, which is managed by EDC. With this account, ministers can facilitate guaranteed loans that EDC might refuse and deem too risky. Ministers can have a say and do so when it is in the national interest. Ministers can approve a project that EDC would not support because of financial risks.

One such example is TransMountain. These are the same ministers who are listening closely to the demands of lobbyists, who have been tirelessly active for nearly a year and who used this account to purchase TransMountain. We therefore have every reason to fear the worst. Using the Canada account ignores both environmental and financial risks. Ministers could try to use this account again for who knows what else, because there is no transparency.

The legislation governing EDC was amended, allowing the agency's total liability to increase from $45 billion to $90 billion, while that of the Canada account would skyrocket to $75 billion. That was until October 2020. Handouts with the greatest political discretion tripled. I would remind hon. members that the Canada account is secured by the Treasury Board and therefore by taxpayers. To be accurate, we might call it the government's discretionary account.

For a government to be a universal benefactor, it needs to manage public funds responsibly, not in a way that, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer says, does not take into account the jobs that will come back or be created in a few years. In this future context that we must take into consideration, is it really necessary to add another $75 billion to $100 billion to the deficit? It is just another example of the lack of transparency criticized by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

A universal benefactor demonstrates transparency, accountability and responsibility. Recent experience shows us that the party in power does not value transparency or integrity in key areas of government action. It has no concept of accountability and responsibility.

From the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government plans to spend supporting oil projects from coast to coast to the half a billion dollars for the Coastal GasLink pipeline in British Columbia, the hundreds of millions of dollars for drilling in the Maritimes and the obstinate support for the TransMountain pipeline expansion, these are all obscene expenditures. They are obscene because of the government's official line that it is a leader in the fight against climate change. They are obscene because public money is enriching foreign corporations and shareholders who are already multimillionaires. They are obscene because needs are being manipulated and exploited at the expense of indigenous workers and communities.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to monitor the doublespeak and announcements that hide other contradictions, such as decisions that harm the environment and increase spending. I am referring to deregulation at all levels of government, the weakening of the requirements of the clean fuel standard regulations, regulatory changes for nuclear energy and its waste, drilling in Newfoundland, which I spoke about at length today, and the 25% reduction in funding for monitoring oil sands waste, not to mention what my colleagues clearly pointed out in their speeches, the federal government's desire to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions.

[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, as I listened to the member talk about the environment, this came to mind. If she were to read the throne speech, she would find many substantial financial measures. That was back in September.

In November, we introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which would hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and exceed our 2030 Paris target. Net-zero is not just a plan for a healthier environment; it is a plan to build a cleaner more competitive economy.

I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on those two statements. She tries to give the false impression that the government is not doing anything, but the reality seems quite different.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is correct in saying that there were some good things written in the throne speech, and just before Christmas there were some good things said about a plan to combat climate change. I will take all of this into consideration.

Let us have a fun talk about Trans Mountain again. In 2018, this pipeline was purchased for $4.4 billion. In 2019, that figure went up to $12.6 billion. On December 8, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it might cost $18 billion. All of that is just for Trans Mountain. In my speech I spoke a little about the money earmarked for fossil fuels, drilling and so on. This amount eclipses the investments being made in renewable energies.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the terms my colleague used was “responsible management” and I want to pick up on that. All opposition parties are trying to hold the government to account for that. Every time we bring up the fact that the deficit is at all-time highs and that it wants to raise the debt ceiling, the government comes back with “Well, don't you support us helping Canadians?” We do support the government helping Canadians, however, we are hoping that we are getting good value for that money. We are hoping we are getting a Rolls-Royce for that money not a K-car.

Would the hon. colleague have any comments on that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, we would like a Rolls-Royce, and it would be even better if it were electric.

I spoke a lot about transparency in my speech. The Bloc Québécois suggested that a committee be created to study all of this. We could then see whether we are getting a Rolls-Royce or a little Volkswagen that pollutes because the manufacturers cheated.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the need to shift toward a post-carbon economy. I know Quebec is making significant investments in transit.

I will ask the the hon. member a question that I tried to ask another member of her party. Would she support direct investments from the federal government to municipalities in Quebec for sustainable, predictable, operational funding for infrastructure projects like public transit?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his question.

I would like to remind him that the Government of Quebec is the one that should be getting the money and distributing it according to the needs of the municipalities. That is how it works. The Government of Canada has very little responsibility over infrastructure. We always say the same thing. The federal government's responsibility is to transfer the money to the Government of Quebec.

Interestingly enough, Quebec gets along very well with its municipalities when it comes to the federal gas tax fund. We do not need the federal government for that.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my constituents for electing me 14 months ago and for sending me here to be a voice for them and to work on their concerns on their behalf.

Who could have predicted that we would be in the situation we are currently in? However, my office has been open the entire time during this pandemic to serve, work for and help constituents. I am not able to attend events, but I have looked at ways to connect with constituents, to hear from them and to respond on their behalf. I have been seeing a lot of successes and a lot of work. I want to thank my staff both in Ottawa and Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

Canadians have made a lot of sacrifices for health and safety reasons and to control COVID. I know many people who have had COVID, including in my extended family. An uncle passed last year from it. We all have stories during this time, which has been difficult.

This has also been a time when people in my community have come together to help each other, whether it is staff, volunteers, friends, or the food bank that has gone the extra mile, putting in the hours to ensure no one goes hungry. There are the many organizations, including the Seniors Network, which is a number of organizations that meet to look at ways to support thousands of seniors in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

Quinn Callander is an innovative 12-year-old boy from Maple Ridge. He began making ear guards with his 3D printer at home for health care workers. He is an inspiration for all of us.

Then there are all the front-line health workers. Their efforts day in and day out for over a year now is very much appreciated and valued.

I also want to thank the teachers in the schools who are continuing to instruct classes. I was in the classroom myself prior to getting elected. Kudos, and I thank them so much for what they are doing.

Who could have imagined that our world, our nation and our communities would be turned upside down? We have had the closure of maybe hundreds of thousands of businesses across our country from coast to coast to coast. We have seen our hospitality and tourism sectors decimated. I will be presenting a petition this week on behalf of the tens of thousands travel agents who have been really impacted.

On a flight to Ottawa, I sat with a flight attendant who told me of the thousands who had been given layoff notices over the weekend.

We have to wear masks. We have to deal with the closure of places of worship, which is important for so many of my constituents and people across the country. There is also an inability to gather with those we care for, or for weddings or for funerals for those who have passed. It is not wrong to talk about this, but it is right to want to see an end to it. We understand the health concerns. People are doing their part, but we do want to see an end to it.

It has been frustrating and disturbing to watch the johnny-come-lately approach of the Liberal government. I get tired of hearing the same talking points of the Liberals day in and day out. If we ask a question about the vaccine, the answer we get is that they have secured more vaccine per capita than anyone else in the world. It is not how many we have secured for the future, it is how many people are being vaccinated today, this month, and we are behind. We need two million dosages per week to reach the Liberal goal of September for vaccinations. This week alone, we have fallen 1.3 million vaccinations short alone. There is no doubt that eventually we will get the vaccines and then the Liberals will call an election or maybe sooner.

We did not have to be in the situation we are in right now. We are in it because of Liberal incompetence.

While the Liberals are betting all our chips on a Chinese vaccine from last year with CanSino, our allies were signing deals with AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer, but Canada would not sign deals until months later. All Canadians are paying a price for this failure.

Let me read a message from Rocky. I received this about an hour ago as I was preparing some notes.

He said, “Good morning, Marc.

“Did I correctly hear that Canada did not even get their orders for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines until late? I would expect the manufacturer to fill orders based on the order in which they were purchased, as they came in, or else they could expect severe backlash if they were shown to be giving favourites on quantity. Did our country not know that, or did they expect special treatment because we are in Canada? That is downright juvenile and ignorant if they did.

“Second, why were all our vaccine eggs in one basket at the onset? I have more faith in Pfizer, which didn't send us any this week, than to get it done by CanSino. This is an unmitigated disaster, and I am so disappointed that while I've put our savings and house on the line for our business, the people we elected were unable to take off the political glasses long enough to see what was going on. This is infuriating.

“Then to blame it entirely on retooling—I was born at night, not last night.”

Our country is in collaboration with and working tightly with China, a country that is holding our two Michaels hostage, that has banned many of our exports, that is persecuting Uighurs and putting them in concentration camps, that is suppressing human rights in Hong Kong. What gives?

Recent news is that the Liberal-appointed Canadian ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, provided advice on sales of OxyContin to Canada and the United States. This is a very sensitive issue, especially in British Columbia, where I come from, and where thousands of people have died from overdoses. There were 500 overdoses in the community of Maple Ridge, which I represent, last year alone.

The Liberal COVID action has been pathetic. The health minister agreed to pay $237 million to Baylis Medical for 10,000 ventilators, even though the devices were not approved in any jurisdiction in the world. Baylis Medical is owned by Frank Baylis, a Liberal MP until the 2019 election. Why was there a fast track for Mr. Baylis' device, but no fast track for the rapid testing that every Canadian needs right now? We are finally getting the kits, but it was not fast and we have suffered from that. We are suffering the consequences today. Why is this former Liberal MP, with technology that has no track record of being approved and that has not been approved anywhere in the world, getting a special deal?

On top of that, he was able to pocket an extra $100 million by selling ventilators for twice as much as the competition. It is not right. What is going on? The Auditor General would like to know. In an unprecedented time with an unprecedented amount of money being spent, what is happening? We would like to know what is going on.

The Auditor General would like to know, but his office is being starved for funds. He is not able to do the reports. What happens when they start to dig into the finances? What do they start to see in the Liberal expenditures?

I know this next point is very old news. It is called the WE scandal, and I know it was last year. Half a million dollars was given for speaking fees for—

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

We have to take questions now.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[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 Conservative spin we just listened to is a lot to take. Is the member serious? We had a national vaccine committee with health experts who relied on research. They did a fantastic job at protecting Canadians' interests. The reality is that we will have over six million doses by the end of March.

Where was this Conservative concern back in August and July when the Conservatives had thousands of questions regarding vaccines and other issues such as rapid tests? Hindsight is 20/20, and the Conservatives have dropped the ball when it comes to holding the government accountable. Our focus has been the coronavirus and minimizing the damage, and that is exactly what we continue to do by working with Canadians.

Would my friend provide his thoughts on the national vaccine council?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, hindsight is one thing, but how about some foresight? It was tremendously lacking. How about just some sight? We would like to see some sight into Liberal expenditures. The Parliamentary Budget Officer certainly would like to know what is going on with the many expenditures. The Auditor General would like to know what is going on. We would like to know what is going on. This has been hidden from the public and members of Parliament.

I mentioned the WE Charity. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament so that we could not use committees to see what exactly was going on. There is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

What about SNC-Lavalin? That is older news, except it was just given a $150-million contract for COVID expenditures on equipment. What are the details with that? The company has been involved in improprieties.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge spoke about a number of topics that are very important during a pandemic.

What does he think about the economic recovery? Does he believe that the economic recovery is linked to the environment and the measures that the government will take with respect to its position on the environment in which we live?

I would like him to talk about the possible economic recovery.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention.

We certainly do need an economic recovery. That is vital. She spoke about the environment, and I believe that the Liberal government has made some real mistakes. The government imposed a new carbon tax that will impact agricultural producers and farmers. The government is imposing much too heavy of a burden on them in these difficult times.

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

Madam Speaker, for months we have been hearing from the government that it is going to be there for the transportation industry and the aerospace sector, and it keeps talking about delivering a plan. It has been saying this since the spring. We have not seen it roll out a plan to ensure, as part of COVID recovery and getting through the recovery, that it is going to help protect workers. Whether there will even be a wage subsidy is uncertain. There is no stipulation that those jobs are actually tied to the wage subsidy.

We have been hearing from the workers in that sector, and they have been looking for support. We met with Unifor last week, and Unifor is talking about 11,000 workers who are at risk right now. They need a national aerospace industrial strategy that creates high-quality jobs, a strong supply chain, a thriving commercial and defence sector and also promotes Canadian-made aircraft in Canada and abroad.

Does my colleague agree that the government has been dragging its feet, and that given the importance of this sector in his riding and in my riding, as we both have aerospace jobs at risk—

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

We have to give a few seconds to the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge to answer.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, the aerospace industry is so important in my region also. There are many employees who work in it and we need to do all we can, but it seems as though the opposite is actually happening.

On infrastructure spending, where is it? There is supposed to be $100 billion committed, but we do not see it.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-14, the government's economic statement. As we all know, the economic statement was released late last year and is a substitute, in the government's mind, for not bringing forward a budget. We are now approaching two years since the last budget and Canadians do not know what the future holds with their dollars.

First, let me say that the economic statement by the current finance minister is an improvement over the one last summer, which was the economic snapshot or, as some called it, the “economic selfie” by the former minister of finance, Mr. Morneau. This is an improvement. What is also an improvement is the fact that the current finance minister has probably come a little closer to the chaos that is being created by the government for in the financial future of our country.

In the economic statement, the estimated deficit for this fiscal year, which is rapidly drawing to a conclusion, was somewhere in the range of close to $400 billion. I predict today that because of the bungling by the government, the delay in vaccines that is causing Canadians to be out of work for longer than anticipated, which is going to significantly affect the revenue picture of the government because Canadians are not paying taxes if they are not working and corporations are not paying taxes if they are not open, the fiscal deficit of the government, whenever the government gets around to bringing forward a budget in the House, will be much closer to half a trillion dollars.

Let us talk about what half a trillion dollars looks like. If we take all of the normal spending of government in a year, some $350 billion, the government is spending that plus another one and a half times that this fiscal year. How is that sustainable? I know the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that it is better that the government take on the debt than individuals on their credit cards. That is fair enough. Let me be clear on this, because I know that the Liberals will say that Conservatives do not care about helping Canadians in the pandemic when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the question is, where is this money going? We have seen no ability by the government to be transparent with all of these dollars.

Let me go back to the Prime Minister's statement that somehow it is okay to run debt as a government versus individuals. Who does the Prime Minister think government is? It is 35 million Canadians who are going to be shouldering this debt as we move forward. It would be really helpful if the government would be more transparent and show members where this money is being spent, because that clearly has not happened until today.

I get a lot of emails, as I am sure most MPs do, from constituents asking me to ask the Prime Minister this or that. If I were to stand here and ask the Prime Minister all of the questions that my constituents have requested that I ask him in the last three months, we would be here all night. I am going to try to focus on three areas. One is vaccines, two is the Governor General and three, most important to my province, is jobs.

First of all, we have heard a lot about vaccines. I asked a question of the minister today, and in typical fashion of this government, there was no answer. I used the example of a picture of Rogers Centre in Toronto full of people, which it has not been for well over a year now. Rogers Centre holds 50,000 people and 50,000 people is what the provinces were vaccinating on a daily basis 10 days ago. However, everything stopped 10 days ago, which means that half a million Canadians have not been vaccinated in the last 10 days because the Liberal government bungled the vaccine purchase.

I get emails every day from Canadians in the U.S. who are getting vaccinated there. S. How does that make any sense at all? Canadians are going down to the U.S. and getting vaccinated, and Canadians here in long-term care homes and seniors are not getting the vaccine. Something is wrong. The government has to own this problem.

I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about something that my constituents keep asking me about, and that is how we could be in this situation where we have a Governor General who has effectively resigned for all of the right reasons and yet will be collecting, going forward, expenses and a pension after just three years in office. Canadians cannot accept that. The government needs to fix that problem, and fix it soon. Liberals will pay a price at the polls, whenever they have the courage to go there. Canadians are fighting a pandemic and they see this kind of entitlement going on and see a government that is not prepared. It is just saying that this is the way it is, and that this is what the legislation says. The government is in a position to change the legislation. If it does not, I will say here today that this will be an issue in the next election.

Finally, I want to talk a little about jobs and the effect this pandemic and, in many ways, the inappropriate programs introduced by the government have had on jobs in my province. There were a number of things that happened well before COVID that impacted my province directly as a result of government action.

I will start with one of the first things the Prime Minister did when he was elected. He cancelled the Northern Gateway project. Today that project would be creating thousands of jobs in Canada, not just in Alberta but across Canada. However the Prime Minister, who always talks about making decisions based on science and data, decided one day when he flying over northern British Columbia that this was going to be a campaign promise. It was a bad choice, because today that project would be wrapping up. People would have been employed for the last two or three years, and we would now be shipping a product that is in demand internationally. That is number one.

Then, of course, we had the so-called energy east project that was cancelled. I could go on with the kinds of bad decisions the government has made that have affected jobs in my province. However, we have a major issue in Alberta, and to a lesser degree, probably, in Saskatchewan and other parts of western Canada. I do not know where a 40-year geologist is going to find work in this transition to a new green economy.

This new green economy is not going to create the wealth that the energy industry has created for this country over the last two or three decades. I would just ask the Liberal government to think about that as part of its economic statement when it considers going hell bent for leather into making sure that it transitions out of oil and gas to a green economy. I know the government is not going to worry too much about it, because it has its farm team over there, which used to be called the NDP, to support it on all these initiatives. Neither of those two parties cares what happens to this country. It is a mess, and they are doing nothing to fix it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very disingenuous when a member says that parties in the House do not care about what happens in Canada.

Nonetheless, the member talked about the Prime Minister's comment about the government shouldering the debt. When the Prime Minister says the government will shoulder the debt, what the Prime Minister is saying is that we recognize that it is in society's interest to go through this together so that we shoulder that debt together.

I see the member laughing. It makes sense, because the Conservative motto is “Every person for themselves; you take on the debt you need to and I'll take on my debt, and we will see how everything comes out on the other side.” That is just not the reality of how the government wants to approach the situation.

Liberals believe that we need to get through this together to get to the other side, because we will be stronger later on when we come out on the other end.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, that proves that the member does not understand. I do not know if he is like the Prime Minister, who was a trust fund baby, as I do not know his background, but I know that the Prime Minister has never been responsible for signing a paycheque in his life. I know he has never been responsible for meeting payroll. If members believe that it is not Canadians who are shouldering the government debt, then I do not understand the rationale.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question is about the concerns that the member and many of us have expressed on the vaccine rollout. People here in northern Manitoba are very concerned about the lack of vaccines in our country, especially here where we know that we are extremely vulnerable. As a result of intense advocacy, many indigenous elders have received the vaccine, but we know that we need much more. Does my colleague agree the federal government must step up urgently to ensure that Canadians across our country are getting the vaccines they need?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was watching the news last night and noticed a story about some vaccines in Thompson, Manitoba. I believe that is the hometown of the member who asked the question. It is reassuring that some vaccines are getting to these communities.

There is no question that in the last 10 days, while the government has failed to deliver vaccines to the provinces, half a million Canadians have not been vaccinated. There are ways to fix this problem. The government has no plan, which is not surprising considering who is leading it.

