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.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the chief whip of the official opposition in the House of Commons.

Let us be clear from the start. We have no problem with extending work hours at this time of the year, as in fact our standing orders provide.

However, we are extremely concerned about the motion introduced by the government and voted on a few moments ago, because we know that facilities are limited, given the current pandemic situation. A lot of technical efforts are being made and government officials have made generous offers to co-operate with us, and we greatly appreciate that. However, when we get to this time of year, there is a kind of bottleneck. That is why we have to strike a very fair and reasonable balance between extending the work hours in the House of Commons and keeping parliamentary committees running. That is where there is a disconnect with the motion put forward by the government.

I would remind members that the House of Commons is part of Parliament, and as its very name suggests, Parliament is a place for parley, in other words, for discussion. We in the official opposition discuss things with our counterparts on the government side and with the other opposition parties. I would never, ever go into the details of those discussions. However, one thing is certain and indisputable, that is, that we had honest, good-faith discussions with our counterparts and could not come to an agreement. That is the point.

As we saw, when my colleague, the chief whip of the official opposition, asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons a very specific question, that good man, whom I like and respect a great deal, was unable to give anything even remotely resembling the merest hint of an answer. As parliamentarians, we cannot give carte blanche in terms of which committees will survive this proposal and which will not.

It should be immediately obvious why we have some very serious concerns about the lack of clarity on the parliamentary committees. We need only look at this government's track record over the past few months in terms of parliamentary work.

However, it was funny to hear my Liberal colleague for Winnipeg North talk about everything being in limbo because of Conservative opposition members, that their tactic on a daily basis is to delay, delay, delay, and that there is a filibuster each and every step of the way on each and every bill. This is anything but true.

When we talk about filibustering, I think that the king of filibustering is the Liberal Party of Canada, especially in this session, and there is a record of that. I do not think that the member for Winnipeg North and his colleagues would be very proud of what they have done in committee.

Let us look at what the Liberals have been doing in parliamentary committees over the past few months. They were the ones who accused us earlier of filibustering, as in talking for hours and hours in order to waste time rather than get to the bottom of things.

We can look at the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs where the Liberals had filibustered for 73 hours.

The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours, preventing the committee from doing its work. Why?

It is because we wanted to get to the bottom of things and allow witnesses to appear and explain why the government prorogued Parliament. The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours to prevent witnesses from testifying. Now they are the ones accusing us of being the bad guys holding up the works. It is ludicrous.

However, it does not end there.

We can look at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics where the Liberals filibustered for 43 hours. Why? It was to block getting to the truth about the WE Charity scandal.

There is a common thread in all this, however. When we want to get accurate information on Liberal scandals, they filibuster. They are very unhappy about that and accuse us of wanting to delay parliamentary work, when we are just doing our job.

These are concrete examples, but it does not end there. At the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberals filibustered for 35 hours, once again to prevent parliamentarians from getting to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal.

At the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Liberals filibustered for over 16 hours. The committee chair, who is a member of the government party, unilaterally suspended the meetings 23 times.

This is starting to really add up: 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at a third, 16 hours at a fourth. I have not even mentioned the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, where the Liberals filibustered for 10 hours, between February and April, on the study we wanted to conduct on the COVAX facility, which was created by rich countries to provide poor countries with access to vaccines. Sadly, members will recall that Canada, a rich country, helped itself to the supply for poor countries because it did not have the vaccines that the Prime Minister had announced at his December dog and pony show. That is the reality.

I hear government members accusing us of being the bad guys and filibustering, when they are the ones who filibustered for 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at the Standing Committee on Finance, 16 hours at the Standing Committee on National Defence, and 10 hours at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In light of the Liberals' dismal parliamentary record, we feel it is perfectly valid to want to be sure of what is planned for the committees before we give the government carte blanche to extend the committee and House sittings. However, the government refuses to tell us its plans and instead demands a free hand. We think this is unacceptable.

I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North explaining the status of some bills, so we will take a look at that assessment.

He talked about Bill C-3, regarding judges, which is modelled on a bill originally introduced by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. We are very proud of that legislation, but the Liberal government used the strongest weapon in its arsenal to delay its passage or concurrence, namely prorogation.

Let us not forget that last summer, when the Liberal government was in a real jam over the WE scandal, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met day after day in July and again in August. The official opposition members strenuously challenged the government's moral authority, because it had adopted a despicable strategy for dealing with this scandal.

What did the government do when it was in trouble? It prorogued Parliament. This was the worst thing it could do to slow down the work of parliamentarians. Once Parliament is prorogued, everything goes back to square one. That is what happened with Bill C-3.

What about Bill C-11? I heard the member for Winnipeg North say how important this legislation is, and he is absolutely right. I even remember the member and Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry calling out the Conservatives on Twitter in February, accusing us of delaying Bill C-11 and saying that it was awful.

I quite like the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who is the minister responsible. I have a lot of respect and regard for him, but when I saw that on Twitter, I found myself thinking that I had not seen Bill C-11 in a long time. When I checked, I saw that the last time the government had brought Bill C-11 forward in the House was on November 24, 2020. The bill then sat around for three months, through November, December, January and February, before the government brought it forward again. However, the government went after us in February, claiming that we were delaying it. That is completely absurd.

The member also mentioned Bill C-14, on the economic statement, since there was no budget. The government accused us and is still accusing us of filibustering it, when two-thirds of the official opposition members did not even speak on it.

I am proud to be the House Leader of the Official Opposition. Our caucus has 120 members who duly represent eight Canadian provinces and regions in the House of Commons. We are the only truly national party. I am very proud of the calibre of people I work with, and that is why, when they ask to speak, I am happy to add them to the political debate. However, it is utterly ludicrous to accuse us of filibustering when two-thirds of our caucus did not even speak.

That is why the motion, as currently presented, is unacceptable to us. We are ready and willing to work longer hours as long as the parliamentary work in the House of Commons can be done without compromising the work of the committees, but that is absolutely not the case with this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Liberal budget and raise concerns on several fronts. When I was elected in 2019, and in the years prior during the first mandate of the Liberal government, we saw deficit after deficit with no clear plan for balancing the budget. The grand plan for the budget to balance itself was failing. Now here we are a year and a half since the last election, and the $20-billion deficits we were concerned about then seem like a drop in the bucket compared with the enormous budget we are debating today. For years, the Conservatives warned the government about spending the cupboards bare when times were good, and now we are facing the repercussions of that.

The pandemic was unavoidable. No matter which party was in power, there would have been large costs associated with COVID. However, this brings to mind the famous saying that life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we respond to the challenges thrown our way.

I will take some of my time today to reflect on the failures of the Liberal government and the ways it was too slow to act, which cost Canadians dearly.

First, it was early January 2020 when the Conservatives raised concerns about COVID-19 and called upon the government to take action at our borders. It was not until late March, when numerous COVID cases had already entered Canada, that the government took action. This delay in action would cost us big time. As opposed to a proactive response to the pandemic, what we had was a reactive one.