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

Madam Speaker, I picked up on a couple of the comments made by my friend from Calgary Signal Hill about pipelines. I am very concerned as it has been repeated in the House many times that the Liberals, the NDP or the Greens do not care about the economy or workers in Alberta. I agree with the member for Kingston and the Islands that nothing could be further from the truth, but that there are in fact changes that transform economies. This is one that is coming whether the hon. member wants to hear about it or not. Global markets are moving away from fossil fuels; investors are moving toward renewables. I want to make the point that when energy east was cancelled, it was not cancelled because of government regulations; it was cancelled because of a decision by the company itself. Even what we now call the Canada Energy Regulator, which used to be the NEB, has said that we do not need additional pipeline capacity in this country.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the other night when we had the emergency debate, I watched with pleasure as my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn put this particular member in her place by chastising her for her comment when she said “Yahoo” to jobs in western Canada after President Biden cancelled Keystone XL. My colleague put it so well when he said that if the member really cared about western Canada and western jobs she would apologize for tweeting “Yahoo” when that pipeline was cancelled.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here in the House to continue with this debate. I have been listening to the comments from all sides here, especially many of those of the members of our Conservative caucus on the concerns that we are seeing in western Canada.

I am going to attach on to some of the discussion after question period of my colleague from Calgary Midnapore. She was talking a lot about the transportation industry and the most recent closures and lockdowns when it comes to coming into Canada, the international travel ban and the impact that it is going to have on airlines. I wanted to take that one step further, because there are people who are booking these tickets, and I am sure many members across the chamber have had people from the travel and tourism sector contact their offices.

I want to read this letter into the Hansard, so that people can understand what is happening to businesses that are part of travel and tourism. This letter comes to us from Marion Rose. I have known Marion for a number of years. Twenty-five years ago she hired my best friend to be a travel agent there, and it is a very respectful company. She started off her letter by asking about my family. She then continued:

Elgin Travel & Cruises has been in business now for 32 years at the Elgin Centre and have been a huge contributor to our community. In March of this year we employed seven full time staff. As you are aware, once COVID hit, we were virtually out of business and, as no one is travelling or can travel with the present “avoid all essential travel” advisory and the 14 day quarantine in place.

Just to remind members she is talking about the impacts of that back in March of 2020. We are now 10 months later, and there still has not been any work for this recovery. Continuing with her letter, she says:

This however does not mean that we are not working, as clients are still being repatriated, cancellations for bookings throughout 2020 and now into 2021 are being processed and either rebooked for the second time or insurance claims filed. Our staff are still working 40 hours a week just to process the above. The Wage Subsidy to the end of August was a welcome assistance to allow us to keep our staff. However with the new reductions, and still at over 100% decrease in sales, we are flailing.

This letter was written to me back in November. This was from three months ago today, today being February 2, and the government still has not stepped up. We know that it has just put forward a new program and applications started on February 1, but I am talking about a business that in March 2020 was closed down. By the time this company is looked at and the government provides the supports, this company may not be there.

These are the types of challenges that Marion Rose from Elgin Travel has shared with me. She is working very closely as one of the independent travel agencies that are across Canada talking about this, and we have to understand the impact of this and the impact to these livelihoods.

In my case, I look at the demographics of the people who are working in that sector. We know that over 85% are women or members of the LGBTQ community. We have to look at the fact that we have talked about a she-recovery. I say there is no recovery, so I ask how this could be a she-recovery. This specific group has not been looked at.

Yes, the government is going to be looking with high priority at issues of travel and tourism, but my concern is that money has not come out of the door yet, and it is going to be a year. These workers have looked at some of the travel restrictions that we have coming into Canada and the impact that is going to have on them, and they are just asking for a break.

I have spoken to many other members of our community, and because I have such a short period of time, I wanted to talk about some of the things that have been changed with the rent subsidy. I understand that the rent subsidy has changed. and now small businesses are able to apply, but I do not know if the government has considered the following scenario.

What if someone who is a hair designer is working, but they do not have that lease agreement? They are being asked to pay $500 to $700 a month so that they can rent a chair, but that chair is not open to the public because no one can come to their facility. However, they still have to pay that rent.

As well, those who are making less than $30,000 and who may not have a CRA account, are still having to pay for a lease. The government is supposed to have a simple tax return, and so many of these small businesses with small incomes are still doing it on their personal tax returns and not through CRA. What we have done by doing this has closed them off as well.

I am so pleased to be able to speak here, and I hope the government will start getting it right, because we are going to continue to lose more businesses in this country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have just a little over five minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

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 February 2 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.

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

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has five minutes.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to continue in this debate on Bill C-14.

Prior to the break, during which I was able to meet with constituents, I spoke in the chamber about some of the impacts I had seen within my own community. I spoke in great detail about the travel industry, specifically the travel agents and consultants who are losing their entire livelihoods. I shared the story of Marion Rose, who has been a travel agent for the last 32 years. At one time, she had seven people working with her, and now it is down to one. As we move forward, the government needs to recognize the impacts on these businesses and organizations and what the future is going to hold for them.

Bringing these stories to light so that we can talk about the challenges people are having is important, so I want to talk about another small business, Dark Matter Toys, which is owned by Craig Lawrence, who is an incredible community advocate and spirit. He is out there doing a great job, but he has not been in a normal situation, and I want to read the message he sent me over the weekend.

“Hey Karen, Craig here.”

I am just “Karen” here, and that is what I love about doing my job here in Elgin—Middlesex—London.

“It seems I do not qualify for CEBA due to a prerequisite to have made a certain amount in 2019. Unfortunately, in 2019, I lost 51% income due to the Ross Street construction. Then in 2020, 80% was lost as a direct result of COVID. My accountant and I are looking for help and any answers on how businesses that are forced to close can qualify for this and other compensation.”

I want to bring this up because through no fault on Craig's part, in 2019 there was construction in the city of St. Thomas and people could not get to Craig's store. My children love the kind of stuff at his store and I was able to go around the back and come in the side door, but a lot of people were not even willing to make the trip. Craig was able to move forward and build his business on Amazon, but he did not qualify for the government's COVID relief programs because he did not meet the income criteria. I have referred him most recently to our Elgin Business Resource Centre in the hope that it can help somehow through regional recovery funds.

I am very thankful to the government for making sure that we do have programs on the ground. Places like the Elgin Business Resource Centre sit down with businesses and consult on the challenges they are having, and it has small a pocket of money for them. I think within five weeks all of the money was spent from this organization and was on the ground helping over 28 businesses, and they are doing very well.

When I look at Dark Matter Toys, I know that it is not just this one business but that this same situation is being replicated across the country. There are people who continue to fall through the gaps. We can talk about needing more money on the ground, but I am not always asking for more money; I am asking for money to be spent wisely. Unfortunately, I have not seen that with this government, and I would say since 2015 we have not seen that.

Under this pandemic spending, we know that we have an incredible debt load that the next generations are going to be taking on. This government needs to be concerned with looking at the Prime Minister's leadership and not continuing to stumble, as we have seen with the vaccine rollout. The government needs to make the economy stronger coming out of this. I am hoping that we can come up with a competent and cohesive plan that will work for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard a number of times while discussing this particular piece of legislation that the Conservatives are not looking for more money but at where the money was spent. What we do know is that the Conservatives were there every step of the way, as were all parties, in passing the legislation unanimously to get support for Canadians during this pandemic.

Could the member tell us about some of the programs that she would have preferred not to have seen put in place, such as CERB or whatever it might be, so that it would not have cost Canadians as much?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, that almost feels like a lob from my friend from Kingston and the Islands. Honestly, do we want to talk about WE? Do we want to talk about all of the awful things that happened in 2020? I am surprised the member actually gave me the platform for that.

We saw the government come out with programs like WE, like Baylis, all of the different things that Conservatives could have done better. I am saying there are opportunities for us to work with partners and make sure our dollars are being spent wisely. Spending money wisely is exactly what we should be teaching ourselves and the next generation. It is really simple: How do we spread out a dollar? I just wish the government could get a grasp on this concept.

If the member is talking about programs I would not want to see, I would not want to see almost $1 billion of government money that was going to be wasted, money that at the end of the day did not help anybody. I would like to have seen the government put something out that actually did help students, instead of getting us into the fiasco we have been in for the last year.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to explain what I did last week.

I took the bull by the horns and spent my week in my riding's three regional county municipalities, namely, Antoine-Labelle, Laurentides and Pays-d'en-Haut. I met virtually with 150 businesspeople and community workers, as well as elected officials. I asked them how they were doing right now and what their concerns were for the future.

Three points kept coming back all week long. People in Antoine-Labelle want a 35% increase in health transfer payments immediately, with no conditions. The most vulnerable seniors all agree on an immediate 110% increase in the old age security pension. Finally, everybody wants high-speed Internet and cellular coverage.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. Is this what she sees in her riding too?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, some of those same concerns are being heard in Elgin—Middlesex—London. Of the key things that I am hearing, having spoken to agricultural producers, the chamber of commerce and the youth council, vaccines are the number one issue right now. People are asking when they are going to get their vaccines. The Ontario government has put out a program showing what the criteria are and how it will be done, but vaccines cannot be put in people's arms unless we have the vials of vaccine. As my husband says, once the tires get over the curb, we will know. We know the vaccines will be here when they arrive in Canada. That is the number one issue in my riding.

Line 5 is a huge issue, and I think it is because we are agricultural in southwestern Ontario. We have heard what will possibly happen with the governor of Michigan closing off Line 5 and the impact that it is going to have on our agricultural producers.

There is also high-speed Internet. I think everybody has heard about high-speed Internet, regardless of where we live in this country. Even people living in downtown Toronto could have issues. We have seen that on many of these Zoom calls.

We have seen many issues across the country that we know the government, as well as Conservatives, need to work on, not only to get through this pandemic but to make sure we meet the needs of Canadians in the future.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to take part in this important discussion on Bill C-14, the economic statement implementation act, 2020.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that the lands on which we are gathered are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

Bill C-14 is very important to me in my capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors and the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.

Over the past year, and especially during the second wave of the pandemic, seniors from across the country have shared their concerns and worries with me. That is why our government has taken extraordinary measures to improve the health and safety and quality of life of seniors. The pandemic has had a profound impact on all of us, but especially on seniors.

In my riding, we reached out to our seniors. We felt the distress and isolation that many of them were experiencing. This was often the only phone call they received all week long, so we took the time to listen to and speak with them. The situation is even worse for seniors who live alone. Take Paulette for instance, who lives alone and has been isolated for 11 months. She finds this very difficult.

We reacted quickly when the crisis hit. In April, more than four million low-income and middle-income seniors received a special one-time payment through the GST credit. This represented on average $375 for seniors living alone and $510 for couples. In July, we gave a one-time non-taxable payment of $300 to seniors receiving the old age security pension, and $200 to seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement. Thanks to these payments, we helped 6.7 million seniors cover the extra costs generated by COVID-19.

More specifically, because of these two measures, low-income senior couples received over $1,500 in non-taxable direct assistance. To make sure that the most vulnerable seniors continue to receive the benefits they rely on, we temporarily extended payment of the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada seniors benefit for seniors who, for all sorts of reasons, could not provide their income information before the deadline.

Independently of their pension benefit, seniors who lost their jobs because of COVID-19 were also eligible for the CERB. Many seniors still work or are still active in the labour market. They received the same amount as those who applied for the CERB, specifically $2,000 a month.

To help seniors and others obtain essential goods and services, such as grocery and pharmacy delivery, we invested half a billion dollars through partners such as Centraide United Way Canada, food banks and charitable organizations. The organizations that help and support the community and seniors made a huge difference in my riding.

As part of the new horizons for seniors program, we launched more than 2,000 community projects to reduce isolation, improve seniors’ quality of life and help them maintain a social support system during the pandemic.

We did not stop there. On November 30, the government unveiled its fall economic statement 2020, Canada’s plan to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, support Canadians, and invest in a recovery that is inclusive and sustainable and creates good jobs for Canadians. It is another major step forward for the middle class and for those working hard to join it, and especially for the health and safety of our seniors, who built this country.

Along with other measures, our government worked in collaboration with the provinces and territories and implemented progressive policies to ensure that seniors can live safely.

I would now like to highlight a few elements from the fall economic statement that are of interest to seniors. Although long-term care is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, our government has announced numerous measures to protect residents and staff.

Our government set up a new billion-dollar fund to make long-term care safe and to help the provinces and territories protect their seniors receiving long-term care. This will help prevent infection, improve ventilation systems and hire staff.

In addition, our government will provide support for training up to 4,000 personal care workers to provide care at home and in care homes, as well as essential workers to care for seniors. This will involve an accelerated online program and a four-month internship in order to help make up for the severe labour shortages in the sector. Our government will provide new funding for the Canadian Red Cross, which will improve our ability to protect seniors in long-term care homes. Funding will also be made available to extend the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement's LTC+ program. This program allows participating long-term care and retirement homes in the provinces to strengthen their pandemic preparedness. They must be prepared. They can also become eligible for mentoring and funding to cover their shortfalls.

We eliminated the GST and HST on masks and face shields to make them more affordable. In addition to these measures, our government committed to providing $150 million to improve ventilation in public buildings and make them safer for workers and businesses and to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

We cannot allow physical distancing to become social distancing. That is why our government committed to providing $43 million in funding for Wellness Together Canada, an online portal that gives free mental health advice. Thousands of seniors have used it to ask for advice from their home.

In conclusion, our government's bold and progressive measures are making a real difference in seniors' lives. Although there is still much left to do, Canada's seniors can always rely on our government to listen to them, understand their needs, and work hard to meet them. It is important to point out that, since the beginning of the pandemic, $9 out of every $10 spent by our government have been dedicated to the fight against COVID-19. Our country is facing colossal risks and challenges. There is no time to lose. We are eager to continue working with our provincial and territorial colleagues, as well as with other partners across the country, to meet the greatest challenge of our times. Seniors have earned our respect and our admiration, and they deserve the best quality of life possible. Our government is aware of the tragedies experienced by seniors during the pandemic. That is why we will continue to improve their lives and to adopt progressive policies that make a real difference for seniors.

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

Madam Speaker, based on my colleague's speech, you would think that seniors are living on another planet. Seniors plead with us at my riding office not to forget them. Seniors have been the most financially vulnerable before and during the pandemic. We cannot forget seniors, which means that we need to provide long-term, ongoing financial assistance. There was nothing in the November economic statement about permanent assistance through old age security and increasing old age pensions for our seniors.

What commitments can the member make?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

I have also spoken with seniors in my riding, on top of being in contact with seniors and organizations from across Canada. I hear a different story, though. I am hearing that we have helped seniors quite a bit but that we need to help them even more.

In the economic statement, our Prime Minister committed to increasing old age security by 10%, but we were hit by a pandemic that no one saw coming. We did everything we could to help seniors in long-term care homes by providing subsidies for PPE and for long-term care across Canada.

We will continue to support our seniors.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. member said.

I know that in my riding, seniors are telling me that it is not enough to use buzzwords. These buzzwords, written by the government's research bureau it seems, seek to convey that all is well since we have spent nearly $400 billion and we have achieved some significant results.

In my riding, I am told that it is not enough to spend money and that the important thing is the way it is spent. What results have we achieved from this spending and what was its purpose? According to the analysis of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the financial perspectives found on page 6 of Bill C-14, economic statement implementation act, 2020, indicate that in the new detailed measures, new spending of $86.8 billion is planned with no information on the previous results obtained for seniors in the old budget.

I have a comment for the hon. member. The people in my riding are asking where are the results and why are we trailing all G20 and G7 countries, last among every western country when it comes to vaccine distribution for our seniors?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

For the entire $400 billion in pandemic spending, everything was done in collaboration with all members of Parliament. Everyone proposed ideas, and we all worked together to meet Canadians' needs and help as many people as possible.

I am sure there are many seniors in the member's riding who received all the benefits we provided, such as the $300. The first measure we introduced at the beginning was the GST credit, and many seniors in my colleague's riding got that. The same thing is happening now with vaccine distribution. We have sent doses all over Canada—

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

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member because it is time for statements by members.

The House resumed from February 16 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.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our country faces an immense crisis. It is a health crisis and a financial crisis, the likes of which we have never seen before. Therefore, my remarks are for the millions of Canadians who worry about their future and worry about the country their children and grandchildren will inherit.

Yes, I am a grandfather, and I thank the CBC for recognizing that. In fact, I am an opa 11 times over. I love my grandkids and it is their future I am worried about. They are the ones stuck with the $1-trillion bill created by this pandemic. It is our response to this crisis that will determine whether we leave them with a bright future or leave them shackled to crippling taxes, languishing economic growth and declining socio-economic outcomes.

The government faces an enormous challenge, that is clear, but our job as members of the opposition is twofold. We perform a challenge function. We hold the government to account for its actions and policies and provide parliamentary oversight. I know this is something the finance minister does not really welcome. She has demanded that we abandon those functions and simply rubber stamp hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowing and spending. That is downright reckless and we will not do it.

We have also proposed constructive solutions, like fixing the CERB and the wage subsidy programs, so I would like to propose a few more.

The government's fall economic statement, Bill C-14, should give us pause to consider whether the federal government has a robust plan for the future. I have concluded that it does not. It is true that the statement delivers badly needed additional support to Canadians in their time of need, such as a top-up to the Canada child benefit and interest relief on student loans. We support all those benefits. In fact, we called for them. However, thousands of Canadians still feel abandoned because of poorly designed and confusing programs and the Prime Minister's unwillingness to recognize the scope of the crisis in certain regions of the country.

Bill C-14 would do something else. It would dramatically increase the amount that the government can borrow by $700 billion and would set aside $100 billion of discretionary spending. With hundreds of billions of dollars at his disposal, one would expect that the Prime Minister would present Canadians with a cogent and defensible plan that both supports Canadians in their time of need and tackles the immense fiscal challenges ahead. He has not done so.

The Prime Minister boldly stated, “...Canadians are in for a hard winter. But we know that spring will surely follow. That is because we have a plan... plentiful vaccines are around the corner.” He even audaciously claimed that things were in good shape. My message for the Prime Minister is this: Things are not in good shape. I have not met one constituent who believes that things are in good shape in our country.

In December, 53,000 Canadians became unemployed. Last month, over 200,000 more lost their jobs.

The government is heading in the wrong direction and the mounting deficits and debt are staggering. The Prime Minister is spending billions, yet millions of Canadians are being left behind.

The fall economic statement fails to put forward a serious plan for the future. There is no successful plan to roll out vaccines. There is no plan for job creation or for small businesses. There is no plan to secure our long-term future and no road map to manage the massive financial liability our country is incurring to support Canadians in their time of need right now.

The Prime Minister's number one responsibility is to give Canadians hope. They want their lives back, they want their jobs back, they want their small businesses back. They want their health, their schools, their places of worship and their communities back. However, the Prime Minister has provided no confidence that things might soon return to normal. All we have is a trail of broken promises on things like vaccines and rapid testing on containing the virus. The reality is that there is no plan, and a vague promise to spend billions more is not leadership.

What would Conservatives do differently and why do we believe we could do better? Let me answer both questions by providing, as I promised, some constructive advice to the government.

First, no recovery is possible until the majority of Canadians have been vaccinated. To date, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver vaccines as and when he promised. He should do what was promised: deliver the six million doses by the end of March and then keep his word and make vaccines available to all Canadians by the end of September. More than 52 countries around the world are now doing it better than the Prime Minister. While he is at it, he should remove the shroud of secrecy around the vaccines. Let Canadians see exactly what has been negotiated with Moderna, Pfizer and others.

Second, he should address the declining competitiveness of our economy. In recent years, Canada has lost a historic amount of domestic and foreign investment due to a loss of investor confidence. We lag far behind our fiercest competitors. The government must address the lack of access to capital and talent and the significant regulatory, commercialization and interprovincial barriers that discourage investors from creating economic growth here at home.

Third, there should be no more taxes. Canadians are already taxed to the max. The financial burden on Canadian families has only worsened, with carbon taxes, new taxes on Airbnb rentals and cross-border digital commerce, increased CPP contributions and a clean fuel standard. Stop. People are exhausted. There is nothing left to give.

Fourth, with close to a million Canadians out of work, the reality is that many of these jobs will not come back. Therefore, does the government have an effective plan for retraining unemployed Canadians for the jobs of tomorrow? I have not seen it.

Fifth, economists point out that our aging population is putting a tremendous squeeze on our labour force, undermining our competitiveness when we can least afford it. How do we replace the baby boomers as they retire and exit the economy? Where is the strategy to find talent and train the best and brightest to rebuild our country?

Sixth, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and employ over eight million people. Without targeted support, some 240,000 of these businesses will have to be shuttered forever. It is a tragedy in the making. Therefore, what is the government doing about it? Here is a suggestion: Small businesses, unlike the big corporations, need enhanced liquidity as they close up shop and wonder what is next. They need immediate emergency support and longer term financial tools to reorganize, reopen safely and adapt to a transformed business landscape. Will the government make improved support available?

Seventh, I note the Prime Minister has promoted ambitious investments in critical infrastructure, but most are still stuck in Ottawa. This is not the time for him to treat billions of dollars as his personal piggy bank to win the next election. I call for him to champion nation-building investments that make our economy more competitive. That should include things like gateway infrastructure, ports, railways, bridges and it should include energy infrastructure. I ask him to please get these investments out the door. So far it has been all talk and no action.

Last, and perhaps most important, our country faces a massive fiscal challenge. I am asking the government to exercise discipline and put in place the fiscal anchors, targets and rules that will stabilize our nation's finances so our children and grandchildren can actually see some light at the end of the tunnel. What is the government's debt target? How will it be achieved? What budgetary constraints is the government considering? Where did billions in spending go? Are taxes going up? Are we still committed to a declining debt-to-GDP ratio? Canadians have a right to know.

Canadians also have a right to ask us, the opposition, what makes us think we could do any better? I refer them to the great global recession of 2008-2009 when the country, like so many others, took a hit. It was a Conservative government that skilfully managed spending and investment so Canada was the last G7 country to enter that recession and the very first to emerge. Then we carefully set the fiscal anchors, stabilizing our nation's finances and securing our country's future. Can we do it again? I believe we can, because our kids and grandkids are counting on us.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his appointment. Hopefully, he will resort to fewer personal attacks than his predecessor did. I encourage him and wish him the best in his new role. Congratulations on being an opa 11 times over. My father is one three times over, and to think of the immense joy the member must get out of having 11 grandchildren is truly incredible.

I find it interesting that he talked about this government not being interested in oversight, given that the previous government he was a minister in was involved in muzzling scientists and slashing funding to oversight boards. Relating specifically to the supports for Canadians, which he has been criticizing, he voted in favour of these supports. All members of his party voted in favour of these supports and these supports have made meaningful changes for Canadians.

Would he not agree that because of the supports he voted in favour of, many more Canadians were taken care of than otherwise would have been?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the issue of oversight, the Minister of Finance, in the last couple of days, issued a letter complaining that the opposition was delaying benefits to Canadians, which is patently false. We are dealing with hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. Oversight is critical.

I want to say that if the member had listened to my speech he would have noticed that I confirmed that we, as Conservatives, have actually supported all of these benefits and support programs. We will continue to support them. In fact, we are going to come up with our own programs that will serve Canadians well right now, in their time of need, while looking at the future as well where we will face an immense challenge fiscally.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the future and talked about economic growth for this country. I would like you to elaborate a bit on the lack of understanding it appears the government has around competitiveness, continuing to burden individuals and businesses with additional taxes and impeding their ability to compete. If Canada is going to grow out of this economy, we have to be competitive.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member he is to address the questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the biggest economic challenges facing our country is a lack of competitiveness, especially vis-à-vis the United States. The member will recall that when the previous American administration was elected, it dramatically reduced taxes on businesses across the United States. In Canada, we kept our taxes high. Over the last five years, we have witnessed a historic flight of capital from Canada. We have never seen it this bad before and we need to do much better.

In my speech, I mentioned a number of things that we have to work on, such as commercialization and improving how we deal with innovation in our country to make sure that we grow these businesses right here at home, rather than sending them abroad.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member's comments, a recent poll showed that three-quarters of Canadians support a tax on the super wealthy. This is an issue that could stimulate the economy, but also make sure that the people at the very top pay their fair share.

What is the member's opinion on that?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that we, as an opposition, proposed in our dissenting opinion on the pre-budget consultations at the finance committee was to undertake taxation reform in Canada. We want a comprehensive review of taxation in Canada to ensure that taxation is fair, to ensure that everybody pays their fair share and to ensure that the tax burden on businesses, the job creators and wealth creators in Canada that generate prosperity, is at a point where we can actually compete and use that to leverage economic prosperity for our country.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I am going to ask Canadians whom they trust. Do they trust the current government and its handling of the pandemic, or do they trust the Conservative Party? I hope we will earn their trust in the future and form a government.

I have gone through the Parliamentary Budget Officer's review of the fall economic statement, including the contents of the fall economic statement the government has proposed, so I think whom they trust is the best question to ask.

I love Yiddish proverbs, and there is a Yiddish proverb that states, “Trust one eye more than two ears.” I have heard the debate so far, from various members, on the statement's contents and on what is going to happen over the next few months regarding this update and what the government expects to do.

Let us admit a few things. The government does not have guardrails. We used to call these “fiscal anchors”, which were the fiscal measures the government was going to test itself against to make sure it was not going to get Canada's public finances off the rails. Then it started calling them “guardrails”. That is the language that appears in the fall economic statement. It also appears in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's review. In that review, the PBO said that between $70 billion and $100 billion of spending had nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, but rather with pet projects of the Liberals. That spending really had nothing to do with addressing a national health emergency.

In that same fall economic statement, when we look at the different figures the government is proposing, $86.8 billion is being proposed in new spending measures including add-ons to programs, new programs entirely and other changes. The biggest difference the PBO found between its analysis of the numbers, its projections and its modelling was that the economic assumptions on how fast the economy will rebound varied greatly. The biggest difference we find, when we look at the numbers, is that the government has very rosy projections on job growth, economic growth and the opportunities Canadians and residents of my riding will have to find a job post-pandemic, once everything returns to normal. That normal keeps being put off because the government has botched the vaccine distribution and has not made it possible for the provinces to get vaccines to the people who want them. A supporter in Lethbridge sent me a picture of a completely empty vaccination facility. It was waiting for vaccines to come from the federal government so it could get them to the people who want them. That is what we are facing in Alberta. We are facing a federal government that either does not care, is not competent enough or cannot be trusted to get it right.

We can look at the PBO's figures for jobs. In July 2020, the CBC reported that we were about two million jobs behind, based on Statistics Canada information that was probably the labour force survey. Two million Canadians had lost their jobs during the pandemic. It started to go down again in the summer months. More people were being employed or returning to the work they had before, but many of those jobs were lost again.

Looking at the employment numbers predicted in the fall economic statement, it will take five years to recover the jobs we lost to get to the same level of employment we had pre-pandemic. That ignores things like population growth. It completely ignores the fact we had a high unemployment rate before, especially in Alberta and among young people. We have an unemployment rate of 9.4% officially, but that hides the fact that a lot of young people and students are underemployed and a lot of people are furloughed. Constituents in my riding are facing this. They have employment but are not being paid or they are only working one day a week. One cannot raise a family on one day a week of work. That is the reality. This is not captured in these employment numbers.

Looking at the employment numbers in the fall economic statement, it will take five years to get back to pre-COVID numbers. That does not account for population growth: the people who will immigrate to Canada to pick up jobs, grow our economy and start small businesses. That is a huge indictment and failure of the government to plan and put forward something people can actually trust. At the end of the day, small businesses, entrepreneurs and larger businesses will make investments based on their confidence in the economy, and in earning a return on the people they hire to manufacture new goods and provide new services to Canadians.

To me, that is an indictment. That is saying they do not trust the government. They do not trust the fall economic statement. They do not trust the numbers. They do not trust the plans. They have no trust in the future, so they are not going to invest large sums.

I am going to mention something the member for Abbotsford mentioned before, because I think he was exactly on point. On February 16, 2021, our leader received a letter from the finance minister, claiming that we were somehow delaying the passage of Bill C-14. I have looked at the Business of the House during this week, and the bill was up for debate once this week. Once.

The government sets the agenda. The government can decide which bills are being debated. If Bill C-14 is a priority, then the members of the Chamber should be given the chance to debate the merits of the bill, present the facts, look at the numbers and provide input from our constituents, instead of claiming that we are delaying something.

We have already seen this during the pandemic. We were pretty reasonable. Our leader has said that we were aggressively reasonable. When it was required, we made sure that the government got emergency legislation passed so that programs could be set up to help Canadians, every single time. We even met on Easter Saturday to pass a bill. We let Bill C-20 pass, despite the fact that we had a lot of questions about how the different reporting periods were going to work. We passed it in July 2020. Then, after the fact, we had to go back and fix the mistakes, or the government would have had to find regulatory means to fix various mistakes in the legislation.

Now we are being told, again, to rush things. Perhaps a member of the government caucus will stand and say that we voted for all the programs, and because we voted for them then we should keep voting for them now. We agreed to set up programs. If the government takes away Canadians' ability to earn a living, the government owes them compensation. It is a regulatory taking. It is a national health emergency, so we should take it seriously. I agree with those ideas and those concepts.

It is important to pass meaningful legislation that would help people who need it. However, the government is claiming that we are somehow delaying it because we simply want to do the role of the opposition, which is to review the bill correctly and provide the voice of our constituents. People are frustrated at home. They have been stuck at home now for almost a year, in many cases. Depending on which province people live in, the restrictions have been deeper and more broad than in other provinces. People are frustrated because they want to see an out. They want to know what the plan is, and what normal will look like once the pandemic is over. It is a legitimate question.

Many members on my side have also pointed out that the unemployment numbers today are higher than at any point, going all the way back to the fiscal fourth quarter of 2015. That is how bad things have become. We are behind G7 countries. We are behind many of the G20 countries, our main competitors for new markets and our main competitors for manufacturing, factory building and services. We are behind.

When it comes down to the issue of trust, a lot of people in my constituency who are energy workers, oil and gas workers, have skill sets that could be used by the marketplace, but they just cannot find employment. I have been going around to businesses in my riding, big and small, to find out what the federal government could do to support them and come alongside them. The business owners do not want subsidies. They just want to be able to earn a living again by providing a service or product that other people want.

Last, on the claim that we are somehow delaying this unnecessarily, we are simply doing due diligence. This is an incredibly important fall economic statement that updates the numbers ahead of the budget that will come down. It is incredibly important, because how we get out of this pandemic will determine whether millions of Canadians will have opportunities to find jobs or not.

The question is, do Canadians trust the Liberal government? I do not.

[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, people cannot trust the Conservative Party. We will spend more time this week on Conservative-chosen debates and their agenda than we actually will on government bills.

The Conservatives prevented us from being able to debate Bill C-14 earlier this week. They often play a destructive role inside the House of Commons, choosing to filibuster and prevent legislation from passing. That is something they have consistently done. That is the reality.

The member is focusing on trust and confidence. Would the member not agree that the facts are there? Under 10 years of Harper, about a million jobs were created, and under fewer than five years of this administration, we have created over a million jobs. Once again, the reality is that Canadians can have more confidence in the Liberal Party of Canada than in the Conservative Party of Canada. Those are the facts and the reality.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member obviously has not read his own fall economic statement. It will take five years before we recover the jobs we lost during this pandemic.

There should be some type of award given to the member. The member probably has the most words spoken in the last Parliament and this Parliament too, so if we are going to talk about a member filibustering his own bill, that member deserves an award for it.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague mention Canada's present unemployment rate and I have heard the Minister of Finance claim that our jobs are returning at a faster percentage rate than in our neighbour to the south. I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment, given that we still have such relatively high unemployment. This is simply mathematics based on the past unemployment rate, is it not?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's constituents are lucky to have him as a representative of Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

He is absolutely right. Again, going back to the job numbers in the fall economic statement and the assumptions that are made between the PBO's analysis and the labour force survey, we are far, far behind and we are going to stay behind, because there is nothing in the statement itself and nothing in the updated numbers to show more Canadians going back to work to offset and increase it beyond that, with our population growth, or a new opportunity to close the gap that existed before the pandemic for people who were underemployed or furloughed or who could not find job opportunities.

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

Madam Speaker, to answer the member's question about who Canadians trust, according to Abacus Data on February 6, 71% of Canadians said they approved of the job that the government is doing in supporting the economic needs of Canadians. It is clear that Canadians trust this government to help them out.

As to the specific question, he talked about the amount of deliberation and reflection on the bill that the opposition members need before they can vote on it. Fair enough; that is legitimate. They need it to do their job. Could the member give us an indication as to how much time they need? Will the end of today be good? Do they need another week, or perhaps two weeks? If we could at least get a timeline, that certainly would be helpful.

I really wish Canadians understood the dynamics of the delay tactics that happen in here. Inevitably a member from the other side is going to stand and put forward an amendment, which resets the roster on everybody speaking again.

Could the member give us an indication of how much time is required?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have the benefit of giving a short answer. I have the benefit of having been elected as caucus chair for the members on my side, and I look to them. They are the ones who will decide how long we should present ideas from our constituents to the House so that the government can listen to them, because it has not been listening to them.

We heard of one poll on one day. Ruling by polling is not the way to do things. We want things to work out for the best interests of Canadians over the long term. That is what Canadians want. Our constituents expect us to come here and represent them and their views as they call us and email us to complain about the various government programs that have botched the government's vaccine rollout.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Speaking of trust, Madam Speaker, I just want to start by telling my colleagues that the Bloc Québécois is who Quebeckers trust. Fortunately, we are here to talk about the content of the bill, so that is what I am going to do, because the Bloc Québécois works for everyone.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-14 because it contains some positive measures. Among other things, it amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to allow for a one-time increase, which seems like a good thing to us. The bill also makes adjustments to the Canada emergency rent subsidy to make an expense payable a qualifying rent expense, which is also a good thing.

However, there are still pieces missing. The Liberal Party should have paid more attention to the opposition's constructive suggestions. We have been proposing for a long time that assistance be provided to property owners, something that is still missing from the bill.

We also think that interest relief for students is a good idea. It makes sense to help students. However, Quebec has its own program, so we expect to receive equivalent compensation.

The bill amends the Food and Drugs Act to essentially facilitate the importation, development and approval of vaccines during research phases. We think that is good.

Something important is missing, however. There is no amendment to the Patent Act and nothing to facilitate domestic vaccine development. We all know that, unfortunately, it is too late to develop a vaccine domestically this time around, but we can look to the future and learn from the appalling mistakes that are still being made. Look at what happened with Dr. Gary Kobinger of Université Laval, who developed a vaccine very quickly with the first $1 million the government gave him. His request for an additional $2 million was turned down. In response, the Prime Minister had the nerve to say that he did get help with that first $1 million.

At some point, we have to see these projects through and we have to trust our people. Does the government not want to see any initiatives or a sense of pride in Quebec? Would it rather that we remain dependent on foreign countries? Would things not be better if we could stand on our own two feet in this area? The answer is pretty obvious. The Premier of Quebec thinks the project makes sense and decided to fund it, even though it is not up to him to do so. The federal government should be taking care of its affairs and properly funding projects under its jurisdiction, instead of interfering in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.

Extending the regional relief and recovery fund is another positive step. However, less than 25% of the funding will be awarded to tourism businesses. I will talk about that in a minute.

As far as health is concerned, there are plans for additional payments, including for long-term care. We know what Quebec needs and it is not a one-time additional payment. Quebec needs ongoing payments, health transfers.

The amounts borrowed and the financial forecasts are starting to be worrisome. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shared his concerns about the Minister of Finance having a massive capacity to borrow even more money. We have questions about the $100 billion for the recovery. We still do not know who will get this money and how they will get it. We have no information about that.

The Bloc Québécois has some ideas about the recovery. I invite people in the Liberal Party to look at our little blue document, drafted in the fall, that outlines our party's COVID-19 recovery plan. During the summer, we spoke with real people on the ground, taking all necessary precautions, of course. It is important to mention that the needs are real. The recovery will be a promising opportunity to solve some long-standing problems.

One specific example is the pyrrhotite crisis in the Mauricie region. Just before Christmas, the Government of Quebec announced two new measures to help pyrrhotite victims, in response to the findings of a working group made up of representatives from the Government of Quebec and from the federal minister's office. The federal government was not part of that announcement. I hope that the recovery plan will allocate funding for programs like this one to address the long-standing issues from which people are suffering.

More than two months ago the government announced a highly affected sectors credit availability program. Once again, we cannot get any details. It is unbelievable. People in the tourism, hospitality, arts, culture and events sectors need assistance and are asking us questions. We do not have any answers for them, since we cannot get answers from the government. We are prepared to work together. I am reaching out, I am open to working together, but the government needs to help us if it wants our help. Let us work quickly.

We raise case-by-case needs in the House, such as the local outfitter that could not access the wage subsidy because its facilities were flooded in 2019. I talked about that case in the House and worked with the Minister of Finance's office, but all the nice things that were said in the House and the positive reception did not amount to much in the end. Campground and sugar shack owners still do not have access to the subsidy either, and their industry is going through very tough times.

Nothing has been done for the aerospace industry yet. Is the government bent on destroying this industry? Does it realize that Montreal is one of the only places in the world where an aircraft can be built from start to finish? Is the government trying to dismantle this sector as it did with the pharmaceutical industry, making us even more dependent on other countries?

I have talked about independence in my speech. If Quebec were free to manage its own affairs, it would do so more efficiently. At the moment, by doing nothing, the federal government is hurting everyone in the aviation sector. The feds still have not forced airlines to refund plane tickets for trips that people had paid for in good faith. Now those people's savings are being used to finance multinational companies in the form of interest-free loans. The federal government is also not providing any assistance to the aerospace industry, even though it really needs helps. There is something wrong with this picture.

I want to come back to health transfers. The federal government was originally funding 50% of health care costs, but now it funds only 22%. It is absolutely ridiculous. In the 2020 fall economic statement, the government announced nearly $1 billion for long-term care homes, on condition that those facilities provide detailed spending plans. That is out of the question. Health is a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government needs to sign the cheque and send it off to Quebec City, and it is up to Quebec and the provinces to manage it, whether the centralist New Democrats and Liberals like it or not. I urge my colleagues to read the constitutional contract that was signed without Quebec.

On the topic of long-term care homes, I want to come back to the Canadian Armed Forces report, which was very clear. Everything should have gone well, but the problem was that the institutions could not comply with the standards in effect because of a lack of staff, resources and money. The solution in this case would be to increase health transfers. I do not know how many times we will have to repeat this. People in the hardest-hit sectors need help quickly. As I mentioned, the federal government does not have the right to impose conditions, and the military's report on long-term care homes is clear.