Second, the government failed to implement and utilize widespread rapid testing. Widespread rapid testing would have allowed more businesses to stay open, as there could have been better testing and tracing. Instead, for the past year, businesses have been teetering on the edge between not being allowed to stay open at all or being allowed to open under strict rules.

Canadians are now 15 months into this climate of uncertainty, with the Liberals only making things worse by not providing them with a clear plan to reopen our economy. I was deeply disappointed when the government voted against our opposition day motion to provide Canadians with certainty and establish a clear plan to reopen our economy.

I believe $354 billion is a staggering number. That is how much debt the government has added to Canada's debt load for 2020-21 alone, bringing the total amount of debt added by the Liberals since 2015 greater than that of all other governments combined. Let us break that number down. The largest purchase that most Canadians will make in their lives is the purchase of a home. Currently, with rapid inflation in the housing market, the average Canadian home is worth $716,000. This means the homes Canadians spend the better part of their lives paying for could be purchased nearly 500,000 times over in this year's federal budget.

When I think about the deficits we are accumulating, what concerns me most is the fiscal mess we are leaving behind for future generations to deal with. The interest on our debt is forecast to be $30 billion per year by 2026, and that is with low interest rates. To put that in perspective, this budget commits $30 billion to child care over the next five years. In the same time frame, we could spend that amount five times over simply just servicing our debt. Therefore, it is extremely important that we return to a balanced budget as soon as possible, so that we are not further increasing what we are paying in interest payments and can instead put money toward helping Canadians get ahead.

A few months ago, I stood in the House and spoke to Bill C-14 and to my concerns with raising our debt ceiling to $1.8 trillion, an increase of $663 billion. My colleague, the member for Abbotsford, compared this to asking for a line of credit from taxpayers but not saying where that money will be spent. Now, in this budget, we finally have some answers as to where this money will be spent and where it will not be.

Alberta's oil and gas industry has once again been forgotten by the Liberals. In the 725 pages of this budget, the words “oil and gas” are mentioned only once in relation to the wage subsidy. While the wage subsidy has helped the sector through COVID, it is not what this sector needs to prosper, and the temporary wage subsidy does not address the root issue of red tape and government roadblocks. When our oil and gas industry does well, Canada does well, and as the most ethical oil producer in the world, we should be creating more economic opportunities for oil and gas by getting pipelines built and supporting our world-class technology and our emerging industry in carbon sequestration. This budget leaves behind the oil and gas industry and all the economic prosperity that comes along with it.

The Conservatives know that spending is required to recover our economy. We had a strong recovery plan after the 2008 financial crisis. We made targeted investments, got Canada's finances back on track and returned to a balanced budget by 2015. However, make no mistake: This budget is not the same thing. It does nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians. Instead, it presents a plan for a reimagined Canadian economy, as the Prime Minister put it. It is a plan that dabbles in risky economic ideas such as abandoning our oil and gas and natural resource industries, leaving our economy in a precarious position. This is not stimulus spending focused on creating jobs, but spending on the Liberals' partisan priorities.

When I talk about targeted support being needed, an area that comes to mind where this budget has a shortfall is tourism. COVID-19 has decimated the tourism industry in Canada, with many businesses on the brink, permanently closing or coming out of the pandemic with large debts. There is no doubt that the programs currently in place are helpful. However, I worry the $500 million allocated to tourism recovery is not enough, especially when the Liberals continuously fail to provide us with a plan to reopen our economy.

Canada's tourism industry has a similar GDP to that of the oil and gas industry, and while at least tourism, unlike oil and gas, is getting some money through this budget, $500 million is not adequate when I look at all the tourism businesses from coast to coast that need support. It is extremely important that we fully recover the tourism industry, especially in communities that rely on the industry as a significant part of their economy, such as the municipality of Jasper in my riding. Approximately 48% of the municipality's GDP was related to the tourism industry.

Another area of the budget that stuck out to me was the unfair and unjustified old age security increase for seniors over 75, as there was nothing for seniors aged 65 to 75, who have also been struggling throughout the pandemic. Statistics Canada recently reported that inflation has surpassed the Bank of Canada's 2% target and is now reaching 3.4%. Policies like the Liberal carbon tax and money printing have driven this inflation, and old age security payments must reflect that. Perhaps when we get to questions after my speech, a Liberal member can explain why they believe 65- to 75-year-olds are immune to inflation. It is far too often that seniors are emailing my office and saying they feel let down by the government's failures to support programs.

To conclude my remarks today, I would like to reiterate that I cannot support this budget because of the staggering deficit and the fact that the new spending in this budget is ideologically driven and completely abandons our oil and gas industry. This long-anticipated budget is a major letdown for western Canadians.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

Support for Families

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, this pandemic has been extremely difficult for many low-income families with young children.

I am proud that Bill C-14 has received Royal Assent. This will make it possible to provide a $1,200 supplement to the Canada child benefit for low-income families with children under the age of six.

Canadians are feeling the financial burden of the pandemic, and this targeted support will provide some much-needed relief to thousands of families in my riding of Vimy and will help more than two million children in Canada.

The Government of Canada has provided 80% of all the pandemic-related support to Canadians, and we will continue to be there for families until this crisis is over.

Public Safety

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his comments today. I had the pleasure of sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

This is a very important issue and a reminder that every incident of gun violence in Canada is one too many. We really must do everything we can to combat this type of violence, which we have certainly seen too much of, and our government is determined to fight it.

However, with respect to what the member just said about the theft and diversion of legal firearms, I would like to set the record straight and remind the House that the chiefs of police of Edmonton, Saskatoon and Regina have all said that this is one of the most common forms of diversion of firearms from the legal to the illegal market.

It is also fair to say that, when the Conservatives were in power, their deficit reduction action plan slashed funding for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. They cut the human and technical resources dedicated to fighting gun violence in Canada.

It is equally fair to say that, at every opportunity, the Conservatives voted against more funding for our security agencies and police forces, funding that was intended to better equip them so they could combat diversion and smuggling, which is how weapons get into Canada and end up being used in violent incidents.

Lastly, it is fair to say that, if we look at the Conservative leader's stance on firearms, it is eerily similar in every way to the gun lobby's.

Let us look at what the government has done and continues to do to address gun violence in Canada.

Starting in 2018, we began investing more than $327 million in the provinces, territories and local police forces to better equip them for law enforcement and prevention activities. We have invested in the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to repair the damage done by the previous government, with its decade of austerity and cuts, precisely where it has the greatest impact on our police forces, in the fight against gun violence. Again in 2018, the Conservatives stayed true to form and voted against these reinvestments in our police forces, including the RCMP.

In the 2020 fall economic statement and in Bill C-14, we committed $250 million over five years to municipalities and indigenous communities to help them invest in upstream prevention and intervention programs to reduce the risks of gun violence. Again, the Conservatives voted against that.

In budget 2021, we went even further. On top of the $250 million in the fall economic statement, the government made a commitment to invest an additional $312 million over five years starting in 2021-22. After that, there will be $41.5 million to protect Canadians against gun violence by continuing to support the work of the RCMP and the CBSA.

I hope that this time, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove will support that. I have only spoken about investments, but we did not stop there. I remind the House that our government tabled Bill C-21, which increases prison sentences for smuggling and illicit trafficking of firearms from 10 to 14 years.

I think this sends a clear message to judges about the importance we attach to these crimes. I hope the Conservatives will support the bill. The bill has a much wider scope, but I unfortunately do not have enough time to go over all the ways in which it helps combat gun violence in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Elections During a Pandemic

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, the House sat during the summer. We actually responded to more questions over this pandemic year than we would have under normal circumstances. I certainly take issue with one of her comments with respect to the work of the House, which has not stopped. I would also mention that the Conservative Party delayed for weeks and weeks the passage of Bill C-14, which had critical supports for Canadians.

If the member opposite is so interested in seeing the House move forward with important legislation, with votes and with programs, then I wonder why the Conservative Party delayed Bill C-14 for such a long period of time. Although I have no more time left, I certainly have a lot more to say on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity today to discuss this opposition motion that was introduced by the member for La Prairie. It is a very important discussion to be having, and I have been listening closely to what members from all sides of the House have had to say about this.

I will admit I am perplexed, as I mentioned in a few different interventions today. Despite the fact that I am squarely in the camp of those who do not want to have an election during a pandemic, I am concerned about the manner in which this motion is being brought forward by the Bloc Québécois. Namely, only two days ago during question period, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, said in response to a question from the Prime Minister that he was not afraid of an election and to bring it on.

The Conservatives and the Bloc seem to be startled by the concept that we would like to be prepared in the event of an election, one that could easily be triggered by the opposition. They seem to be confused by that, yet we have the leader of the Bloc Québécois saying to bring it on. This is what he actually said during question period. When the leader of the Bloc Québécois, a party that quite often is put in the position of being the party that decides between going to an election and not, makes comments like that it gives a great need to be properly prepared and bring forward legislation as is being brought forward in Bill C-19.

I also find it very interesting that the Bloc Québécois has talked about consensus when talking about Bill C-19. There is a need to ensure we have consensus when changing our election laws in this country. Bloc members have mentioned it many times today, but this is extremely hypocritical.

Something else that relies tremendously on consensus in the House is changing our Standing Orders. For those who do not know, when we change the Standing Orders, the rules that govern how we debate in the House, how we conduct ourselves and how we follow procedures, they are usually changed with consensus. Only a year ago, the Bloc Québécois teamed up with the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green members and probably the independents at the time to change the Standing Orders and change the number of opposition days given.

Bloc members come in here and say that we need consensus for Bill C-19 and that there absolutely must be consensus among all parties. However, their actions a year ago when it came to changing the Standing Orders indicated that consensus was not needed because they had a majority. The rules could just be changed with their majority. I find it extremely hypocritical when the Bloc comes in here and starts preaching about consensus.

Of course the response to that suggestion, as I heard before, is that the rules were only being changed temporarily to add those three days. They were not being changed indefinitely. Guess what? Bill C-19 is just a temporary bill. It would temporarily be putting some temporary rules in place in the event that an election happens to get called.

The Bloc really needs to stand up. Somebody needs to stand up and explain to me what the difference is between consensus on Bill C-19 and consensus on Standing Orders. From my position, the only difference is the Bloc's opinion on the matter and its desire on the outcome. We need very important measures in place during a minority Parliament in the event that an election happens to be called, and people change their minds all the time.

The Conservatives right now are saying that they do not want an election, but I sat in the House for five years when the Conservatives said that they did not want carbon pricing. Guess what? They changed their minds on that. Who is to say that they will not change their minds on an election? Maybe, in the event that the Conservatives suddenly say they have changed their minds, as they did on carbon pricing, and that they want an election now, we should have some measures in place on how our Chief Electoral Officer should run an election. That is all that Bill C-19 would do.

Members have been saying it is a permanent change to our election process. I have heard Conservative after Conservative say that we are changing the way that Canadians vote and other misleading information, such as that we could count the ballots until the day after the election, which is totally false. One small exception built into the legislation talks about if an election happens on a holiday Monday when mail is not delivered, then there should be a consideration to count those ballots on the Tuesday morning because they would not have been delivered on the Monday. However, the Conservatives talk about a massive shift in the way that we run elections and count ballots, and about counting ballots after election day.

Think of the possibilities of that happening. There are only so many holiday Mondays during the year, and if it happened it would only be because the mail was not delivered. However, there is a deeper problem to this. When people start making comments like that, when they start talking about counting ballots afterwards, it starts to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of Canadians as it relates to the integrity of their elections. Did we see that anywhere else recently? I think we did. Not that long ago, our neighbours to the south had a leader who sowed the seeds of doubt for months. I think all members of the House would do very well to be very careful when it comes to sowing the seeds of doubt about our electoral process.

Members need to be up front. If they have a problem with the fact that under certain circumstances ballots might have to be counted on a Tuesday, if the Monday was a holiday, they should at least identify that is the case. They should not outright say that all ballots will be counted after. They could then take it to committee and see if the committee could look at how to fine-tune that, but they should not intentionally sow the seeds of doubt in Canadians. I will say I am skeptical on this, because when PROC was studying this in the spring I was on the committee and indeed, Conservative members at the time were sowing the seeds of doubt. I would refer members to David Akin's reporting from back at that time, where he specifically said as he was watching the committee meeting that Conservatives were sowing seeds of doubt about the validity of mail-in ballots.

Bill C-19 is really about temporary measures. It is about putting measures in place just in case. I have also heard numerous members in the House talk about the Liberals being the only ones talking about an election. The member for Calgary Nose Hill said that. I encourage anyone to go on to the Twitter and Facebook feeds of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, and tell me who keeps talking about an election. The Conservatives shared a tweet yesterday. As if there was nothing else to get political gain from, they shared a tweet of a meme that had two pictures in it. The top picture was a bunch of people having fun and dancing in the sun. Above it, it said a one-dose summer.

The picture below that was of a middle-aged man with an oxygen mask on his face, lying in a hospital bed. The caption above that said “Trudeau's summer”. I am referencing it. I am quoting it. I maybe should not have said that. I am happy to be corrected.

However, that is what it said. My point is, who is looking for an election right now? Who is trying to gain political points right now? Go no further than the social media feeds of the two political parties, and we will see who is talking about an election.

We have the Conservative Party blasting out these tweets that are politically motivated. We have the Bloc Québécois whose leader said in the House, two days ago during question period, “bring it on,” in reference to an election, and then opposition members are standing here trying to wrap their heads around why it is we want to be prepared with Bill C-19. It really should not be a mystery to anybody.