I will now speak about the tourism industry. I would like the government to understand the importance of this industry. It employs 400,000 workers and contributes $15 billion to Quebec's economy. This industry needs help, and the government must get going. Changes need to be made. Earlier I spoke about commercial rent relief, but there is also the Canada emergency business account. We have already raised the case of farmers who incurred expenses in the fall of 2019 but are not eligible for this emergency account. We have been telling the government for months that it makes no sense, but nothing has been done yet. In my view, that is not right.

Speaking of agriculture, I want to talk about a number of issues, including the compensation arising from the signing of new trade agreements. In a time of pandemic and crisis, businesses need cash flow. It would really help them. Why have dairy farmers had to resort to taking out newspaper ads to beg for the money they were promised? I just saw one earlier in The Record, a Sherbrooke newspaper, saying that dairy farmers are essential and that the government made them promises.

Horticultural producers are calling for bankruptcy protection. This would not cost the government anything, but it is turning a deaf ear. Farm businesses need cash, and the quick and easy solution would be to inject 5% into the AgriInvest program without requiring matching contributions and without needing to create a new program, but the government is turning a deaf ear. The emergency processing fund for the agri-food industry was too small and had very specific criteria. As a result, some businesses made investments but ended up not qualifying for reimbursement.

The government is failing those businesses, and it needs to get moving on these files. In closing, I would like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois is still calling for the creation of a committee that would examine COVID-19-related spending. We all remember the WE Charity scandal. We all want to help people, but we just want to make sure that the money is helping ordinary people, not friends of the government.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his passionate speech on Quebec.

It illustrated once again that the parties in Ottawa, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, have a dangerous tendency to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and to not be transparent.

At the end of his speech, my colleague addressed the issue of lack of transparency by referring to WE Charity. Sometimes we are told that there might not be enough money for certain sectors, but maybe that is because of the government's bad choices or poor investments. There are things we do not know, and a committee on the WE Charity scandal could shed light on money that could be invested elsewhere. I am thinking about the specific sectors my colleague mentioned, sectors that have been hit hard by the pandemic and are not receiving any targeted assistance. I am thinking about culture, for instance, which is so important to Quebec and to my riding of Shefford.

What does my hon. colleague think of these sectors that are so important to Quebec but that have been abandoned by Ottawa?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague.

Simply put, the government needs to release support programs right away. What these businesses need is cash flow. My colleague mentioned the culture sector. Event spaces and theatres are still closed because people are staying home.

This is tragic for artists, yet they have been largely forgotten here. The real tragedy we will see in this sector is a brain drain. Stage technicians and crew members do not have the greatest working conditions. After a year of staying home, they have left this sector for other jobs. Will they come back?

I fear that some of our big institutions will have to close down. This sector is in urgent need of a cash injection.

[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, what is very clear is that the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Party do not support national standards of any form when it comes to long-term care. That is in contradiction to what many Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to see. Through the pandemic, we have recognized there is a need for a national role when it comes to long-term care.

I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc could at least recognize that even in the province of Quebec there is a desire to see the national government play a stronger role when it comes to standards for long-term care in Canada.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see that at least one government member understands that we want nothing to do with national health standards. Health falls under provincial and Quebec jurisdiction. It is set out in the contract that was signed without us. That is the first thing I wanted to mention.

Second, I would be very curious to ask Quebeckers what they think, to find out who they trust to manage their hospitals and long-term care facilities.

People look first to the Government of Quebec. If you ask any Quebecker to name their head of government, they will answer “François Legault”. They will not give the name of the leader of the Liberal Party, who I would be pleased to name, but, unfortunately, am not allowed to do so here in the House.

I invite my colleague to look carefully at the polls. Quebeckers think that the Government of Quebec is able to take care of this. However, Quebeckers want their money. That is the big difference.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé said that he had plenty of ideas. I would like him to prove it.

What does he want to do about help for farm work, for example?

Our farmers need help and resources. How can we provide them with tangible assistance?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé for a brief response.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad you are asking me to be brief because I was elated at the prospect of giving my colleague a long list, but I will stick to a quick summary of what I said earlier.

Right now, farmers need cash. Among other things, we are asking for an additional 5% investment in AgriInvest with no matching requirement for businesses.

How would that help?

It would enable farmers, the people who are literally on the ground and know what their businesses need, to decide what to do with their money rather than spend eight hours a day filling out forms only to be told no because they did not check the right box on the right form.

That is one concrete way to help people. Also, our horticultural producers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

Time is up. We will move on to statements by members.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, from coast to coast to coast Canadians are struggling, both with a pandemic that has cost far too many people their lives and with an economy in deep trouble. These two crises have hit working Canadians very hard. Lives and livelihoods have been lost. Despite all this, Canadians are persevering, as we know they can. Through adversity, they are getting the job done. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Liberal government.

The most important role the feds have is to procure vaccines and, sadly, they are failing. Canada is falling behind scores of countries in getting COVID-19 vaccines. We are standing north of 50: There are probably 50 countries ahead of us for vaccine procurement and its use. Israel has vaccinated about 80% of its population and the United Kingdom more than 25%. The United States has vaccinated more than 17%. In fact, I saw a statistic the other day that said more people were vaccinated in the United States in just one day than have been vaccinated in Canada, period. Canada is looking at a vaccination rate of about 3.60%, according to Bloomberg News. We are behind Greece, Chile, Morocco, Portugal, the Maldives, Serbia and many other countries.

For everyday Canadians, failure to procure vaccines will mean we will continue to be at risk and under lockdown, and the lockdowns will take place for longer times. These lockdowns have real-world consequences. I recently called a friend at a seniors' facility near Toronto. He is forbidden to leave his room. He told me it feels like he is in a jail cell.

Obviously, without enough people vaccinated, we will also be late to reopen our economy. While scores of other countries will reopen, we will still be locked down, with our businesses shuttered, and that is a true tragedy. This failure will have a significant impact on jobs and Canadian businesses. It certainly already has.

Being left behind is the last thing that struggling Canadians need, and workers are in a very dark place. It is especially true in my home province of Alberta. In addition to facing the pandemic and its economic consequences, Alberta is facing a federal government hostile to its number one industry: an industry that creates thousands of good-paying jobs right across Canada. I think a lot of Canadians should realize that the oil and gas industry is not all about Alberta: It is about all of Canada. It is a vital industry to Canada.

During the 2009 global recession, the energy industry helped Canada weather the storm. Because of the energy industry, Canada had the strongest economy in the G7 through that global recession, but the Liberal government has squandered that national asset. The government and its hostile legislation have attacked the goose that laid the golden egg. Take, for example, the Liberal government's recent lacklustre response to the Americans scrapping the Keystone XL pipeline.

In June 2018, the United States, under former president Donald Trump, placed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. Canada quickly responded with measures of its own. Canada took action to protect its vital economic interests. It did that despite knowing, at the time, that it was a campaign promise by then president Trump. Back then, the foreign affairs minister said, “the United States has taken the absurd decision to harm its own people at a time when its economy is suffering”. That was a reasonable approach, and we need that same reasonable approach with Keystone XL for Canada's largest export industry.

In 2019, our energy exports were valued at more than $134 billion. Let that sink in for a bit. Think what that money could buy. Think how much worse we will be when we do not have that money. Instead, Canada's current foreign minister said that we should understand and respect the decision on Keystone XL. The Prime Minister only said that he was disappointed. That is not the type of response they gave when manufacturers were under threat from tariffs during NAFTA renegotiations. Why is the energy industry treated differently?

During the NAFTA renegotiations, we took a team Canada approach in defence of Canada's vital national interests. Canadian government officials and politicians, including myself, went to Washington and lobbied key American stakeholders. We talked to Democrats, Republicans and everyone we could, yet today when another vital industry is under threat, all we hear are crickets from the Liberal government. We have actually heard more from American politicians and union officials in support of Keystone XL than from our own government.

On January 21, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters said:

The Teamsters strongly oppose yesterday’s decision, and we would urge the administration to reconsider it. This executive order doesn’t just affect U.S. Teamsters; it hurts our Canadian brothers and sisters as well who work on this project. It will reduce good-paying union jobs that allow workers to provide a middle-class standard of living to their families. America needs access to various forms of energy that can keep its economy running in the years ahead. This decision will hurt that effort.

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas called out the Biden administration cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, saying “The Biden administration is already killing jobs in Arkansas—in the middle of a pandemic—to appease far-left environmental groups. This isn’t what America needs right now.”

This is a vital Canadian interest. Where is Canada's response? This lack of leadership has real world impact.

Recently, the Calgary Herald ran a story about Muhammad Ali, who has the same name as the famous boxer. Muhammad is a proud Calgarian, as he should be. Calgary is a fantastic city. It is the second biggest city in Alberta, the second best. He is currently finishing his business degree at the University of Calgary where he is majoring in supply management. Muhammad hoped once he graduated he would be able to find a career in the energy industry in Alberta, but now he is forced to leave the province for the U.S.A. He said, “I would have really loved to stay in Alberta, especially Calgary, it’s a really great place to live. And I was looking forward to maybe working in the energy industry here.” Unfortunately, those hopes have been dashed. As Muhammad put it, there just seems to be so much more opportunity for him in the U.S.

Muhammad is just one of many young western Canadians who are finding their career prospects leading them south of the border. Despite having the one of the largest oil deposits in the world, because of the neglect and outright hostility that the Liberal government has shown to our energy industry, it has seen its investment and jobs go elsewhere. At a time when it is essential to begin the process to rebuild our economy, seeing stories like Muhammad's is really disappointing. I wish him all the best. He seems like a talented and hard-working young man and I am sure he will a real asset wherever he goes. However, the fact that he must leave, despite wanting to stay, is a huge loss to our communities.

Last year, we saw the largest deficit in Canadian history, $331 billion. We are going to need the skills and hard work of people like Muhammad in Canada to help us pay off the enormous debt the Liberals have racked up. That is why we need the federal government to end its hostility to the energy industry, Canada's golden goose. It needs to stop exporting good Canadians jobs and facilitate the export of Canadian energy. We need to get Canada working.

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

Madam Speaker, today, we are debating the economic statement implementation act. The bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance to put forward measures to take care of Canadians right now during a pandemic. The hon. member talked about vaccines. He talked about NAFTA. He talked about oil. He seemed to talk about anything he could think of except this issue.

I know the Conservatives have really been holding onto this bill for a while now. They need to desperately talk about it to ensure they have their opportunity to debate it before we pass it. That is what I have been hearing from the other side of the House for days now.

Would the member actually like to speak to anything that is in legislation?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is another instance of a member from that side of the House not understanding the value of the key industry in Canada. What could be more important than vaccinating people, getting our country back and our jobs back? Maybe the problem is that the member has lost track of what is really important in our country.

I think people in Alberta and right across the country are seeing the neglect of the energy industry, the industry that fuels our country. We will not have much of a country at all unless we get onboard with that industry.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the comments about vaccinations. I was astounded when the health minister was asked how many people would have to be vaccinated before the lockdowns would end and we could start to reopen the economy. Her response was that they were not even sure whether someone could transmit or get COVID after having a vaccine.

It is clear that the government does not have a plan to exit the pandemic. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great observation. It is the real fear. Canadians are following public health orders. They are doing everything they are being told to do, generally speaking. They are trying to look around the corner to see what is coming. Unfortunately, that future still looks rather grim.

As I mentioned in my comments, I read this morning that the United States had vaccinated more people in one day than Canada had vaccinated in its entirety. To me, that speaks of a very weak Liberal plan. Unfortunately, it is very grim news for everybody when there is so little planning.

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

Madam Speaker, if people listened to the previous Conservative member's question and that member's answer to it, they would have no idea what we are talking about.

This is nothing more than a delay tactic by the Conservatives because they do not want this bill to be voted on in the House. They are using certain pandemic measures put forward by this government to take care of Canadians during a pandemic as a political tool to prevent the bill from moving forward. They are basically forcing this side of the House to at some point move closure on the bill because they refuse to have a vote on the floor. It is shameful that the member is part of this action. It is easy to see that in the last exchange between him and the other Conservative member.

I will give the member one last opportunity to actually talk about something that is in the bill. Would he like to do that?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that it is a Liberal who believes that rigorous debate should not be allowed, and that just shows you how out of touch you are. I am sorry that—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think you are out of touch. The member said that you are out of touch. For the record, you are not out of touch; you are a fine Speaker. He should not be talking about you like that.

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

I thank the hon. member for defending my honour.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, and not to speak for my colleague, as often happens in this place, members in responding to one of their colleagues, through you, do direct their comments in that fashion. While I agree with the member for Kingston and the Islands that the Speaker is not out of touch, I expect that the member for Edmonton Griesbach was referring to the member for Kingston and the Islands being out of touch.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate I am not in Ottawa when I talk about Bill C-14 today. That is where my constituents expect all MPs to be when the House is sitting.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank my constituents in Souris—Mouse Mountain. I thank them for having faith in me as their member of Parliament, a role I am proud to serve in each and every day. I also commend them for how they have been handling this past year and all the uncertainty that came with it. It has been inspiring to see communities come together in the face of adversity, and I encourage everyone to keep up the great work. They are making a difference.

With respect to today's debate, I am disappointed but not surprised at the state Canada finds itself in thanks to the government's uncontrolled spending and lack of action where it counts. As it stands, Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. This places us just above above Italy, a country that has been plagued with fiscal problems and instability for years now. This is not exactly a ranking to be proud of, yet the Liberals have not taken any concrete measures to improve Canada's standing in a meaningful way, despite their claims to the opposite.

In fact, under these Liberals, Canada has seen the slowest rate of economic growth in the G7. It is no mystery why competitiveness has fallen dramatically, as these go hand in hand. Without solid economic growth, there is no incentive to invest in Canada, and without those necessary investments, Canada becomes less and less competitive on the world stage.

Furthermore, the government has done little to nothing to encourage actual meaningful investment in the industries that need it now more than ever, such as the energy industry. One example of the government's failure in this regard is the recent cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline stood to benefit thousands of Canadian workers through the jobs it would create, not just temporarily during construction but also through the longer-term jobs associated with maintaining and operating this pipeline. In some cases, Keystone XL and the economic boost from it was bolstering entire communities. The economic spinoff would have created significant private sector industry tax dollars, which provide for many social programs.

The Prime Minister does not seem to realize the potential severe impacts of the trickle-down effect. When any key project like Keystone XL is cancelled, it immediately impacts the workers who are directly employed to work on it, such as construction crews or transportation companies. Many will need to consider moving elsewhere to find gainful employment, such as those working for service companies, restaurants, movie theatres, clothing stores, city, town and village staff and more. This means that many communities experience a mass exodus, something we continue to see the devastating impacts of.

I would like to take a brief time to talk about just two of the many of my constituents hugely affected by this situation. Jeff is a young oil field worker from the Moosomin area who lost his job in March with the usual slow down from the spring breakup, and who went on EI and spent months trying to get support. However, Service Canada closed down and there was nobody to talk to in person. Nobody would answer his phone calls or respond with call backs. He was desperate and close to broke.

Jeff searched high and low for work and found some with K+S north of Regina. He was then laid off. He went to Fort St. John and found work as an apprentice pipe-fitter, but he was laid off again before Christmas. He was rehired last month and finally, fingers crossed, last week, which is now closing in on a year, we managed to get him in contact with somebody and hopefully he will get some resolution to his EI issue. Bill C-14 has done nothing to assist him or many others like him.

Let me also introduce the House to Ryan, another hard worker who lost his job due to the government's lack of interest in assisting people who work in the energy sector. He is a young father of two, whose wife is expecting her third child. He is struggling to make ends meet in a community that has been severely impacted over the last five years by the loss of jobs. He searched and searched for work throughout this time, spending any savings he had to survive, paying power bills, heating bills, clothing bills and family bills, as they had a brand new baby. They were so desperate they had to start going to the food bank. I thank all those who donate and assist the food banks, specifically the Salvation Army and the Community Hamper Association of Estevan, including Char Seeman, Julie Bayda, Mel Pearson and Shelley Dayman, just to name a few.

Christmastime came to Ryan and his family and the limited food they got had a huge impact on the family's self-esteem and mental health. Ryan finally found some work last month, and the first thing he and his wife Stephanie did was take what extra cash they had to help by buying support meals for others who are just as desperate.

These Canadians do not want a handout; they want a hand up. They want jobs. In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, communities like Estevan, Weyburn, Moosomin and Coronach were hit hard. We saw first-hand what happens when a key industry is reduced to a fraction of what it once was.

This pandemic has compounded the problems. Businesses closed left, right and centre, and not just those connected to the energy industry. Restaurants, retail stores, supply companies, auto garages, etc., were forced to close their doors because the customers were simply not there. Families had to uproot from the towns and cities and, most importantly, the people they knew and loved, because they had no way to pay the bills.

When the federal government, specifically the Prime Minister, failed to advocate for the continuation of projects like Keystone XL, it was tantamount to telling everybody affected, the energy workers, that the government does not care about them. It is not just Keystone XL; Keystone is just one high-profile issue. The energy industry in general has suffered from a lack of support and advocacy by the current government.

As I stated before, Canada has dropped in its ranking of competitiveness, and part of that is certainly due to the lack of investment in our energy sector. Why would a private company see Canada as a stable place to invest when its our Prime Minister regularly helps to stymie the network of development and large energy projects that would help boost our economy? This lack of leadership and support is pushing businesses away from Canada, and the Prime Minister does not care. It is clear that he cares more about the image of his party. As I am an MP for a riding that has seen the devastation that his apathy causes, I am truly disgusted. Perhaps the Prime Minister will wake up should Enbridge Line 5 be cancelled, but I am not counting on it.

I would like to go back to the numbers now, as I believe they paint an alarming picture of the situation Canada is currently facing. While we certainly understand that programs are needed to help Canadians get through the pandemic, it is concerning that there seems to be a plan to increase spending and yet no plan to recover our economy. This year, the deficit is projected to be over $380 billion, which will bring the national debt to a record-setting $1.1 trillion. We have now gone two years without a federal budget, and the bill we are debating today does not outline how we are going to dig ourselves out of this deep hole. It is both reckless and irresponsible.

When these alarmingly high numbers are coupled with a Prime Minister who does not aggressively advocate for Canada, whether in regard to our vaccine supply, the future of our much-needed energy projects or the entirety of the oil and gas industry, which accounts for over 10% of our country's economy, it paints a scary picture of our future. Even before COVID-19, we were worried that our children and grandchildren would be footing the bill for the current government's ludicrous spending, and now that seems to have become an inevitability. In fact, it will be our great-great-grandchildren will have to wait see a recovery from this.

In conclusion, my constituents want to be confident that their Prime Minister has a plan for them and for the recovery of this country's economy. Bill C-14 would do absolutely nothing to instill this confidence. If anything, all it shows is more money going out the door, without any kind of indication as to how we will rebuild. In a time of fear and uncertainty, the government owes it to Canadians to show real, committed leadership, but all the Prime Minister does is add to his laundry list of failures.

As for me, I will continue to fight for the great people of Souris—Moose Mountain, including the energy workers, the agricultural producers, the small business owners and everyone in-between. Our country deserves much better than the current Liberal government has given over the last five years and it is time for a change.

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

Questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I was actually raising my hand for questions and comments, and I am speaking as well afterwards. May I ask a question, or did I miss the window for that?