If that does not convince Canadians, how about the fact that on 14 occasions, Conservatives and Bloc members have voted non-confidence in the government? It happened on March 8, with Bill C-14; on March 25, with a concurrence motion to pass supplementary estimates; on March 25, with Bill C-26 at second reading, report stage and third reading; on March 25, with concurrence on the interim supply; on March 25, with Bill C-27, which was more interim supply. All of these were confidence votes. On April 15, there was the fall economic statement, Bill C-14; on April 21, there was the budget motion; on April 22, the budget motion amendment; on April 26, another budget motion; on April 30, there was the motion to introduce the budget implementation act. Time after time, opposition members are voting against the government and showing they do not have confidence.

I will hand it to the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who said earlier in his intervention that it was necessary for somebody to work with the government. I will hand it to the NDP: It works with the government from time to time. We used to see that in the beginning, a little, from the Bloc as well. We totally do not see that anymore. The NDP still does, to a certain degree.

I know I am getting towards the end of my time. I want to highlight one more thing with respect to the motion. If we look at the “second resolved clause” in this, it says:

In the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and that it is the responsibility of the government to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls as long as this pandemic continues.

I agree with this. Actually, I agree with the motion by and large. What I disagree with is that it is only the responsibility of the government. I believe that this is the responsibility of all of Parliament. The government certainly has its job to do in making sure that we can avoid an election to the best that we are humanly possible, but the opposition has a responsibility to do that as well. The opposition plays a key role here in a minority Parliament. It could very easily take down the government, as I have indicated numerous times throughout my speech. I think it is important that what is reflected in this motion is the fact that the opposition has to play a role in that too.

With that, I would like to move an amendment to this opposition motion presented by the member for La Prairie, and I hope it will garner the support of this House. It is seconded by the member for Kanata—Carleton.

I move that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “responsibility of the government”, the words “and opposition parties.”

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to provide some thoughts on the opposition motion. There has been a great deal of misleading information, if I can put it that way, so let me start by being crystal clear for those following the debate that the Government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister, has been very, very clear: Our focus since the beginning of the pandemic has been on delivering for Canadians.

Canadians expect their Parliament to work to deliver for them through this pandemic, and indeed over the past many months, we have put in extra effort to make that happen. If we go back to the very beginning, we see the creation of programs that have assisted millions of Canadians, programs that have provided a lifeline to many small businesses, preventing bankruptcies and keeping people employed. We have seen support programs for seniors and people with disabilities, and enhancements of youth employment opportunities. We have seen provincial restart money, money being put into our school systems and the speeding up of infrastructure programs.

The government has taken a team Canada approach. For the first couple of months, there was a high sense of co-operation coming from the House of Commons, but that changed. For the Conservative Party, it started to change toward the end of June. For others, it took maybe a bit longer. Let there be no doubt that from the very beginning, the Government of Canada's focus has been the pandemic and having the backs of Canadians day in and day out, seven days a week. Let there be absolutely no doubt about that.

It is the opposition that continues to want to talk about elections. Further, we have even seen threats of elections coming from some politicians in opposition parties. What is really interesting about the motion today is that we have the Bloc party saying that it does not want to have an election during the pandemic. That is what it is saying today publicly.

I challenge Bloc members to share with Canadians what they truly believe. Last year, the leader of the Bloc party made it very clear. He vowed that if the Prime Minister of Canada did not resign, he would force an election during the pandemic. That is what the leader of the Bloc party said. The very same Bloc party today is saying that we should not have an election during the pandemic.

When he was asked about it last year, he responded by saying that allowing the government to remain in a position of power would do more damage to the country than forcing Canadians to head out to cast their ballots in the midst of a pandemic. He made it very clear that he would move a motion of non-confidence if the Prime Minister did not resign. In my books, that is pretty clear.

We have seen on numerous occasions all opposition parties, or at least the Conservatives and the Bloc, vote non-confidence. We have even seen some individuals from the New Democratic Party support non-confidence measures inside the House, from what I understand. Maybe not collectively as a party, but definitely as individuals.

Members should listen to what is being said in the speeches. The member for Kingston and the Islands and I spend a great deal of time in the chamber or in the virtual Parliament, and we listen to what members of the opposition are saying. Contrary to what some members of the Bloc are telling us today, it is completely irresponsible for us to believe that an election could not take place, when we have had threats coming from the leader of an official recognized party of the House, who is vowing to have an election. Am I to believe that the Bloc members, as a group, have had a road to Damascus experience and now do not want an election? Does that mean they fully endorse the Prime Minister and that what they said last year was wrong, that Canadians misunderstood and the Prime Minister is doing a good job, according to the Bloc now? Is that what we are to believe?

I will tell members what I believe. I believe in the reality of what I see in terms of votes on the floor of the House and some of the words we hear from members opposite, who talk consistently about elections and challenge the government on an election with the actual votes, not once, twice or three times. I loved the way the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is responsible for the Canada Elections Act, asked how many times opposition members voted no confidence in the government: (a), (b), (c) or (d). Those following the debate should keep in mind that any loss of a confidence vote precipitates an election. People may be surprised at the actual number. The President of the Queen’s Privy Council asked whether it was (a) one to four times; (b) five to nine times; (c) 10 to 14 times; or (d) more than 15 times. I am virtually in the House of Commons, and I know it is well over 14 times.

It is not only votes of confidence. Let us look at the destructive force that the official opposition party has played on the floor of the House of Commons and some of the questions that were asked today. Members are talking about Bill C-19, which is a very important piece of legislation. We cannot continue to have confidence votes and not recognize the value of the legislation, but a couple of members said the government brought in time allocation and how mean that was because, after all, it is a minority government and it is forcing election legislation through. We cannot do that. We need the support of an opposition party to do it. Fortunately, the New Democrats stepped up to the plate so we could pass Bill C-19.

Then another Conservative member said the government brought in time allocation and there was very little time for members to debate it. On the very same day the time allocation was brought in, what did the Conservatives do? They brought forward a concurrence motion on a report, preventing hours of debate on Bill C-19. Did it prevent the bill from going to committee later that day? No, it did not. Did it prevent members from being able to speak to the legislation? Yes, it did.

Then some opposition members said it was a bad bill and asked about consensus and even quoted me on it, in terms of how we should strive to get consensus. Need I remind members how they voted? Liberals know how they voted on it. Every political party voted in favour of Bill C-19 going to committee. What the opposition is attempting to do here just does not make sense. We can talk about the frustration of government in terms of legislation.

The Prime Minister says the pandemic is the government's number one concern. We will have the backs of Canadians and we will be there for them. That means we need to pass important legislation that matters to every Canadian. The best example I can come up with offhand is probably Bill C-14.

Last fall, Canada's very first female Minister of Finance presented a fall statement, brought in legislation in December, and brought it up on numerous occasions for debate. We had to force it to get through because the opposition was not co-operating. There was no sense of how long opposition members were prepared to keep it in the second reading stage of the process. That legislation provided support programs and many other things for real people and businesses being challenged by the pandemic.