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

Yes, the member may ask a question, of course.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague comes from Saskatchewan and I am from Alberta; we have similar issues with the impact on energy workers. There is a lot of frustration with some of the earlier bills: Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We know those bills predate the pandemic. However, when we are thinking about how the economy is going to recover post-pandemic, those bills are a big barrier to Canada's looking like an attractive investment destination.

Could the member speak further to some of that legislation and share his feedback on what could and should be done in response to that climate of Canada's not looking like a great place to invest with these bills in place, particularly in the context of our energy sector?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right. Ultimately, we are seeing investment dollars leaving this country, left, right and centre. The money is leaving from the western part of the country, heading south or to other parts, because investors are seeking better places to invest. Why would they not?

If we want to talk about what is going on in Bill C-14, I would like to point to the Borrowing Authority Act that the bill is going to amend. The government seems very quiet about the fact the bill is going to increase the amount it can borrow to $1,831,000,000,000. That is sort of like when someone gets their Visa bill and they have to pay their limit, and all of a sudden they see at the top that Visa has increased the amount, without telling them.

I do not hear the government speaking at all about this amount, so that Canadians could truly see how much the government is actually trying to increase its spending.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I think the fall economic statement was full of intentions and promises to spend billions of dollars going forward, but it lacked a real plan or any concrete sense of direction for how the government planned to actually invest that money. That is deeply troubling, especially considering all it has failed to do in the past.

I would like to know if my colleague is concerned about that lack of a plan, that lack of a planning process, and all the ad hockery in the fall economic statement as it pertains to the future of the Canadian economy.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member makes a very good point, and that is the fact that the present Liberal government has done no planning whatsoever for the last five years.

A prime example is right here, on investments and getting people and businesses going in this country, but it is also evident in how the government has been doing with the rollout of vaccines and PPE. There was no planning. The government made a statement on a Friday, before the weekend, and then all of a sudden, without hearing any responses or having any idea of what is out there, it rolled it out without any type of plan for its impacts.

The government has not talked with the Conservatives at all on this aspect. It rolls things out on its own. Planning and being a team coach means talking to players. It means hearing from each and every one of them; then taking parts of what they say to help improve what is being done. It is not just running out helter-skelter without having an official plan and procedures. It is not A, Z, B, D; it is A, B, C, D.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague correctly, for the past weeks and months, the Liberals have been talking about a “Team Canada” approach to COVID-19 and negotiating with the United States. That is just lip service though, because in practice, they are not really behaving like part of a team.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, that certainly is correct. As someone who has been involved in coaching hockey my entire life, the one thing we learned is that when we talk about team work, we talk about working with the team.

That would be someone who is actually working with the team, and the Liberal government has not made any effort to work with the team. It is purely acting as a coach who does not talk to—

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-14 and pick up on many of the themes discussed by my colleague from Souris-Moose Mountain. I do not know nearly as much about sports as he does, so I probably will not be as well versed on those issues, but I certainly share a concern about the impact on our energy sector.

Right now the government is talking about its various proposals for government spending. In reality, the government is saying that it is not going to support the existence of jobs and will put in place policies that will likely kill jobs. However, it tells us not not worry; it will have some money afterward.

What I hear from Canadians over and over again is that they are interested in working. Their desire is to get back into employment and have the joy, satisfaction and pride that comes from earning income. They also understand that the government's long-term approach is not realistic. We cannot have fewer and fewer jobs with more and more government subsidy and expect this to be an economic plan that will give us the capacity to provide support to people in the long run.

We are debating Bill C-14, which lays out aspects of the government's fiscal agenda. Part of the bill is for correcting errors in previous bills. The government has put forward other bills and pushed hard to rush them through quickly, but they have had significant technical flaws or other flaws. They have had a big negative impact on individuals and businesses. We are carefully reviewing and understanding this legislation to make sure we do not create more errors in the process of the government correcting errors it has made in the past.

The Conservatives are supportive of providing essential support to people in the midst of very challenging circumstances. However, our major concern, as we look at the government's fiscal plan for the present and for the future, is that it does not have a plan for jobs, growth and getting Canadians back to work.

There is a discussion of providing various kinds of benefits without thinking about jobs and growth. However, the government misses the reality that if we do not have a plan for jobs and growth over the long term, inevitably we are going to run out of the fiscal capacity to provide Canadians with the support they need. We have to be growing the economy and creating wealth before we are in a position to redistribute it. That is where I want to focus my arguments today.

This is the frame through which I see questions of fiscal policy. The cost of government programs depends on two things. It depends, first, on how much those programs allocate to individuals who need them and, second, on how many people need them. If we have very generous unemployment benefits when a very small percentage of the population is unemployed, it is going to cost us less than if a larger percentage of the population is unemployed in the midst of lower benefits. It is not just a function of the size of benefits we are providing; it is a function of the level of need for those benefits, as well as the size of them.

Logically, then, if we notice enormous levels of government spending and runaway deficits, as we see right now, and we need to reduce government spending at some point, then there are two ways of doing that. One might be to reduce the amount of money allocated to individuals or as part of individual benefit programs. The second might be to strategically think about how we can reduce the need for government benefits. If we can find ways of increasing the employment rate, there will be less need for unemployment benefits and it will cost the government less even if it is providing sufficient benefits to help people in those situations. Similarly, we might say this with respect to criminal justice: If we can reduce the crime rate, we will need to spend less money on responding to crime.

If we look at the causes of the need for government response and can find ways of addressing the underlying need, then it costs government less and we have more fiscal capacity to provide resources to people in situations of significant need. I think we would all generally agree that reducing people's need for or reliance on government services is a much better route to go than simply reducing the availability of those services without taking into consideration how we can address the issue of people's real or perceived need for them.

This underlines the point that we should not be measuring the success, effectiveness or commitment of government in terms spending alone. We might have a government that is spending a lot of money on providing benefits to people but doing so in a way that is poorly targeted and does not address the underlying root causes of the need. It is therefore not there for those who are in a position to need support. On the other hand, we could imagine a situation where a government has very generous and targeted benefits in situations where people have need and at the same time is addressing root causes such that there is less need for government services. In the latter case, that government would be spending less money. It would be spending less money by having more targeted benefits and by thinking about the need for government services, not just about the magnitude of the services in place.

As we think about the current dynamic with COVID and the various economic challenges facing our country, it is important that we think about creating jobs and growth, reducing the need for government services, strengthening communities and strengthening the supports individuals face independent of government. We would have a greater capacity to focus the public resources we have on those who are not able to find assistance any other way. If we have a lower unemployment rate, it stands to reason that we can provide more, better, longer-term effective supports to those who are not employed. However, if we have a higher level of unemployment, our collective capacity to do that is somewhat reduced. Unfortunately, what we see right now from the government is the lack of a plan for jobs and growth. That is really what is going to get us moving.

There are many different ways we can think about what that plan could and should include. What we need to keep in mind is that a great deal of our jobs are coming, and will continue to come, from resource extraction and manufacturing. There are a variety of sectors in our economy that people are working in, but there are many people in my riding and across the country who are working in resource extraction and manufacturing. We need a government that appreciates the value of that work being done, one that does not live in some fantasy world where everybody is working in an office behind a computer. The hard work people do with their hands in resource extraction and manufacturing are the jobs of the present and future and require our protection and support.

What we see from the government is a piling on of regulation and red tape that nominally is often about the environment but is very ineffective at allowing us to reach our environmental objectives. We also see a sense of unwillingness to defend the rule of law in cases where natural resource development projects have been through an appropriate review process and have been signed off by affected communities, but there are a few people trying to physically blockade them. We have cases of end runs, where projects have gone through the whole process and people are trying to stop them, even if they meet the existing requirements. That undermines investor confidence in the Canadian economy.

In a conversation I had with an ambassador regarding the opportunities in Canadian energy development, the person said that, more and more, Canada is being seen as a country of political risk. People can do all the work and have all the technical pieces in place and the project can make sense and conform to regulations, but there is a risk that some political factors will come into play and the rug will be pulled out from under them. That kind of environment makes it very hard for investors to want to invest in Canada.

People try to make the argument in the House that resource extraction and manufacturing industries are industries of the past. On the contrary, these investments are being made in other parts of the world; we are just not seeing many of those investments happen to the same degree in Canada. When we see growth in energy sectors outside of Canada but not the same kind of investments being made in Canada, we see that the problem is political.

In conclusion, to be able to provide support to Canadians who are unemployed, we need to have more Canadians who are employed. That means respecting and supporting our resource extraction and manufacturing sectors. That means working to have reasonable regulations, not unpredictable, constantly changing red tape for people who want to pursue projects. That is what we need for jobs, growth and opportunities—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am paraphrasing, but toward the beginning of his speech, the member said the government has not been doing much to support existing jobs. That is probably one of the most ludicrous statements I have heard in the House.

I will recap for the member. In period one, there were 3.6 million jobs; in period two, 3.9 million; in period three, 4.2 million; and in period four, 4.1 million. The job numbers stay consistent up to periods nine, 10 and 11: there were 3.3 million, 2.5 million and 1 million jobs. These are the job numbers in the country, and each period is reflective of a one-month period from the beginning of the pandemic. This is the number of jobs in this country that have been supported by the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

How is it possible, when so much of our economy is being supported by the government right now through this program, that the member can say the government is not doing anything to support existing jobs?

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

Madam Speaker, despite the volume, the reality of what I said is completely true. It is evident in the member's question. He is measuring success by the amount of money the government is shovelling out the door, instead of looking at our unemployment rate and seeing that Canada has a very high unemployment rate, even relative to many other countries that are similarly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have spent substantially more than many other peer countries, yet we have higher unemployment.

What I talked about in my speech is the importance of measuring results, not just saying that we spent a bunch of money so look at how great we are. We should be measuring the results and the impact.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am reminded of Félix Leclerc, who said the best way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing.

What is needed in order to jump-start the economy are vaccines. Two provisions in Bill C-14 will help speed up distribution, but our dependence on foreign vaccines will increase further because the Patent Act was not updated before September 30.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of reviewing the Patent Act, in relation to the highly specialized resources we have in Quebec and Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the quotation that my colleague shared at the beginning of her question. I think it underlines the fact that work is not just about earning money. Positively, for many people work is about their engagement with and their investment in the community. It is a way of earning income but is so much more than just a way of earning income.

To her question about the Patent Act, perhaps a longer discussion can happen on that at some point. I do think we need to work to increase domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity. We have called on the government to have a plan on vaccines and are regularly doing so, recognizing how far behind the government is. We see clearly the government's failure in procuring a necessary supply of vaccine, as now it is trying to draw supply that is generally focused on helping developing countries. This demonstrates how much it has failed to secure the necessary domestic supply of vaccine, and it is showing up in the numbers as well.

There are many areas we need to look at about how to do this better.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we have seen over the decades, a number of trade agreements have gutted our manufacturing base in Canada and refocused us on exporting raw materials, such as raw bitumen and raw logs. We are seeing this problem right now with vaccines and the lack of pharmaceutical capacity in this country. We used to have a lot of capacity for this. We used to be a leader in vaccine manufacturing and providing vaccines around the world.

What does the hon. member think we should be focusing on here? Have we had the wrong focus? Should we be doing more on the value-added side and less exporting of raw materials? As we are seeing with the death of a pipeline—

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to underline, in response to that question, that generally the data suggests Canada has benefited significantly as a result of most of the trade agreements that it has entered into and that they have been associated with significant economic growth in Canada.

There are many opportunities in different industries, including in value added, but we have to emphasize competitiveness as opposed to building up insulation—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House.

As part of the discussion on the November 30 economic statement, I would like to provide some concrete examples of the impact the crisis is having on my riding, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, and the measures that need to be put in place to help the people and organizations back home.

There is also the issue of the need for the current government to be transparent on spending and the fact that it is unacceptable that it has not introduced a proper budget in more than two years. I think this is an ideal opportunity to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's calls for a green economic recovery.

The opposition does more than just criticize. As parliamentarians, it is important to acknowledge the government whenever it does something right. I must say that, as far as the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé are concerned, the fact that Bill C-14 promises additional funding for the regional relief and recovery fund is important because many of our businesses still need support.

In Chaleur Bay, in the Gaspé, the Maison d'aide et d'hébergement L'Émergence, which provides emergency support for women who are victims of domestic violence and their children, will soon open a second-hand shop that will fund the organization's services and help women return to the job market. L'Émergence has already received $80,000 from the RRRF program. That is not peanuts. I applaud the commitment of the organization and its director to helping women and families dealing with domestic violence. Without this funding, this project would have been in jeopardy.

In Matapédia-et-les-Plateaux, the Corporation de développement économique also received funding from the RRRF program. This spring, a welcome centre will be set up for visitors touring the Route des belvédères, a route of magnificent locations in the Gaspé that are still not very well known. The $56,000 provided by the RRRF program is vital to the coordination of the project. The fact that the federal government is maintaining and enhancing its investments in this program, which gives the RCM a lot of room to manoeuver, is all important.

On a somewhat less positive note, I want to talk about health care. The flaws in Quebec's health care network were exposed by the pandemic, but this situation is completely ignored in the Liberal government's economic statement. Bill C-14 does not provide a substantial and sustainable increase in health transfers, but it does allow for additional restrictions and oversight from federal government. My colleagues who have already spoken have made it clear that the federal government's approach does not respect Quebec's jurisdictions, especially with respect to health care. This government wants to interfere in how the provinces manage themselves, but it has yet to present a clear and transparent budget since the beginning of this pandemic. Transparency is a whole other story. I will get back to it later.

Quebec's experience with long-term care for seniors, for example, is a prime example of the impact of underfunding health care. A report on the investigation of a seniors' residence in my riding, Résidence des Bâtisseurs de Matane, was released last week. The investigation had been done in response to complaints, and the report outlined some serious issues with the care provided to residents, and in particular the most vulnerable and incapacitated ones.

Let us be clear. We are not talking about a lack of standards or a flawed monitoring system within the institution. The report is clear. The crux of the problem is the lack of resources to ensure the well-being of seniors. There is therefore absolutely no point in having the federal government create more standards. What the government needs to do is invest to address the desperate shortage of qualified personnel.

The shortage of workers in health care, and, incidentally, in many other areas, is a major problem in my region. The heartbreaking situation of seniors living in the Résidence des Bâtisseurs de Matane is a perfect illustration of the results of federal cuts to health transfers. Perhaps the current government needs to be reminded that with an aging population comes an increased need for long-term care. Since the health care transfers to Quebec were not increased, services for the most vulnerable seniors in our society have gone downhill throughout Quebec's health care system.

Successive Quebec governments have had to adjust to a decrease in available funding for health care. They have turned over responsibility for some care to private companies, but private means profit. That is how things work in a capitalist society.

I think it is fairly obvious that privatization is not the best approach to health care for a population as vulnerable as the elderly because it prioritizes profit over care.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's expectation for increased health transfers for Quebec and the provinces. They are united in their demand for more money, Quebec's National Assembly supports that demand, and if the federal government is truly concerned about our seniors, it must agree and increase its annual share of Quebec's health care costs to 35% on an ongoing basis.

The Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec supports this demand. Members may recall that in 2019, the provinces, Quebec and the territories were covering 45% of health care costs compared to the Canadian government's measly 22%.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, the way things are going, the federal share of health care funding will slide to 20% by 2026. We need to stop the bleeding now.

Another sector that could certainly use some extra attention is tourism. The tourism industry is vital to the Gaspé and Bas-Saint-Laurent, two regions that overlap in my riding. The tourism industry in the Gaspé accounts for more than 3,000 jobs in high season, 1,300 businesses, more than 785,000 visitors per year, and revenues estimated at more than $380 million annually. In the summer of 2019 alone, the economic benefits of this industry totalled $271 million, making that a record year. In the Bas-Saint-Laurent region, tourism is also an essential economic sector, accounting for some 850 businesses, 7,800 jobs, 1,143,000 visitors per year, and over $345 million in economic benefits annually. We must absolutely support this industry, which is among those most affected by the pandemic.

Hotel operators, promoters and presenters of cultural events, restaurant owners and tour operators have been asking us for many weeks about the terms and conditions of the highly affected sectors credit availability program. More than two months after the program was announced in the fall economic statement and one month after the launch of the HASCAP by the minister responsible, the government finally announced the terms and conditions of the program.

However, from day one of the pandemic, the Bloc Québécois has talked about the importance of developing assistance programs that are adapted to the reality of each industry and each region. Standardized approaches are not working. In May, the Bloc was very clearly calling for targeted assistance for seasonal industries, the tourism industry in particular. Some programs such as the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program were not well suited to these sectors.

When the government comes up with a game plan for the economic recovery it will have to consider the needs of the regions. In fact, it should be thinking about that right now. The federal government needs to understand how important the tourism industry is to the economic vitality of many regions in Quebec, including the ones I represent.

Let us now talk about the Canada recovery benefit. Many workers back home, including indigenous workers, have had to deal with unreasonable delays due to having to navigate the machinery of the federal government. I am thinking about a self-employed worker from Saint-Omer in Chaleur Bay who waited eight weeks for the federal government to verify whether she was eligible for the Canada recovery benefit, which blocked CRB payments. Finally, the lockdown was lifted in her sector and she went back to work. Nevertheless, eight weeks without income is a long time. We understand the need for these verifications, but the government assured us it had the necessary staff to do the work quickly. Obviously that is not the case, and it has not been since the start of the pandemic.

People without any income who need support are not getting anything. Others, who should not be eligible and who could be working, are receiving multiple cheques. We are asking for a little more diligence, and for the government to accelerate its audits.

Also, economic recovery goes hand in hand with significant spending. It is more crucial than ever that the government be transparent. The Parliamentary Budget Officer denounced the lack of transparency and accountability in federal finances. The government has not presented any fiscal anchors to ensure that spending is viable in the long term, nor has it presented a budget since the beginning of its mandate, which is not only unacceptable, but irresponsible as well. The federal government should be helping citizens, organizations and businesses, but it should also be accountable to the House and to the public. It should be accountable in particular to the younger generation, the young Canadians who will be living with the costs of this economic recovery, those who are also demanding a green recovery.

In its recovery plan, the Bloc Québécois puts forward green transition measures involving the use of hydroelectricity and other clean energies such as biomass, wind power, solar energy and geothermal energy. Canada must stop basing its economic recovery on the fossil fuel industry. The economic recovery should not be accompanied by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. We need to invest in sectors that reduce our environmental footprint and that will have long-term economic benefits for Quebec and Canada.

Businesses here, such as Lion Electric in Saint-Jérôme, a manufacturer of zero-emission heavy vehicles, are already benefiting from the transition. We can reduce our net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, as the government intends to do, but we need to implement policies that go well beyond what we have seen so far. Action is urgently needed.

The government should seize the opportunity and show that it is truly a green government, that it really has an ecological conscience and that it wants to ensure the well-being and survival of its regions.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc member's intervention should serve as an example to my Conservative colleagues as to what a proper speech should be like. She was by no means flattering to the government. She addressed her concerns and also mentioned at the beginning what she liked about the bill, but most importantly, she stuck to the content of the bill, which was extremely refreshing. If this ever gets to committee, I hope she will have the opportunity to have her concerns addressed there.

I did pick up on one particular thing the member talked about. That was about the possibility of delays with respect to the CERB and other government programs. This bill has been in the House now for seven days; most budget bills are only here for five days. There is no doubt that there are going to be delays in services to Canadians as a result of the tactics that the Conservatives are using right now.

Is the member concerned about the delays that might occur for Canadians as a result of this bill being held up by the Conservatives?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and his kind words. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I think it is important to acknowledge the government whenever it does something right. However, there are a number of times when it got it wrong, and we need to acknowledge that, too.

The government has a busy schedule, in particular because of the prorogation of Parliament last summer, as you will recall. As a result of the prorogation, several bills were put on the back burner, including the one on medical assistance in dying, which still has not been dealt with. Several businesses here are waiting for the assistance this bill, which we are still discussing, could provide. I would therefore not be too quick to blame the Conservatives for any delays, because I think that the government bears a share of the responsibility for the situation. Let us work together to pass these bills promptly.

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

Madam Speaker, I too would like to compliment the member on her excellent speech.

The member was talking a little about the long-term care crisis in Quebec and other provinces, and the fact that it has a lot to do with resources. Could the member expand upon whether she believes it is better for a few Ottawa bureaucrats to fix the Quebec long-term care health system or whether it would be better done in the provinces?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

We cannot repeat it often enough: There is plenty of health care expertise in Quebec and the provinces. The federal government's job is easy: All it needs to do is to increase health transfer payments and pay us the amounts we are still waiting for.

We see the problems this is causing. Certain colleagues have pointed out that only a tiny portion of the money spent by the government since the beginning of the pandemic has been allocated to our health care systems. In a cruel twist of irony, we are in the middle of a health crisis. I think that it is high time that the federal government funnel more funds into health care. Once it has done so, Quebec and the provinces, which have the necessary expertise, can hire staff for our long-term care facilities and perhaps even increase personal care workers' salaries. They can do what they want with the money. The role of the federal government is to provide the funds.

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

Madam Speaker, there is much in the hon. member's speech that I agree with. She spoke to the needs of tourism operators in her region and the fact that the current support programs have not necessarily met their unique needs.

This speaks very closely to the situation in northwest B.C., where so many tourism operators in places like Haida Gwaii have lost an entire tourism business season and stand to lose another one. The current programs have not met their needs.

Perhaps the member could speak to how she sees the programs being improved so that small tourism operators could make it through this pandemic in one piece and look forward to prosperous days ahead.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As I said in my speech, a uniform approach rarely works, and we need programs adapted to regional realities.

My region is a tourist region. As much as 2019 was a record year for the tourism industry, 2020 was probably the worst. We need to help these businesses keep their head above water but, unfortunately, a single Canada-wide program may not work well enough. We need to consider regional realities and find ways to help these businesses.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think any of my colleagues, from either side of the aisle, would disagree with me when I say that this bill is incredibly important to Canadians.

We are now over a year into this pandemic. I know that the first case in Canada was confirmed in January 2020, and the first recorded case of COVID-19 in Alberta was in March of last year. However, I do not know when the first plan to get back to normal will be presented, either to Canadians, or to the House of Commons. I honestly cannot believe that I had to say those words.

We are now over a year into this pandemic, and the government has not yet presented a plan. I do not think there is a way for anyone to easily describe how disappointing that is, and how disappointing it is that the bill before us does not present any sort of plan either. Of course, this raises the question of what the government would do if it did have a plan.

I am not asking about policies here. I am asking about how the government expects to get its plan through the House of Commons. While I and many of my colleagues appreciate the time we have had to go through the contents of the bill before us, I have to seriously ask what the government is thinking. The fact is that we are debating the 2020 fall economic statement in the winter of 2021. Obviously, we had our winter break, which contributed to the delay, but the government has a bit of a secret that I would like to let members in on.

The Liberals are big procrastinators. They love to leave some of their most important bills, the ones Canadians are asking for, until the last minute. They will also introduce a bill, have the first reading, and then sit on it for weeks on end until it finally goes to second reading. That is the tactic of this government.

There are far too many examples of this for me to list. However, there are plenty of examples from this very parliamentary session. I will start with a big one, which I know my colleagues from the Standing Committee on International Trade have heard me ask about plenty of times. I am referring to Bill C-18, an act to implement the agreement on trade continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As the title of the bill so clearly lays out, it would implement a trade deal worked out between Canada and our close friends and allies the United Kingdom. Originally, we were going to lose many of our preferential tariff levels with the United Kingdom by the end of last year, and we had to pass the bill to ensure that would not happen.

What did the government do? It introduced the bill about a week before we rose for the winter break. As I am sure members are aware, we only voted on the second reading of the bill on Monday, February 1, 2021. The only reason we still have those preferential tariff levels with the United Kingdom is because the government realized its folly and signed a memorandum of understanding that temporarily extends those levels until we pass Bill C-18. Believe it or not, this is not the only bill the Liberals have delayed on.

I am sure all my colleagues, and of course many, many Canadians, are very familiar with Bill C-7 by now. We had a court-imposed deadline to pass this bill, which was December 18, 2020. I am sure my colleagues opposite will try to blame the opposition for it taking a long time to get to the other place, but it was nearly two weeks between the Speech from the Throne that kicked off this session and the bill being introduced. I wonder why.

This was not a surprise. The court decision that mandated the law be changed was made back in 2019, but it took two weeks to reintroduce this bill. On top of that, last February was the last time we looked at Bill C-7, an act that would amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying. That is right, it was February of 2020.

Why was this not introduced right after the 2019 federal election, as soon as we returned in December of 2019? Why not in January of 2020, or early February? The answer is that the government loves to delay the introduction and debate of important pieces of legislation. The bill we are debating today, Bill C-14, is no different.

Obviously she needed some time to be introduced to the job, but why did the Minister of Finance wait until November 30, 2020, to introduce this bill? By that point, Canadians had been asking for a plan for eight and a half months, if not longer, depending on the province. Why did she wait for two whole months after the start of the second session to introduce this bill?

It was certainly not to give my colleagues in the opposition and I time to study the bill. The Minister of Finance complained on Twitter that we were allegedly delaying this bill, but I think the answer is a little different. I think it was simply another example of Liberals leaving important business until the 11th hour.

I know my Conservative colleagues and I welcome some of the parts of this bill, such as the Canada child benefit top-up, which our leader has been calling for, but we want to make sure we have time to discuss it. The Liberal government has had plenty of poorly written legislation during this pandemic. How else does one explain that this bill would do such things as amend the rent relief legislation for the second time? This is the third try for the rent relief legislation. I know Canadians across the country are hoping this third time will be the charm, but I am not sure.

Liberals like to blame Conservatives for everything, and I know they love blaming former prime minister Harper for everything too, but in the case of Bill C-14, I am pretty sure any and all problems are their fault and theirs only. At this point, it is unacceptable that the Liberals still cannot get anything done.

I know all my colleagues in this House want to support Canadians who are still struggling against this pandemic, but the Liberals are still playing their classic game of delaying and blaming the Tories, and it is doing anything but helping Canadians. The Prime Minister and his party are just busy preparing for a snap election. They are not busy making sure the lives of Canadians are better. A fiscal update has to be in place so we know where we are going in these tough times.

[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 could not be any more wrong. Let us be realistic. I would like to say very clearly to those following the proceedings of this House that the Conservative Party, and the games it plays in order to filibuster what takes place in the House, are absolutely and completely a destructive force. Bill C-14 has had many days of debate, and it is a good example. The government has a limited number of days to bring in bills, and the Conservatives continue to come up with ways to prevent the government from passing legislation. That is the reality, whether the member recognizes it or not.

When will the Conservative Party start contributing positively to ensuring we can pass the important legislation we need to pass for Canadians, such as Bill C-14? It is time the Conservative Party starts behaving—

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

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member needs to probably find some market where he can sell the nonsense he is saying. There is no market for what he is saying because there is no credibility in what he is saying. The government controls the agenda of the House, and it was very good at blaming others when it screwed up on that specific agenda.

It is time for the member and his party to act with transparency. At that time, we will all be looking to help Canadians, but when the government is not acting with good faith and in the best interests of Canadians, then it is going to have to expect delays. That will be its fault, and only its fault.

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

Madam Speaker, speaking of transparency, a huge amount of money is currently being spent, and we, the Bloc Québécois, believe that it is important that a committee be established to review and study all COVID-19 spending, in order to ensure that past and future spending is managed soundly and responsibly.

What does my Conservative colleague think of this?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I happen to serve with the member on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The answer is very simple. I came from the business world where accountability, productivity and results are important. There have to be results. The government is only good at how much it spends on a credit card. That is its strategy.

However, with results, it does not want anyone to question how productive its policies were or how it was able to generate the proper results out of what was spent. The member is correct that the government needs to be questioned about that, too.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, we still do not have a date for the budget. The fall economic statement was late. Instead of a budget, they delivered a very improvised economic statement.

The Liberals have been saying since this morning that the bill is being filibustered.

So far, 22 Liberal members have spoken to Bill C-14. Would my colleague agree that what the Conservatives have to say is just as important as what the Liberals and my Bloc Québécois colleagues have to say?

I think it is important that we get things straight. If 22 Liberal members were able to speak, we also have the right to speak because this bill concerns all Canadians.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very straightforward point. We know the government has dragged its feet on everything since the start of the 42nd Parliament. It drags its feet on every piece of legislation in the House in order to give less time to opposition parties to question. Unfortunately, government members get very upset and disappointed when we take our time to ask questions on behalf of Canadians and the people we represent.

We know the government's style. We know this is the way the government wants to operate. It is unfortunate, because it is becoming a burden on top of the worries Canadians are carrying through the difficult times we are going through right now.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate virtually this afternoon from Central Alberta.

When the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced the fall economic statement in late November last year, many people finally realized just how dire the financial situation we face here in Canada actually is. Unfortunately, very few, if any, of these people are part of the Liberal government, which seems to be content with the concept that putting good vibes out into the world with platitudes like “build back better”, “budgets balance themselves” and “the economy will come roaring back” are somehow enough to just will the outcomes back into existence.

The reality is the fall economic statement has highlighted a number of reasons for deep concern, yet proposes to continue many of the Liberal government's reckless economic tendencies without offering any of the necessary solutions.

There absolutely has been a need to spend money to support Canadians over the past 11 months. I was in support of some of the government's programs that helped support families and small businesses, and Conservatives played a key role in improving these programs for Canadians. While the Liberals like to suggest that criticizing the amount of debt they may have accumulated since taking government means that Conservatives would somehow be less generous had we been in government, that is just a false narrative and another example of putting politics before the well-being of Canadians.

The reality is that successive bad decisions, like delaying the initial closing of the borders, trusting the World Health Organization's data over Canada's own experts, and relying on China for our initial tranche of vaccines, decisions that we Conservatives would not have been naive enough to make, has in many ways forced this situation upon us.

Mismanagement from the outset seems to have stemmed from a total lack of a plan to deal with this pandemic. We came into this crisis with an additional $100 billion in unnecessary debt racked up by the government since 2015. We had less personal protective equipment and other critical supplies because of the government's decision to purge emergency supplies, and we were without our pandemic early warning system, a program cancelled by the government.

We would never have had to make these trade-offs because we would never have allowed ourselves to get into a situation of having among the highest unemployment rates in the G7, while also running the largest deficit in the G7, and having the fewest people per capita vaccinated. I believe we are 52nd in terms of our vaccine rollouts. That is abysmal. We are paying more under the Liberal government to get less.

Perhaps it is unfair to say there was no plan. In fact, retired lieutenant-colonel David Redman, who previously served as the head of the Alberta Emergency Management Agency, has suggested that governments across the country seem to have discarded their pandemic plans and core principles in favour of starting brand new when the virus began to appear here in Canada. Mr. Redman's resumé includes being tasked with closing the Lahr military base in Germany, leading the unplanned withdrawal from former Yugoslavia and re-establishing staging bases in the area, and leading the development of Alberta's counterterrorism strategy after 9/11. All that is to say that he is a serious and well-credentialed individual who has advocated from the beginning that the pandemic cannot be viewed through the lens of solely a public health emergency, but as a public emergency writ large that requires a different type of response.

It is hard to argue that the pandemic has not impacted virtually every part of our lives, and not just people's respiratory health and the health care system at large that supports us in the time of need. I understand that many people are comforted by the status quo of lockdowns and restrictions of civil liberties, because as much as it is hard to do and everyone seems to hate it, it gives some people a sense of control.

Meanwhile, the true cost of these measures will take years, if not generations, to actually determine. While some people may find small comfort in these measures, the financial situation in our country necessitates a reconsideration of how we are responding to this pandemic. My friend, the hon. member for Carleton, outlined perfectly in his speech why the situation is no different from past situations in other countries and how a debt crisis truly is a looming threat.

The Liberals' failures have left Canada in a very precarious situation. We have been forced to abandon the debt-to-GDP ratio as a fiscal anchor, which has now exceeded 100% in terms of government debt alone. During the 1990s debt crisis, our debt-to-GDP ratio was only 92%. In that case, high inflation and increasing interest rates nearly led to Canada's having to go to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout. At that time, the deficits were smaller than they are currently.

The deficit in the 2021 fiscal year is $381.6 billion, which is greater than the total federal spending the entire previous fiscal year. Our federal debt alone reached $1.2 trillion in 2020, with the expectation that it will continue to sharply rise for the next several years, potentially getting as high as $1.6 trillion by 2025. The government is banking on interest rates remaining low for the foreseeable future in order to ensure that we can manage the debt load.

These low rates are the only thing keeping our nose above water right now. While there are many countries taking advantage of these low interest rates, this is not without risk. Some international banks are actually betting that Canada will be forced to increase interest rates ahead of many of our partner countries, suggesting that we will be more susceptible to inflationary pressures. If interest rates exceed our economic growth rates, we will be in for a very difficult time. When we consider that Canada's GDP growth averaged out to around 1.7% between 2015 and 2019, we realize just how dangerous a game we are playing.

While I appreciate that the governor of the Bank of Canada plans to keep interest rates pinned near current levels for the foreseeable future, the reality is that the bank must must respond to the market like everyone else. Rates will not stay low forever, and in order to be prepared for when they inevitably do rise, we need to create high, sustained economic growth.

Creating economic growth is another area where the fall economic statement falls short. It appears to be more of an afterthought than a target for the document, which should not be surprising, since pesky things like a strong economy always seem to be secondary to making announcements about woke concepts that never really deliver for this government. This trend cannot continue, if we hope to avoid a financial crisis coming out of this pandemic, and we cannot afford to wait to get started.

We need to get people back to work safely. We need to empower the private sector, from our small businesses right up to major corporations, and create jobs and prosperity here in Canada, instead of having all of that capital fleeing to other jurisdictions. We need to give potential infrastructure proponents predictability when it comes to their investments, so that they are willing to invest in major projects here in Canada, whether in extraction projects, pipelines, renewable resources or something else altogether. Jurisdictions around the world are going to be competing to attract investment and the jobs and additional revenue that accompany them. Without a concerted effort to make Canada the most desirable place to invest and create, those opportunities will go elsewhere.

The government cannot continue to move the goalposts and signal that it does not want certain well-paying sectors to set up shop in Canada, based on its ideological bent. The energy sector has led Canada out of dire financial straits in the past, and it will be able to strongly contribute again this time, if it is not shackled by the current government's policies.

We also need to empower small businesses to succeed. For the past 11 months, many have been asked to go into an economic coma. Businesses have barely been getting by, and far too many of the shops we love on the main streets in our communities will not reopen. This is not just an economic loss to our country, but an example of shattered dreams for business owners and a physical reminder of the difficult, but sometimes not impossible, choices that families are being forced to make.

A recent survey by the Red Deer & District Chamber of Commerce indicated that over 70% of business owners expected their businesses to either contract or stay about the same for the next 12 months, with only 27% expecting to see growth. In that same survey, nearly 42% of businesses acknowledged that they have had to make layoffs, 55% had substantially less revenue and over 20% were concerned they could not outlast the restrictions put in place by public health authorities. These numbers are very troubling. The Liberals keep saying they are trying to ensure that our economy will be able to come roaring back. However, the small business owners themselves are not confident this is going to happen. We need to create the conditions for them to succeed, something that the fall economic statement does not do.

In late January, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released its 2021 edition of Canada's “Red Tape Report Card”. It showed that for a business with fewer than five employees, including the owner, the cost of regulations was over $7,000 per employee. For a business of five to 19 employees, it fell to $3,380 and it was $2,600 for businesses with 20 to 50 employees. These numbers excluded the cost associated with COVID-19 regulations. The report suggested that 28% of these regulations are red tape or excessive regulation that does not actually contribute to the public good.

We all understand the importance of health, safety and environmental regulations, but it is clear there is a great deal of red tape that can be cut without exposing ourselves to additional risk. The report suggests that the savings could approach $11 billion a year, which equates to 205 million hours or 105,000 full-time job equivalencies. There is a phenomenal opportunity just in red tape reduction.

Conservatives hope that the Liberals' vaccine procurement gets back on track. Success on this front would be for the good of all Canadians. That said, we cannot simply rely on vaccines to be the silver bullet.

I can see that my time is coming to a close. I look forward to the questions that are going to come. We need to get Canada back on track. We need to get Canada back to work.

[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, in fact, the government is on track with the vaccines and has been for many weeks and months now, since we indicated that we would have six million by the end of March, and then get to mid-to-high 20 millions by June.

The Conservative party wants to continue to put off seeing this bill go to committee. When does the member anticipate the Conservative party allowing this bill to go to committee? Does the member have any sense of the impact this bill would have on Canadians if it passes?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, as both a G7 and G20 country, having a track record of being in 50th place in vaccine procurement is not something I would be particularly proud of. I would deflect from that track record by accusing my opposition of trying to delay things.

The reality is that we have the ability as members of Parliament to speak to these matters. I do not get to speak very often on behalf of my constituents because of the format that we have. We have had Parliament shut down quite excessively over the past year. We had a prorogation rather than getting some work done in the summer leading up to the fall.

The government has a number of tools at its disposal. If it wants this bill passed, it would use them to do so.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend made some very good and valid points.

One of the things I would like to ask is this. This pandemic has been over a year now and the government finally recognized the help that seniors and people with disabilities need, especially my ,community along with, I am sure, many other communities across Canada. It finally recognized the help they needed and gave them some assistance. Now we are in a second wave, but we do not know when it will end or when a budget will be in place to help people.

Does the member feel that it is important that a second assistance payment be made immediately to help low-income people get through some of these bad times?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have supported some of the programs put forward by the government that directly assist people. Seniors are very vulnerable and have had to bear some of the costs of this as well, such as drug dispensing fees due to shortages of medication, along with a number of other costs that were pandemic-related. If there is a need for this, I think that all members of Parliament would look to the government to do what is right on behalf of Canadian citizens.

The real frustration that I have is the expenditures just racking up the debt on the credit card. We seem to have no positive outcomes for it. We are fiscally adrift right now globally. We have no anchor to attach our fiscal ship to. Things are going to get a lot worse for us in the future if we do not make smarter decisions on where that money is going. That should not be politically motivated; it should be in the best interest of Canadians.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed out that, despite accusations this morning by the Liberal government that Conservatives have been holding up passage of support for Canadians, the reality is that we have been helping to improve some of these benefits to be more inclusive of Canadians.