The government has a very limited number of days and hours to actually conduct government business. The Conservatives, who are the official opposition, know that. They understand it. One might think, given the pandemic and their talk about the importance of being there for Canadians during the pandemic, that the Conservatives would come to that realization, as opposed to debating Bill C-19. One might think they would allow the debate on Bill C-14 to be conducted in a better, healthier way for all parliamentarians and, indeed, Canadians and that they would be willing to participate. One might think that, but that is not the reality.

I have been listening to a number of people speak to the motion we have before us today. I am still trying to learn some of the acronyms in texting, such as OMG, which I believe means “oh my God”. I have probably had three or four of those OMG moments today when I wondered where this was coming from. How could members really say some of the things they are saying?

We had a member talking about how terrible the Liberals were. He said that we were an absolute and total failure and that we were so bad. Is the member scared we are going to call an election because we were so bad? Some members were saying how bad Canada was in acquiring vaccines. The last time I looked, we were the third best in the G20 countries. Canada is doing exceptionally well. We will actually have received somewhere between 45 million and 50 million doses of vaccine before the end of June. As of yesterday, in the province of Manitoba, anyone over 18 can book an appointment to get their first shot.

Conservatives then had to come up with something to be critical of the government on the vaccine front, so they hit on the double dose issue. Conservatives thought they could say that the government was not doing a good job on the double dose issue.

I ask members to remember, back in the December, some of the opposition's criticisms of the government. Criticism is fair game. The Conservatives are in opposition, and I wish them many years in opposition. They are entitled to be critical of the government and the things we are doing. However, it is another one of those OMG moments. They need to get real. They need to understand what Canadians want us to be focused on.

To my friends in the Bloc, they should seriously think about what their leader has been saying and the posture the Bloc has taken for the last number of months. When I saw this particular motion appear on the Order Paper, I had to give my head shake and ask myself if it was really coming from the Bloc. The Bloc has been the clearest of all in terms of wanting an election now.

I do not believe this. It might be what the Bloc has been thinking in the last 72 hours, but who knows what their thoughts are going to be 24 hours from now. That is the reason we brought in Bill C-19.

If there are concerns for Canadians regarding a potential election, given the behaviour we have seen from the opposition, one responsible thing to do would be to actually pass Bill C-19. Let us get it through committee. I think about how much time have we allocated toward Bill C-19. I was prepared to speak to it on a couple of occasions. One day, maybe back in January or February, I was primed and ready to go. It was going to be called up and, lo and behold, the Conservative Party brought in a concurrence motion. That was not the first time.

Ironically, once time allocation was put on Bill C-19, Conservative members did it again. They brought in another concurrence motion that prevented people from being able to speak on the legislation, even though it was going to committee. It just does not make sense. We have the vote on it. Conservatives were trying to frustrate the government in terms of not allowing the bill to proceed, so one would think that they were going to oppose it, but that was not the case. Of the entire Conservative caucus, those who voted, voted in favour of it.

Now Bill C-19 sits in limbo, although the Liberals would like to see it actually being talked about. There are some good ideas there. The minister has been very clear that he is open to ideas. The member for Elmwood—Transcona has talked about a number of possible amendments.

I think that we have been fairly clear in terms of getting the legislation before the committee. It is there. The committee can deal with it at any time now. Is the opposition being sincere about being concerned with the pandemic and what takes place in an election? We know that, no matter what, Elections Canada, while being recognized around the world as a first-class independent agency with the ability to conduct an election, would benefit from this legislation if we can get it passed. I think it is the responsible thing to do. Just look at the number of non-confidence votes we have had: 14 or 15. This would be a responsible thing for us to do.

Why not allow that discussion at committee? If we take a look at the principles to be looked at, they are just temporary measures. We do not know how long the pandemic could potentially carry on with variants and so forth. We are very optimistic today, but there are long-term care considerations. Bill C-19 talks about extending the number of polling days and mail-in ballot enhancements.

We have seen other governments in three or four provinces that have actually conducted provincial elections. We saw a huge election just south of the border. We saw by-elections conducted by Elections Canada. I would like to see PROC deal with the bill, and the sooner the better.

I encourage members to recognize two facts. First and foremost, since day one this Prime Minister and this government have been focused on the pandemic and being there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Second, when it comes to talking about an election, it is the opposition that does a lot more talking about it than the Government of Canada or the Prime Minister.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech with a single line: Mr. Speaker, I told you so.

I mean no disrespect, but about a month ago, in mid-April, I said that I would not be surprised if Bill C-14 would not go through the other place by the time we got our hands on this 2021-22 budget. Obviously, I was right. To make it even better, Bill C-14 has not been returned to us and it has been a month since I made that prediction. However, I am not here to speak to Bill C-14.

I am here to speak to another bill. It would spend a lot of money. It would massively increase our national debt and it would not do a whole lot to help Canadians. I am going to be speaking to Bill C-30 because, like I said, this budget would spend a lot of money: $154.7 billion. Even if Bill Gates were to liquidate his entire net worth, that still would not be enough to cover the bill for this. I want to talk about all of this money.

If my colleagues here would think back to last year, when this finance minister started her current portfolio, she was very eager to bring Canada's fiscal firepower to bear if September's throne speech is to be believed. However, there is a bit of a problem with that. This is not Hollywood. We can run out of ammo. Our barrels can overheat. We need some way to not burn through all this firepower too fast or, in other terms, we need some sort of fiscal anchor.

Why do we need a fiscal anchor? Fiscal anchors serve as notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy. They serve many purposes: one, retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets, like credit access and favourable rates; two, establishing a positive investment climate for businesses; and, three, providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government. If the finance minister does not have one, it becomes very difficult for her to put any sort of constraints on her colleagues in cabinet and caucus, and ensure that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

Before COVID-19, the current government's fiscal anchor was to decrease the debt-to-GDP ratio. That anchor has disappeared. Now the budget has one, a vague, pretty useless one. Great, they are committed to reducing the debt, but the fiscal anchor is supposed to be a prudent, specific debt target, not “we will lower it over the medium term”. Fiscal anchors need to be a target that people can use to hold the government to account with no vague statements.

It is clear that this budget does not have a fiscal anchor. It is clear that this is just written in there to hide the Liberals' lack of future planning. What kinds of fiscal anchors could the government have used? I am not talking about that vague, literally, one line that is in the budget.

The first one is the debt-to-GDP ratio. This is what the Liberals would clearly claim they have got right now, but, again, they need targets and accountability, not vague statements and no accountability. A good example would be keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio under 30%. Any of my colleagues here may remember that as Bill Morneau's favourite target. The so-called anchor in the budget says it wants to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, but it does not provide a goal or a target. Therefore, when debt to GDP is at nearly 50%, a reduction is pretty easy to do, but whether the reduction is effective is another matter.

Another anchor the government could be using is something like the deficit-to-GDP ratio. Again, they have a one-off section about this one, simply saying that the government will reduce COVID spending. Great, but what about other spending? This budget introduces a lot of spending, permanent spending, including stuff like made-in-Ottawa child care programs and made-in-Ottawa pharmacare. This is a lot of new permanent program spending, and these are just small drops in the bucket.

The PBO found that the purported growth spending in the budget would only produce a fraction of the government growth that the government said it would. Therefore, the PBO found that with 1% growth on 74,000 jobs, $100 billion would result in over $1 million per job.

If keeping the deficit-to-GDP ratio down is one of this budget’s fiscal anchors, why would the government spend so much money frivolously? In all honesty, had I asked that in question period, I would have received the government's famous non-answer, which is disappointing.

Since we both know that it will not answer, I will tell the House what the real reason is that the federal government wants to spend this avalanche of cash. It is an election budget. That is why there is a lot of growth funding that would not cause growth. There are no productivity measures, and there is nothing to address Canada’s uncompetitive regulatory regime. It is just a lot of money for programs that look good in a nice, red-covered election platform with a big L on the front of it.

What really, deeply worries me is that the government does not seem to care about what all of this purposeless spending will cause. It is not just from this budget, but all of the previous ones too. The government has spent more than all previous prime ministers in the history of Canada combined. At this point, the government is spending so much that our grandkids, if not our great-grandkids, will still be paying it off. It is like taking out a credit card in their names, maxing it out, and leaving it for them to deal with.

As with actual credit cards, the interest rate is critical to this. I know that the minister would say, “Oh, it’s fine, the interest rate is low so we can borrow easily,” a quote from the minister, but again, our national debt is like a credit card. If there is even a one-percentage-point jump in the interest rate, that is another $10 billion per year in debt-servicing costs. Just like with credit cards, the interest can go up if we do not pay down our debts.

What if another massive crisis comes up, and we end up spending another few hundred billion dollars? Our creditors might start wanting us to pay the money back, and it will be tougher for that future government if it needs to borrow money during that crisis.

We also have to consider inflation. What if inflation goes up in the future? Right now, the Bank of Canada has the inflation rate at 2.2%. I know they like it around 2%, but what if the inflation rate keeps increasing? If we keep injecting all this money into the economy, it could cause inflation to spike.

Consider if inflation rose to 5%. Everything would cost more, which is a normal practice, and the value of our currency would drop by 5% year after year. That might not sound like much, but it would add up if it went on like that for a decade.

I am sure all of us who are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s will remember that it was not pretty stuff. Most of us are only a decade or so out from retirement and we will all get good pensions, but not all Canadians will.

My kids are in their early twenties, and I know a lot of our colleagues have kids who are younger than that. Do we really want to leave this fiscal mess in their laps, or in our grandchildren's laps? I know that I do not.

Our legacy should be having rebuilt Canada with a strong, competitive economy that will be there for decades to come, not spending our money for no purpose other than to help the government win an election. We need to spend within our means, not outside of our means, our kids' means and our grandkids' means.

Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to relevance. The member has been going off on a tangent that is nowhere near the concurrence report we are debating. He is talking about Bill C-3, Bill C-14, Bill C-19, all except the matter before the House right now. This is a concurrence report. We are supposed to be debating about Line 5. This is important.

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

Madam Speaker, to say whether I am surprised or disappointed, the short answer would be no. I am not surprised that the Conservatives would move a motion of concurrence on a particular report. They have demonstrated in the recent months that they have really lost focus on the pandemic. I am trying to be nice in my criticism here, but I do believe at times that I need to be bold and to say what I believe the Conservatives are actually doing, which is not focusing at all or giving the attention that should be there from the official opposition in dealing with what is a very important issue to all Canadians.

The Conservatives continue to want to play partisan politics, and that is why I am not surprised, because they have been doing this for a while now. I am disappointed. I am disappointed again, and ongoing, because as the Conservatives insist on playing games on the floor of the House of Commons, they are filibustering whenever they can in an attempt to encourage a dysfunctional House of Commons and discourage important legislation from being debated so they can ultimately say that the government cannot even get its legislation through. If we look at the behaviour of the Conservative Party, it does not take a genius in a group of 12 to cause a lot of frustration on the floor of the House of Commons, and we get the official opposition choosing to do that.

Today is an excellent example. Earlier today, I was on a Zoom call with the Prime Minister, my Manitoba colleagues and a hundred nurses in the province of Manitoba. We were listening to what nurses in Manitoba had to say. That is the priority, and has been the priority, of this government from day one. I contrast that to what we have witnessed day in and day out over the last number of months coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. They should be ashamed of themselves.

The member for Chilliwack—Hope tries to give the impression that I do not care about Line 5 or the jobs and the other indirect and direct things related to Line 5 and that is why I do not support having us debate this motion we are debating today, the concurrence on the report. That is balderdash. It is just not true. Like all Liberals in the House of Commons, I am very much concerned about Line 5 and the impact it is having, not only on Canada, but also on the U.S. We understand and appreciate the importance of the issue. The Minister of Natural Resources, whether in question period or other debates, including the emergency debate, has been very clear on the issue.

The Conservative Party, surely to goodness, would recognize that we just had an emergency debate on the issue, just last Thursday. Members should listen and read in terms of what was actually said then. It started off with Conservatives just bashing Ottawa and saying how bad we are in regard to Alberta, to try to perpetuate more misinformation, as if this Prime Minister and this government do not care about the province of Alberta. Members can look and see what kind of ideas came from the Conservative Party in the emergency debate. There was not one Liberal who said “no” to having an emergency debate.

I had a chance to speak during that debate, and I am going to share some of the comments I made on Thursday night, but even with the emergency debate that took place, the Conservatives came up with this concurrence motion on a report that has absolutely nothing to do with Line 5 or a relationship between Canada and the U.S. For those who are listening or participating, or who care about what is taking place in the House, that is not the real motivation here. The Conservatives can say whatever they want and try to come across as meaningful as they want, but at the end of the day, it has more to do with frustrating the government's legislative agenda, the things we want to accomplish in the House of Commons.

They continue to push, saying that the House of Commons is dysfunctional. The Conservatives try to do two things. The first is character assassinations, and I understand I was one of them earlier today in an S.O. 31. The second is the ongoing filibustering taking place in the House of Commons so that important legislation cannot get through.

We should look at some of the debates and frustrations that have been sensed on the floor of the House of Commons because of the irresponsible official opposition. Those who might be sympathetic to their terrible behaviour should look at Bill C-3, as an example, and the hours and hours of debate on the education and training of judges in the future on sexual assault and so forth. It was a Conservative bill. It passed everything and is coming back. We introduced it as a government bill so we could put it in place. Everyone agreed to it, even in the Senate. It got royal assent very recently. The Conservatives debated that for hours and hours on the floor of the House of Commons. Was that really necessary? No.

What about Bill C-14? The economic statement was released in November, and the legislation was brought forward in December. No matter when we called it up, the Conservatives attempted to filibuster that through concurrence motions, too. In that legislation, there were important things to subsidize and support Canadians, individuals, families and small businesses. One would think the Conservative Party would have cared, but it had no problem filibustering that one, too.