My question has to do with this. It is very clear that the Liberal government is positioning Canada for a snap election. Can the member speak to the delay that an election would cause in support going to Canadians?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it would be largely irresponsible for the government to use the budgetary process or the fiscal snapshot process to enable the Liberal Party to position itself favourably for an election. There has been a lot of commentary in the media and even some hints from the Prime Minister and senior Liberals about that possibility.

We should be focused on actually helping Canadians. We should be focused on getting through this pandemic as quickly as possible. We should be focused on giving people back their liberties and freedoms as quickly as possible by procuring vaccines, implementing the use of rapid tests and other therapeutics that will help us get back to life as normal, as soon as possible. That should be job number one for every member of Parliament in the House of Commons: getting us through this situation as quickly and painlessly as possible both financially and when it comes to our mental health and our businesses. That is job one. It should be the focus of everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, we know Bill C-14 seeks to continue the pandemic relief strategy by implementing provisions from the fall economic statement. While its segments cover a breadth of topics, I would narrow my discussion on the bill to two topics today. I would begin with amendments made to the Income Tax Act to provide additional support to families with young children as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses. I believe that across party boundaries we may find that supporting Canada's youth, and young children in particular, is something on which we may find common ground.

Bill C-14 proposes amendments to the children's special allowances program to provide a similar benefit with respect to young children under that program. The CSA program provides payments to federal and provincial agencies and institutions, such as children's aid societies, that care for children. The monthly CSA payment is equal to the maximum Canada child benefit payment plus the child disability payment.

I am proud to say these benefits originated from Conservative government initiatives such as the Canada child tax benefit. This was a tax-free monthly payment available to eligible Canadian families to help with the cost of raising children. It was enacted under former prime minister Brian Mulroney in response to a commitment made by Parliament in November 1989 to eradicate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. The CCTB could incorporate the national child benefit, a monthly benefit for low-income families with children, and the child disability benefit, a monthly benefit for families caring for children with severe and prolonged mental or physical disabilities.

Following the 2006 federal election, the newly elected, Stephen Harper-led Conservative government created the universal Canada child benefit, a new benefit of up to $1,200 annually for children under age six. The UCCB Act received royal assent on June 22, 2006, and UCCB was paid the first time in July 2006. In the 2010 Canadian federal budget, the UCCB was made shareable between shared-custody parents and in that instance, the payment was evenly split between parents, each receiving $50 per month. The measure entered into force in July 2011.

Though our nation, sadly, did not meet the aspirational goal of eradicating child poverty by the year 2000, we have made progress. Since its inception, the Canada child benefit has lifted about 300,000 Canadian children out of—

[An hon. member]

This is rubbish.

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

Can I remind the hon. members who are not speaking to please put their microphones on mute?

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I assure you that this is not rubbish. This is actually the Canada child tax benefit, which has lifted about 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty and helped reduce child poverty by 40% from 2013 to 2017. We should all work to continue to protect Canada's children and youth. One of our largest duties as parliamentarians is to ensure that future generations of Canadians have a safe and prosperous Canada to call their home.

This leads me to measures taken for our teens and young adults, which is my second point. Bill C-14 proposes amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act, Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and Apprentice Loans Act. It seeks to provide that, during the upcoming fiscal year, no interest is to be accrued or paid on existing student loans. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that this would cost the government $315 million in unearned revenue for the 2021-22 fiscal year, and limit revenue generated to $5 million for the next fiscal year. Given how marginal this expense is compared with the extravagance of less responsible and more poorly planned programs, I must ask why the government would allow interest on student loans to resume accrual in the first place?

The Liberals had months to reassess and act on student loan interest measures and did nothing until it was too late. Now students have had months of unnecessary interest accrual due to what has become all too common: Liberal incompetence.

Student debt in Canada is a major burden for more than 50% of Canadian post-secondary students. The effects of student debt are well documented, and impact debt holders' fiscal, financial and mental well-being.

During the early days of the ongoing pandemic, national student loan repayments were paused, with instructions given that the loan repayments would restart in October 2020. In November, however, preplanned payments were not coming out of many accounts and many people were confused. When students checked their loan accounts, they were surprised to find that their payments were shown as being past due and highlighted in red. Automatic payments were fully set up, yet payments did not come out. By November, all student loan accounts were shown as being past due, and many people were worried that this would negatively affect their credit scores.

I heard at that time that few people were able to get through to the government hotline, frequently facing long hold times, transfers and mysteriously dropped calls. When someone actually got through to the hotline, there was a wait of around 98 minutes. To make matters worse for young Canadians, the government website for repayment had crashed. Students were informed that their payments would be coming out immediately; however, some borrowers who logged in and made their past-due payments had to worry about double payments. If the loan came out automatically later that day, it created a huge issue for people on a fixed income. While this situation is now resolved, it did not need to occur in the first place and it stands as a testimony to our government's lack of foresight.

Mismanagement again occurred through CERB payments going to dependent teens who normally would have earned less income working part-time than the handouts the government gave. Much like our vaccine rollout, which was promised to occur at a certain time and has had the goalposts moved, we have been met with consistent failures to deliver, as more and more money is thrown at our problems in half-hearted attempts to appear as if the government is doing something meaningful.

As we stand here today, Canadians go without vaccines and face uncertainty respecting the health and security of their families. It is inexcusable that the current Liberal government has failed Canadians on multiple fronts, that our nation now ranks 52nd in vaccine rollout and that the climbing national debt burden will still be felt by my great-grandchildren. Even if the government persists in ignoring this generation, it will have to answer to these future generations. If our government truly wishes to help Canadian students and youth, I would encourage it to consider working toward a balanced budget and not to bury future generations under insurmountable debt.

Because the members opposite are so fond of asking for solutions to help dig them out of their holes, I would encourage the government to do more.

The government could increase the scope of debt forgiveness on student loans and retroactively cancel interest that should not have accrued through the legislative gap of its own making. It could encourage employers to do more by offering an employer-sponsored student loan repayment assistance benefit. Those are options we have yet to see put on the table.

While I support Bill C-14 for doing something, I think we must all acknowledge it is too little, too late for Canadian students and youth.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke quite a bit about the debt and the burden of the debt. He seemed to be quite critical of the amount of debt that has had to be taken on to support Canadians during this pandemic, so my question for him is quite simple. Why did he support it? All the measures that have been brought before the House to spend money over the last 11 months or so during the pandemic have been adopted by unanimous consent.

Why did he not say that he did not want to support it and not give unanimous consent to that? Why did the Conservatives and every party vote in favour of it?

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

Madam Speaker, this is a common misunderstanding the hon. member across has been perpetrating. The Liberals seem to understand this as a black and white, one or zero, yes or no world. We can help Canadians on the one hand, but at the same time we could do it right so we do not waste so much of the taxpayers' or future generations' money. Besides that, we knew, even before the pandemic, the Liberals had been spending like there was no tomorrow. We know that Canada began 2020 with a deficit of $40 billion. That was prior to the World Health Organization declaring the pandemic, so the members opposite have been in the habit of misspending, spending large and mismanaging the file. That is why we are here to oppose them.

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

Madam Speaker, I have some concerns about support for workers.

I am not sure if the member is aware of the troubling figures released by the Institut de la statistique du Québec regarding job losses in certain economic sectors that are not recovering. The unemployment rate among young part-time workers is very high.

How does the member plan to support these sectors that are in crisis and, in particular, young people, during the economic recovery? Investments will be required.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a huge problem we are facing. Future generations will be taking up an insurmountable amount of debt because the current government has been spending recklessly and is incapable of spending on relief and recovery money. As we speak, the situation is dire. This is where we think the Conservative idea is what will respond best in Quebec, as well as in other provinces. We believe Canadians, including and especially our younger generations, would hugely benefit from a paycheque economy rather than credit card debt. This is where we think the government owes so much to Canadians. It has not been able to put us back on track for a recovery. For example, it dropped the ball entirely on—

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

I have a quick question here for you. More than 30 years ago, the Conservatives—

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

Remember that the question is not put to me, but through me.

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

I apologize, Madam Speaker. My question is for the member.

It was observed 30 years or so ago that Liberals defined compassion as how many people the government could help. The Conservatives define compassion as how many people the government does not have to help.

Would the member say that this debate is really framed in those terms? The Conservatives keep talking about how we reduce the unemployment rate and the the Liberals keep talking about how much money they are going to spend?

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely. This is where the difference in philosophy between the two parties could not be more clear. We want Canadians to—

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

We will have to leave it at that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-14. This is a baby budget or the fiscal update. It is not a full budget. We are in unprecedented times in that the country has been without a budget for almost 1,000 days, maybe more now.

The government will tell us that we are in unprecedented times, given COVID, and that is true. Nonetheless, during the Second World War, we still managed to have budgets and we still managed to have this place operate, holding the government to account, to give a reference for where all the money was being spent.

Bill C-14 would raise the debt ceiling. We are now a country with over a trillion dollars of debt, and the government is running out of room to take on more debt. The government has to come to Parliament and ask it to authorize a larger debt.

It is very interesting that there is no projection about where the debt is going. We are over a trillion dollars already. It is anticipated that the deficit will continue, that we are spending way more money than we are taking in as a country. It is anticipated that over the next number of years that deficit will continue.

What is fascinating about the request to raise the debt ceiling is that even given the exorbitantly high, unprecedented debt that we are taking on today, and the deficit that we have this year, and last year, given the trends, one would expect that once we get used to living with COVID and we get our economy opened up again that this deficit would start to go down over time. Three to five years out, we would expect that we would be reducing our deficit, not our debt, but our deficit. The debt cap that the Liberals are asking for is several hundreds of billions of dollars more than what is projected out, say, five years, and that is interesting.

Why do the Liberals need a slush fund? Why are the Liberals asking for much more room in the debt ceiling than they need? That is the big question I have with Bill C-14.

The Liberals always say that they are taking care of Canadians by spending all this money. That is true; they are spending a lot of money. However, the question is this. Are we getting a Rolls Royce for all that money or are we getting a K-car? If they are spending a lot of money and getting nothing in return, then they are wasting money. If they are spending a lot of money but getting more value than that money being spent, good on them. That is what we want to see.

The trouble is that we have spent billions and billions of dollars and we have seen no economy reopening. No vaccines are showing up. Thousands of business across the country are going bankrupt. There is no end in sight.

We are seeing the largest debt and deficit in Canadian history, unprecedented debt levels, yet there is no end in sight as to when the COVID pandemic will come to an end.

I read in the newspaper this morning that the United States was vaccinating, per day, more people than Canada had vaccinated in its entirety.

We might hear people saying that they are doing their best. However, we do not even have a budget to compare that to. We do not have a projection. When people buy a new car, they look at the market, they look at what they need in a car, the options they want, the colour they want. Then they look at their bank account to see if they have enough money for that car or they have a little more money to get that screen in the car.

If they then find out that the car they want, say a nice Dodge Challenger, is $87,000 but then they go into the marketplace and find one for $65,000, which is a lot of money for a car, it is still $20,000 less than what they thought they would spend. Therefore, it is a good deal. However, if they spend $100,000 on their new Dodge Challenger and it turns out the car is in writeoff status and cannot be insured, then they have a problem. They have spent more money than they needed to and have a car that does not work.

When it comes to the vaccines, Canada is at the back of the line. Not only are we at the back of the line, we spent all this money, unprecedented levels of debt, and we are not even in the line. We are at the food bank. We spent the money and did not get anything.

I am not sure if members know this, but essentially all manufacturers of the vaccines take a percentage of the vaccines they produce and put it with a not-for-profit organization to help out the rest of the world that is unable to afford these vaccines, much the same way a food bank works. Folks who can will donate food to the food banks and those who cannot purchase food can go to that food bank. This way everybody gets food.

We are at a point in time where we have spent all our money, have received nothing and are now raiding the food bank, not because we do not have enough money but we have spent our money foolishly. Now we have to go to the food bank of vaccines to get vaccines.

Last, on vaccines, the government brags endlessly about the suite of vaccines it has bought. That is like telling everybody how many fire departments we have contracted to come fight a fire in our house. We tell our wives not to worry because we have contracted 75 fire departments, which will take fours hours to show up, when, in reality, only one fire department five minutes away would be helpful. By the time those fire departments show up the house will have burned down.

This is what we are talking about with this suite of vaccines about which the government keeps bragging. It is amazing how we have the largest suite, the largest portfolio of vaccines of any country in the world, which is really great. However, if they cannot be delivered in a timely manner, what is the point? When one's house in on fire, one needs the fire department there a minute ago, not four hours from now. It does not matter how many fire departments have been contracted to come to the rescue, if they are four hours away, the house has burned down before they show up.

We spent a lot of money and the government is asking us to raise the debt ceiling with no real rationale as to why it has to be as high as it is. I could see it if it were to match general projections, but why is it significantly higher than it needs to be? We have seen how we have raided the vaccine food bank when we are a wealthy country and have spent unprecedented amounts of money. We may have a Rolls Royce for all the money we spent, but it is a 1991, not a 2021. While 1991 may be the best year, I was looking for the 2021 edition of the Rolls Royce, not a K-car, not the 1991.

Last, there is no doubt that a large suite of vaccines is great, but a timely delivery of those vaccines is as important as how many vaccines we have and, in some cases, maybe more important.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about this bill being a “baby budget”, and he is absolutely right. This is what we could consider this bill to be. However, is he aware that a regular full-scale budget requires five days of debate in the House? Meanwhile, we are the on the seventh day of debate on this baby budget. I wonder if that has to do with the fact that the Conservatives will talk about everything, including cars from 1991, to hold the House up from passing the bill.

However, I will put that aside and address the member's argument about the return on investment. I do not blame him. The return on investment in society can only, from Conservative eyes, be measured through economics. He did not mention that, yes, we might have a high unemployment rate in the G7, but we also have among the lowest death rate per capita in the G7. Does he not think that investing in Canadians should also result in other changes than just pure economic changes in our economy, such as a lower death rate?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Chair, I said nothing about return on investment. In fact, I was looking for value for money.

After one purchases a car and then drives it for a long time, there is zero return on that investment other than having had a car. I was saying that we have to line up what our expectations are and see if we are meeting those expectations.

At this point, the fact is that we do not have a budget, we do not have a template and we do not have a plan against which we can measure to see if we are spending money in a valuable manner.

The House resumed from February 22 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]

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has three minutes remaining for questions and comments.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask a question of my friend from northern Alberta. Could he share a little about the specific economic challenges that are being faced in his riding? I know it is probably similar to the challenges in my riding, maybe a little different, but we are seeing a confluence of factors related to the government's anti-energy policies and factors related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

These are at least two storms that businesses in our province in particular are facing simultaneously. What is the member hearing about these two issues in his riding? I am interested particularly in the recovery. We know at some point that the situation with COVID-19 will be brought to an end, but it will be hard to have a recovery if the government's anti-energy policies continue even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to raise the example of the Loon River Cree first nation in northern Alberta, which is about a five-and-a-half-hour drive north of Edmonton. This first nation has significant business interests in construction and forestry. Essentially, they build roads. Since the downturn in oil prices, the need to build oil field roads is down significantly.

Many of the people who used to work at this construction company are no longer working, so the revenue for the band is down significantly, but the expenses are up, given that they are now dealing with the COVID crisis. They have a checkpoint at the end of the road, so visitors coming in are screened at the entrance to the community. All of these things have added costs for the administration of the community and—

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

We have time for one question from the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council.

[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 am wondering if the member could explain, on behalf of the Conservative Party, why, at a time when we are experiencing the pandemic, the Conservative Party continues to play a destructive force in the House by not allowing this important piece of legislation to pass.

Conservatives continue to debate it indefinitely, and there is so much within the legislation that would help small businesses and other Canadians. Why are they doing this?

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

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has 15 seconds to reply.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the Liberals have been debating this as much as anyone. I believe they have had over 22 speakers to the bill to this point.

Conservatives are concerned about the fact that we have rushed through legislation—

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

Order. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be adding my perspective to today's debate on Bill C-14. I am doing so virtually, but I am really looking forward to being back in the House of Commons in person. It works so much better for us.

I will be talking about Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures. Specifically, I will be talking about part 6, which authorizes payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund in respect of specified initiatives related to health.

My big fear is that we are heading for yet another Liberal Party sponsorship scandal. I am sure everyone remembers that scandal, when the Liberals used public money to fund various PR campaigns aimed at influencing Quebeckers.

Using taxpayers' money, the government signed huge contracts with ad agencies—$322 million worth, to be precise—without subjecting them to strict oversight.

The situation and the objective are a little different now, but the Liberal government's actions seem familiar. Let me explain.

In the case of the sponsorship scandal, the Gomery commission found that there was a lack of oversight at the highest level of the public service. This allowed the Liberals to bypass the proper reporting relationship procedures. The Liberal government is doing the same thing today with respect to the COVID-19 crisis.

We have seen sole-source contracts awarded to the Prime Minister's friends, like the ones awarded to Frank Baylis and the Kielburger brothers from WE Charity. As Canadians will recall, these contracts were signed the same way as the ones involved in the sponsorship scandal: contracts signed hastily without following strict, established controls.

The Gomery commission also concluded that there was a veil of secrecy surrounding the administration of the sponsorship program and a lack of transparency in the contracting process. We are seeing the same thing today.

The Prime Minister is hiding everything he possibly can. He is hiding the details of contracts. He is hiding the details of products and services and, in many cases, he is hiding company names. We even found contracts where the dollar value was not given.

In one case in particular, a contract worth more than $180 million was awarded to company “M”. You heard that right, “M” as in mother.

On the list we also find company “B” with a $91 million contract, company “F” with a contract valued at more than $35 million, company “K” with a contract for more than $69 million. I think we are beginning to understand that the Liberals are playing hide it and keep it hidden. That is unbelievable.

Contracts worth billions of dollars were awarded between February 2020 and July 2020, and it is impossible to find out anything about them. We know nothing about them. Only the name of the product, but not the quantity, was disclosed. Therefore, we cannot calculate the unit price. This prevents us from determining if corruption played a part in the awarding of these contracts.

This kind of management or governance can only be qualified as being completely senseless or corrupt, as I have said. It is up to Canadians to decide.

In its inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, the Gomery commission also came to the conclusion that the sponsorship program lacked objectives, criteria and clear guidelines, so the sponsorships were used for purposes other than national unity or federal visibility.

We must acknowledge that the same thing is happening now with the COVID-19 procurement process. Clearly, the program's guidelines and criteria are not consistent.

For example, if the Prime Minister had trusted Canadian scientists, he could have ensured that taxpayers' money was invested in Canada's efforts to develop a vaccine and not in China's communist regime. The Liberal government decided to invest in China because it has no faith in our scientists and their expertise.

We were all shocked to hear the Minister of Public Services and Procurement downplay the quality of our Canadian scientists when she said, “The reality is that setting up new manufacturing of a vaccine requires expertise, and it requires resources from the supplier.”

In response, Gary Kobinger, the director of Université Laval's research centre on infectious diseases, said that her comments were “an insult to the last decade” and that the minister should “look to our universities and manufacturing facilities, because they are not being run by aliens.”

The Prime Minister often talks about Canadian expertise. However, when it comes time to take action, his lack of confidence in our institutions is clear. The Gomery commission also found that the sponsorship scandal involved political interference in the administration of the sponsorship program.