We just had to bring in time allocation on Bill C-19. It is a minority government. We have to ensure, as much as possible, that Elections Canada is best prepared, enabling it to do a little more on a temporary basis. However, the political spinners within the Conservative Party do not want to go that way. They say they want to remain focused. Being focused to them is to push for a dysfunctional chamber and character assassination. That is what they are all about. It is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

May 6, 2021

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Administrator of the Government of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 6th day of May, 2021, at 6:27 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, and Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to address the House of Commons, and this is a special time in that we are once again debating very important legislation. I am feeling very positive and encouraged because we presented, for the very first time in Canada by a female Minister of Finance, plan of action that would have a profoundly positive impact in every region of our country.

It is with pleasure that I encourage my colleagues across the way to recognize the true value in this legislation. As I suspect there is a chance a good number of opposition members will be supporting the legislation, we need to try to get it through the House of Commons in an appropriate and timely fashion, and not go through the same process we did with Bill C-14, given the very nature of the limited time frame we have to get government agenda items through the House of Commons. I encourage the House to deal with the legislation accordingly.

It is an exciting budget, therefore it is a solid and exciting budget implementation bill. Before I comment on that, I wanted to give a bit of a personal update on why I think Canadians should be feeling more positive and have a sense of hope. In the news in recent days and weeks, we have heard a lot about the coronavirus and how it is affecting our country, particularly some of those hard-hit areas, in this third wave. I am thinking of the province of Ontario and many of my Ontario colleagues, who are very strong advocates and who are expressing their concerns to make sure the Prime Minister and the House of Commons understand the severity of what is taking place in the province.

Last night we held an emergency debate regarding the hardships and impacts of the third wave in Alberta. No matter the area or region of the country, the Government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister, is doing everything it can to ensure we minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus. As I have said on many occasions in the past, we have been there since day one on this issue.

The Winnipeg Free Press ran a wonderful story that reads something to the effect that bookings for the second dose of the vaccine could begin as early May 22. Vaccines are a major part of the recovery, and I am feeling very optimistic because of the numbers. Not only have we been able to, as a national government, secure the vaccine doses so critically important for our recovery, but we have also exceeded the numbers we told the provinces they would be receiving.

For example, for the first quarter, we said to Canadians before December that we were looking at getting six million doses. I think it was closer to nine million. Recently, we heard very good news about the total number of vaccines we will have before the end of June. We anticipate receiving somewhere in the range of 48 million to 50 million doses before the end of June. Keep in mind that we have a population base of 37.5 million.

We are on track and the numbers show that. Today's headlines regarding the number of doses in the province of Manitoba and the second dose reinforce that. For example, today we have had more than 14.5 million vaccine doses administered in Canada. We have actually received over 16.8 million doses, which have been circulated to provinces and territories. I believe we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Contrary to what many of my Conservative friends would try to leave with Canadians, misinformation is not what we want. What we want to do is send a very simple message to Canadians today on ways they could continue to help and make a difference in fighting this pandemic.

The first and most important thing is to get the vaccine. When the opportunity is there to get the vaccine, Canadians should take advantage of it and get the shot. People ask which vaccine is the best one. As the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and a litany of other leaders throughout this country have said, the best shot is the first available shot. I believe the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health got the AstraZeneca shot, because that was the first shot available to them.

Another thing that everyone could do is encourage others to get vaccinated. We have to appreciate that there are people who have concerns. For those who have concerns, we need to talk to them and explain in the best way we can how their concerns could be dealt with and how important it is that people get vaccinated, including those individuals who have concerns.

We need to listen to what our health experts are saying and what science is telling us. The best way, the healthiest way for Canada to recover and build back better is to build confidence in our communities, get people vaccinated and ensure that we continue to do whatever else we can. For example, in the meantime, we still need to maintain physical distancing. We need to continue to wash our hands and wear masks. All of these things are important, and every one of us could practise that, along with the promotion of getting vaccinated.

I believe that if Canadians look at the budget document being debated today, they will see that it fits with what the Prime Minister indicated 12-plus months ago. The first priority is indeed the coronavirus, and being there for Canadians in that very real and tangible way. I will get into that shortly. That was the first priority, and we need to remain focused on that. The second is not to forget all the other responsibilities that we have as legislators, cabinet and others who are feeding into the decisions, and the importance of dealing with all other aspects of governance at the national level.

I am very proud of the fact that this budget reflects those types of priorities. It takes into consideration the extension of programs that have been absolutely essential to support Canadians through this very difficult time over the last number of months. It does that by ensuring that there are extensions. The legislation we are debating today is going to be there to support those types of extensions of critical programs: the Canada emergency wage program, the Canada emergency rent support program, and the recovery benefits program, which is a takeoff from the CERB program.

When we go back to the origins of the programs, we find that the direct payments to individual Canadians have been an overwhelming success. Yes, there may have been some problems here and there that crept in, but the overriding concern of getting money into the pockets of Canadians was achieved by these programs. We are talking about just under nine million people. Members should think about that. Out of 37.5 million people, nine million were affected directly through a program of that nature. We can think about the jobs and the wage subsidy program, and how this legislation would enable the extension of that program. Do members know how many people it kept in the workforce during this very difficult time for companies? Tens of thousands, going into millions, of jobs were allowed to continue in good part because of this program.

I remember when the Prime Minister held a virtual meeting with some of the ethnic diversity of the province of Manitoba. The Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg was one of them. The council talked about the importance of the wage subsidy program and how it has allowed it to keep its doors open. The impact of the Folk Arts Council for the city of Winnipeg is tremendous. We need the folk arts. That is Folklorama, where we can talk about the arts and celebrate diversity. That is what Folklorama is all about. Not only did the wage subsidy program help employees in manufacturing and many other jobs, but it also helped in the area of arts and culture and non-profit organizations. We have many non-profit organizations that stepped up to the plate to support Canadians throughout the many different regions and communities within Canada.

The pandemic is not over. We need to ensure that those programs, at least in some fashion, continue on, and we see a government that, through this legislation and the budget, maintains that commitment. How many businesses are receiving the rent support program? Some businesses would say that had it not been for the rent subsidy program, it is questionable whether or not they would be able to open their doors.

Here is the problem with the Conservative approach to the last 12 months. The first couple of months, the Conservatives wanted to be part of team Canada, but toward the end of June of last year they forgot that and put on the political partisanship hat. I do not care what any of them say; that is the reality. The Conservatives are more concerned about getting a political advantage than they are about contributing in a healthy way. I can demonstrate many examples of that.

I found it interesting listening to the Conservatives today. What are they talking about? They are talking about the debt, how much money we are spending, and how it is so much money. How many times did they support us unanimously in order for us to spend some of the money they are criticizing us for spending today? On the one hand, they talk about deficits, but I think they have some hard-right Conservatives in there. We have to look at the background of the Conservatives. There is a very strong reform element to the Conservative Party. It is not the same Progressive Conservative Party of the 1980s. There are a lot of hard-right personalities, going back to Stephen Harper himself. It is funny that they talk about caring for seniors. What did they do for the CPP? They did nothing. One of Stephen Harper's goals in life was to suggest the dismantling of the CPP.