Looking at the programs put in place by the government to fight COVID-19, we certainly have a number of reasons to believe that the Liberals are once again playing the same old political games by giving gifts to their friends, such as Frank Baylis or the Kielburger brothers.

Finally, in addition to recommending limiting the powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet, the Gomery commission also called for the strengthening of the power of members of the House of Commons. The commission's central recommendation in that regard was designed to provide additional support for parliamentary committees. These committees are working groups of members who examine government decisions in key public policy areas, such as public finance, health care and social services. I can say that the committees did their work, but the Liberal ministers refused to answer questions. Their answers were vague and imprecise. After hours of asking questions in the House and committee and sending formal letters, we still do not know anything more about the contracts granted to deal with the health crisis.

The corruption in the Liberal Party was obvious during the sponsorship scandal and it is obvious again today when we consider the contracts that the Liberals are giving their friends. If what I am saying is not true, then I invite them to put all their cards on the table. We are talking here about tens of millions of dollars in public funds. The Prime Minister should be ashamed, but instead he just continues to hide the truth from Canadians.

As elected representatives, it is our duty to be transparent because every dollar spent comes from taxes paid by Canadians. The people of Canada should be able to trust their government and know that it is being transparent, not hiding anything and not trying to do anything corrupt. It is up to the Prime Minister to decide what to do.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his speech, in which he spoke about health care. This is a very relevant topic these days, given the pandemic.

If we want to provide better care, we need more money, as my colleague pointed out. A special committee on WE Charity would have been able to shed light on some aspects, review the spending and determine how much money was spent on this scandal, money that could have been spent on Canadian health transfers.

My colleague's party and his leader often talk about how important it is that health transfers be stable and predictable. Right now, health transfers cover 22% of total costs. Quebec and the provinces are calling for this figure to be increased to 35%. What does my colleague think about these demands? For some, stability and predictability could mean an increase of just 2% or 3%. Is my colleague prepared to go as high as 35%?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I agree that health transfers must be stable. These days, however, the government is setting conditions. The Liberal Party prefers providing health transfers with strings attached and allocating money to specific sectors. We have always taken the position that the money is to be transferred with no strings attached.

However, we first have to be responsible, assess the damage caused by the Liberal government's management of COVID-19 and see how the public finances are doing at the end of the fiscal year before we can determine how much of an increase we will be able to provide. We will have a serious discussion with the provinces before making any serious proposals.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague covered a lot of the issues of the corruption and entitlement of the government when it comes to COVID spending, and also the incredible lack of transparency. Last week, the Liberals introduced massive proposals to reverse the decline of the French language in Canada and yet we saw with the $1-billion handout to the WE friends of the Liberals that the President of the Treasury Board, from Quebec City himself, testify that he violated the Official Languages Act to push through the sole-sourced contract for the Liberal friends of WE Charity.

I would like my colleague to comment on the duplicity of the Liberals in saying they are standing up for the French language, but at the same time their senior Liberal minister in Quebec City admitted that he violated Treasury Board rules and the Official Languages Act by refusing to do an official languages analysis of the $1-billion gift to the WE Charity.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I want to start by saying that I hope the minister in question, the President of the Treasury Board, who is off on sick leave, gets well soon.

That does not excuse what happened with the WE Charity. Quebec was completely ignored. The impact of the contract on the Francophonie and the French language were deemed irrelevant and not even considered, even though we are talking about a $900-million pan-Canadian contract. That is completely unacceptable. It also serves as further evidence of who the Liberals really are when it comes to French. They claim to take the French language into account, but we see the truth in their actions, which clearly show that they have no interest in French.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House today representing the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap and take part in the debate on Bill C-14, the economic statement implementation act of 2020.

Here we are today, at the end of February, debating an economic statement, not a budget, from last year. We are debating the 2020 economic statement today because the government has not tabled a budget since March 2019, long before the last election. In fact, we have a minority government that has been spending money for over a year without presenting a budget; but then, this is from a Prime Minister who said that budgets balance themselves.

Budgets are a means to identify the objectives the government has set for itself. A federal budget would be the means by which Canadians could determine if the government is recognizing the people's priorities. Last March, it was appropriate to delay budget 2020, but the government has now denied Canadians and parliamentarians a federal budget for nearly a year. The Liberals needed an inch, but now they have taken a mile.

I know that my colleagues on the government side will shrug their shoulders and suggest that none of this matters. They will tell Canadians that they provided Parliament with a fiscal and economic snapshot last July and then a statement in November and all is well, but only because the government party says so. Well, it is wrong. All is not well when a federal government fails to present Canadians and Parliament with its plan for managing fiscal policy.

The persistent absence of a federal budget over the past 700 days should raise red flags for all Canadians and, indeed, all parliamentarians. A government that refuses to provide and abide by a budget is a government that is evading accountability and transparency. Having a comprehensive and realistic plan for managing the finances of Canada during the greatest crisis we have faced in generations is even more important. In fact, the persistent hazards and harm that Canadians are continuing to face in this crisis actually increase the necessity for sound fiscal planning and policy. During this time of crisis, more Canadians than ever before are looking to the federal government for a plan, for leadership, for a budget. I believe that if the government possessed any of these, it would have presented them, but it has not.

It is my honour to represent the people of North Okanagan—Shuswap in British Columbia and my representation is based on one foundation: the people. Over the past year, I have spent countless hours on the phone and computer, connecting with constituents. I want to share some of what I have heard from those constituents whom I represent:

People in the North Okanagan—Shuswap are concerned about their families, their jobs and their businesses. Last month saw the loss of almost 213,000 jobs across Canada, five times more than economists had expected. That sounds bad enough, but to put that into perspective, Canada has lost 858,000 jobs since last February and another 529,000 Canadians are working less than they usually do. That is almost one and a half million Canadians who working less than usual or not at all, compared with a year ago.

At the same time, the recovery of employment opportunities has been damaged by the current government's policies that have severely undermined the confidence that Canadians need to make investments in local businesses, local economies and communities. I have been contacted by individuals, small business owners from across the North Okanagan—Shuswap and across B.C., who are trying to find ways to keep their families together and operations viable, but they keep getting beaten down or beaten back by the policies of the government.

I have one constituent in Vernon who is just trying to get an answer on what channel their company needs to go through to apply to get a device registered that could help in the fight against COVID. She has been trying for over eight months to simply register a machine that could generate sanitizer inside hospitals, but she has been stymied in getting an answer to the regulatory pathway she needs to take. Meanwhile, the same government found a fast track to issue a contract for ventilators to a company owned by former Liberal MP Frank Baylis.

Last year, as the first wave of the pandemic was building and Canada had a shortage of sanitizer, a craft distiller in the North Okanagan—Shuswap answered the call from the Prime Minister for Canadian businesses to step up and help fill the gap. This constituent set aside his regular business and production plans so that his business could provide sanitizers to front-line workers across the region. He did not have to do this, but he did, because this is what Canadians have done through times of crisis. We have gone out of our way to support each other.

However, when it came time for the government to sign massive contracts for sanitizers, Canadian businesses that stepped up in the crisis were sidelined as the government awarded $375 million worth of contracts for foreign-sourced sanitizers. When questioned about this in the House in December, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance smugly suggested that Canadian businesses should apply for government support programs.

This is not a plan or a pathway to recovery for all Canadians. It seems that unless one has Liberal connections, one gets to wait at the back of the line.

Canadians deserve better. They need to know what direction their government is headed and how it plans to deal with the increased debt, which will need to be serviced through interest and principal payments now and over a period of decades. Canadians are not seeing that plan, nor have they seen a budget from the government.

I am proud of the work that entrepreneurs and experienced business owners alike across the North Okanagan—Shuswap have done to keep their employees on the payroll and their customers served, but many have been asked to hold on for too long without any way to plan for their own budgets or futures. Businesses of almost every type are hurting. Personal services, bed and breakfasts, tour companies, restaurants, small markets, crafters, recreational and guiding businesses and certainly not-for-profits are hurting. They are all doing what they can, but the government has not presented a budget or a plan to help them recover.

No one gets it right all of the time, but Canadians deserve a government that will get it right most of the time and a government that is accountable. This economic statement implementation act would help correct some of the faults in previous legislation, but it is not a budget by which the government can be measured for accountability.

I wait in anticipation for the government to finally bring forward its first budget of this Parliament in an attempt to tell Canadians what it forecasts for Canada's economic future so that Canadians, my fellow parliamentarians and I can hold the government accountable. Until that time, I will continue to connect with my constituents to hear their concerns and to carry those concerns to this House and to Ottawa so that we can work together to secure our future.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of time for my friend from North Okanagan—Shuswap and we work well together on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, but the speech he has given today reminds me of the old expression often directed at parliamentarians, which is, “When all is said and done, there's a lot more said than done.”

I heard the sense of urgency in some of the examples he gave of people needing help. We know people need help, but is the Conservative Party prepared to talk out the clock until a budget comes down weeks from now, or is it prepared to move now on the supports and help that so many people need?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap for his speech.

I think we share the same view on the need to fight corruption and avoid losing billions of dollars more, like what happened with the WE Charity scandal. We need to keep all of our money here in order to reinvest it.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the control of the budget. We agree that we need an economic update because we have been waiting for a budget for a long time. We need the numbers in order to know where we have been and where we are going. That is important. However, I would like to qualify that a little.

Would my colleague say that there are some sectors in which budget cuts should not be made, even if that makes things difficult and choices need to be made? I am thinking about health transfers in particular, and my colleague spoke about groups that need help. What does he think about the importance of protecting certain sectors and avoiding austerity measures, such as those used by previous Liberal and Conservative governments?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly the member and I share concerns about what is really needed to help Canadians through this pandemic. We need economic recovery and jobs. That is why we are debating this bill. It introduces $25 billion in new spending as part of a deficit that looks to be closing in on $400 billion this year. We want to investigate and debate this economic implementation act very carefully, but it really is time for the government to step up and provide a real budget so that we know what it sees as Canada's future and Canada's economic plan.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government first got rid of balanced budgets and is now getting rid of budgets altogether. We have not had one in two years.

However, this economic statement proposes to raise the debt limit to $1.8 trillion. That is $1 trillion higher than the debt was only a year ago. The combined debt of all governments is now bigger than the entire GDP for the first time in recorded history. If we add up business, household and government debt, we have a debt-to-GDP ratio of 387%, which is the highest on record. It is twice the historic average, bigger than that of the U.S. during the subprime crisis and bigger than that of Greece during the debt crisis. It is bigger than 41 of the 45 biggest debt crises in the last century.

Does the hon. member believe that if the government and this country fail to reduce the debt ratio before interest rates return to normal, we will have a massive debt crisis on our hands here in Canada?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Carleton that unless we get our spending under control, the risk of increased interest rates is an incredible threat to this country.

I lived through the recession of 1981-1982, when basically there were so many jobs lost that one could not buy a job. Interest rates were over 20%. I personally paid over 9% on a primary mortgage. Our second mortgage was over 12.5%. Those kinds of interest rates are possible, so we must get government spending under control.

Also, most of this borrowing has been done under short-term rates that are subject to change. If it is going to continue, much of it needs to be done under better terms than the government has negotiated.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the state of our economy and Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament back in November.

Over the past year, many Canadians have faced a complete lack of certainty about their livelihoods as a result of COVID. To use a metaphor I recently heard: When it comes to COVID, we are all in this storm together, but some have yachts, others have life rafts, and some are just trying to keep their heads above water before they drown. While the Liberal cabinet members are on their yachts looking after their good friends who also have yachts, such as WE and the SNC-Lavalin group, many of my constituents are barely keeping their heads above water or are losing their businesses.

While programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and other programs have been welcome, and Conservatives have supported them, there are still businesses and people falling through the cracks and drowning, like a young couple in my riding who have a fitness centre. They phoned me here about three weeks ago and were asking if there were any programs available to them. I went through the list, just as I did earlier, and they said that they had applied for them and were able to get about $2,000 from CERB, because with the full closures, partial closures and partial openings, they were not able to get much money. As well, with the rent control, they also only got about $600. During our conversation, they also said that because they cannot be financially viable, they were going to have to close their business. On top of this, now they also owe about $3,600 in debt, because they have to pay out their lease on the building before they can close.

This kinds of things are a big problem for our country. Together, as Canada, we face a lack of certainty in our economic outlook. We see nothing but endless lockdowns and failure after failure when it comes to vaccine procurement. The future looks bleak. Canadians need certainty back in their lives as soon as possible. Canada has the worst unemployment rate in the G7, and the last time I checked, we were 58th in the world in terms of vaccinations per capita.

The other day, my colleague from Carleton pointed out that for years the Prime Minister has been touting how low the unemployment rate is, saying it is the most important indicator, yet now Canada has the highest unemployment rate in the G7, so now it is not the best way of measuring how we are doing. It is funny how that works and that the most important statistics are always the ones that make the Liberals look best.

When I was growing up, we always talked about how many billion dollars our national debt was. When that grew too high, we started talking about debt-to-GDP ratio. Now that is growing too high and we do not even want to talk about that either. It is funny how the numbers and discussions keep changing to make the Liberals look better than what is really happening.

The government's snubbing of Alberta and its natural resources industry predates COVID, but the pandemic has made the bad economic situation worse. When the Prime Minister could be giving the green light to big natural resource projects, his government, as always, is going with its favourite job-killing strategy: death by delay. Across Alberta, hundreds of natural resource workers are wondering where to turn.

A year and a half ago, Teck made the application for the Frontier mine, and they managed to meet all of the Liberals' regulations. It was surprising that five months and three weeks later, the Liberals had still not made a decision as to whether the mine should go through. Yes, they will spout that Teck pulled out of the project, but we have to wonder why a company that spent years and millions of dollars developing the plan pulled out of the project in the last week. I assume they were probably scared that more restrictions were going to be put on than they could actually manage anymore, even though they were going to address how they would be carbon neutral by 2050.

COVID has been tough on families, especially those with young children, and that is why it is good to see in this legislation that the government would be restoring support for families after slashing the previous Conservative government's Canada child benefit program.

On our path to reopening the economy, we need to be incentivizing people to get back to work. A constituent of mine works reception at a small physiotherapy clinic. Under normal conditions, the clinic operates 40 hours per week, and appointments are fully booked. Because of COVID and people not making bookings unless essential, the clinic is now only getting 15 hours of bookings per week. The problem here is that if employees work more than 15 hours but less than 40 hours, they are worse off than they were before. If they work anything above 15 hours, they are no longer eligible for the CERB, and if they work anything less than 40 hours, they are making less than they would through the CERB.

People in all industries across the country are facing this issue. As we try to reopen the economy, we need to make sure that under no circumstances are we incentivizing Canadians to work less.

Most people I have talked to who are out of work want to get back to work. There is pride that comes with earning a paycheque, and those out of work right now are missing that, further contributing to mental health issues.

I was called by one of my friends, who is a young mother and a single parent. She started a business last year cleaning homes. Because she did not make $5,000, she was not eligible to collect the CERB. It was devastating to hear her crying on the phone, asking how she is going to pay her bills and feed her young daughter. This is the problem we have been facing.

We know that one of the industry's hardest hit by the pandemic has been the tourism industry. As a member of the transport committee and the member of Parliament for Yellowhead, having Jasper and Jasper National Park in my riding and many tourism operators across the constituency, I have heard first-hand the struggles of the industry. Small tourism-related businesses have taken out loans that will take a decade or more to pay off, and they expect to go even further into debt before things start to get better. The HASCAP program is a band-aid solution for a complex problem.

Airlines are also in a precarious situation. They have been promised federal assistance, but there is still nothing, a year into this pandemic.

The entire tourism industry needs some kind of plan and soon. These businesses and airlines cannot operate indefinitely while incurring losses.

This legislation is a scary sign of the times. A year and a half ago, when I was elected, I would never have imagined that I would be standing in Parliament today discussing legislation to expand Canada's borrowing capacity to just over $1.8 trillion by 2024. That is a staggering number. When people ask me why I am a Conservative, the simple answer is that I believe in good stewardship of tax dollars. With every dollar the government spends, we must remember that it comes off of Canadians' paycheques. When we are $1 trillion in debt, $1 million here and $1 million there might not matter to the Liberals, but to the average Canadian it is a lot of money we are taxing them on. Every dollar we spend must be respected and assessed for value.

Canadians have been hard hit by COVID over the last year, and the economic implications of the pandemic will be long-lasting. Spending is not good enough. We need a comprehensive recovery strategy and targeted investments to help get Canadians back to work.

As I mentioned earlier, many small businesses are suffering and need financial assistance now. Without this assistance, many other small businesses will go bankrupt through no fault of their own. It will simply be because of COVID. That is why it is very challenging to represent people with small businesses in the tourism sector. Without financial assistance, they definitely will be closing. This may not seem that important to the Liberals, but the point is that they are important to our economy. Without the small business sector, we definitely will be in financial trouble in the future. We need to look after it.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech, and I am confused by how the Conservatives can say that we need to have less spending but make strategic investments and that we need to cut budgets but help more people with new dollars being extended to targeted industries. However, what really caught my attention was when the member pretended that the Canada child benefit had been slashed by our government. We, in fact, doubled it. What we did do was take it away from the very people he was worried about: those with yachts and million-dollar trust accounts. We do not send the Canada child benefit to millionaires anymore. In fact, we have doubled it for lower-income Canadians. Also, during COVID we increased it, and not just the one time in the spring. We have now forecast another expenditure increase for this year after indexing it two years ago.

Does the member opposite really want us to send cheques to millionaires, cut child benefit funds and reduce them to the Conservative levels, as he outlined in his speech, or is he just unaware of how low the Conservative benefit was?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague had an interesting interpretation. The Liberals talk about not giving cheques to their millionaire friends. The Ethics Commissioner sometimes has had some difficulty in assessing the same values or principles at times.

We need to assist families, and that is why I am very pleased we are working to assist families in the future. It is imperative that we do this. Without that support, many of these families will go hungry. I am very appreciative that we are working together on those programs.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke about the importance of supporting the tourism industry, among others. Tourism also includes culture. We recall that in the past, in 2008-09, Mr. Harper's government made many cuts to culture.

I would like to know the Conservative opposition's position on support for tourism and, more specifically, the cultural sector.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, that does go hand in hand. When we talk about tourism, without the cultural activities available, how would we attract people? We need to address that area.

It is very important that when we look at the tourism sector, we also include the arts and culture sector as well.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises many important issues.

It is interesting to hear members of the government talk about how can they support people in need and also control spending. The answer to that is quite simple. Have a plan for growth, support the development of our economy and stop putting unnecessary barriers in the way of manufacturing and resource extraction, which are so fundamental to our national economy. What we do not see from the government is a plan for growth and a plan for jobs.

Could the member comment on the need for a plan that gets people back to work? If people are able to work again, in larger numbers, if we address the unemployment problem, then it becomes much easier to provide the support to people who are not able to work and we will be dealing with the underlying economic situation, such that we have resources in place.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that we point out the failures of the Liberal government. If it had looked at things a little better or done things a little differently, we would not have had to spend huge amounts of money on these programs.

The member is definitely right. If we do not have a plan moving forward, trying to get our economy back in place, we are going to be in this perpetual motion forever of continuing with these programs. We know for a fact that we cannot build an economy and, as the Liberals like to say “build back better”, if we do not have a financial plan going forward.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. so we can move on to Private Members' Business.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.