The far-right Conservatives and their reform mentality are no friends to progressive policies that are helping Canadians today and will continue to help them into the future. Hobbes means a lot to them, the whole dog-eat-dog world type of thing. I do not believe for a moment that they would develop the same types of programs that we have put forward. There is a certain element within the Conservative rank and file that seems to be dominating the debates recently, which is on the far right with that reform mentality.

I believe, at the end of the day, that we needed to be able to borrow the monies to support Canadians. The Conservatives would have rather seen more bankruptcies, more personal debts. Where would the support have come from if people could not pay their mortgage or buy the groceries for their family? What would have happened because they could not work? That is why it was critical that we develop these programs. There is a progressive element within the Conservative Party that I believe recognizes that, but it seems to be a little more quiet nowadays and we rather tend to hear the others.

We see that in terms of the Conservatives' approach to the coronavirus. It is truly amazing. We can just look at some of the debate that took place last night about Alberta. All the Conservative speakers could do is think about how to blame Ottawa. This is all about blaming Ottawa.

Ottawa has been working with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, stakeholders and so many others throughout this process, including many of those comments incorporated into the budget itself. When the Prime Minister said that we can learn from this experience and we can build back better, that is exactly what is taking place in this budget.

We can think of child care. Quebec has, over the years, developed a wonderful child care program. We are looking at ways in which we can expand that. Not only does the individual family benefit, but so does the economy. We know that. Economists tell us that if we can expand the economy by increasing the workforce, the contribution to the GDP will be enhanced. It is a progressive policy.

We could talk about other initiatives. We recognize that there were serious problems, for example, with long-term care facilities, so the Government of Canada listened to what Canadians in all regions of our country were saying about long-term care and the concerns they had, especially in the first six months or so of the pandemic, when there were some serious problems, to the degree that we had to bring in the Canadian Forces and the Red Cross to assist in our care home facilities. One thing that has come out of it is that we needed to ensure that there are some national standards dealing with long-term care.

My Bloc friends are really offended by that. I would tell them that even people in Quebec recognize the value of national standards for long-term care. That is something we need to see and, as a government, we are committed. Every Liberal member wants to see our seniors being taken care of properly and recognizes that Ottawa does have a role to play—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are very proud of introducing the Canada child benefit. It has provided wonderful support to families right across the country. My understanding is that it was through Bill C-14, the passage of elements of the fall economic statement, that the Canada child benefit increased. If it has not happened already, my understanding is that it should be happening very shortly.

Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will answer in two parts. First, I love our announcement about the two billion trees. It is something tangible and Canadians can really relate to it. I look forward to its ultimate realization, as we have actually seen tangible movement.

Second, I have frustration with Bill C-14 and how the Conservatives decided to play politics more so than act in Canadians' best interests. It is an absolute and total shame that, when Canadians needed us most, when we needed to be there, the Conservatives squandered away opportunities to see Bill C-14 pass, which would have enhanced things for Canadians, whether through the wage subsidy or the Canada child benefit program.

I am very proud of the fact that the Prime Minister has never lost sight of the first priority of this government, which is the pandemic. We are combatting it and ultimately striving to build back better.

Carbon Pricing

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

Madam Speaker, one of the pillars of Canada's work to combat climate change is putting a price on carbon pollution.

A price on carbon provides Canadians with an incentive to make more environmentally sustainable choices and to invest in greener alternatives that create a cleaner economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal carbon pollution pricing system has two components: a regulatory system for large industry, known as the output-based pricing system; and a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, otherwise known as a fuel charge.

The latter applies in the province of Saskatchewan, which the member for Souris—Moose Mountain represents. Consumers do not pay the fuel charge directly to the federal government. Furthermore, the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system remain in the province or territory of origin. In the case of Saskatchewan, approximately 90% of direct proceeds from the fuel charge are returned to residents through climate action incentive payments.

The remaining fuel charge proceeds are used to support small businesses, schools, universities, municipalities and indigenous groups. Fuel producers and distributors are generally required to pay the fuel charge and, as a result, the price paid by consumers on goods and services would usually have the cost of the fuel charge embedded.

With respect to the GST-HST, it is calculated on the final amount charged for a good or service. The general rule that was adopted at the inception of the GST in 1991 is that this final amount includes other taxes, levies and charges that apply to the good or service, and that may be embedded in the final price. This includes the fuel charge as part of the federal carbon pollution pricing system.

This long-standing approach to calculating the GST-HST helps to maintain the broad-based nature of the tax and ensures that tax is applied evenly across goods and services consumed in Canada. It also simplifies the vendor's calculation of the amount of tax payable, since the vendor is not required to back out other taxes, levies or charges at the point of sale in order to determine the amount of GST-HST payable.

The Government of Canada has been clear that it should not be free to pollute in Canada. However, I want to strongly emphasize that the government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. I know that all members are concerned about the state of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada right now. To truly support small businesses during this unprecedented time, I urge all members to come together to support the passage of Bill C-14 so that we can continue to provide targeted and meaningful investments to help Canadians who need them the most.

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

Madam Speaker, a while back, I asked a question about the Liberal government collecting GST on the carbon tax. In my question, I also referenced a constituent, a small business owner, who had already paid over $2,500 in GST on the carbon tax since April 2019.

The answer I received from the Minister of Finance was extremely disappointing. Instead of addressing the actual issue of GST being charged on top of the carbon tax, she started talking about Bill C-14, which was completely unrelated to the question I posed. Her flippant non-answer was insulting to many Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet while their household bills are increasing. I hope the Liberals will stop and listen to someone other than themselves.

In simple terms, the question was about charging the GST, a federal tax, on the carbon tax, another federal tax, and why top finance officials are saying that they don’t pay it, yet small businesses are paying it.

The minister’s non-answer is unfortunately a continuing trend. In September, I submitted an Order Paper question requesting the total amount of GST collected on the carbon tax since January 2017. The response I received was convoluted and did not provide any of the actual numbers requested. Instead, it pointed me to the annual report that was about to be released.

That annual report was also extremely convoluted and did not provide the breakdown of numbers I had asked for, further proving to me that the government is doing everything it can to sweep the fact that it collects GST on the carbon tax under the rug. If Liberals are so proud of the tax regime they have created, why will they not give us the numbers? In my view, they are clearly trying to hide the tax, hoping that if people do not see it, it does not happen.

Perhaps it is because they do not actually understand the numbers themselves. The whole reason I asked this question was because the top finance official who was testifying at committee did not know that GST was charged on top of the carbon tax. He answered “no” when asked the question directly. How are Canadians to trust the government has their best interests at heart when its experts do not even know how its programs work?

The constituent I mentioned also owns a small trucking company that services the oil and gas industry. She has been tracking the amount of GST she has been charged on the carbon tax just for diesel fuel alone, and she has serious concerns about the viability of her business going forward. By the time the carbon tax reaches $170 dollars per tonne in 2030, she may already have had to shut down for good. This is the case for many small business owners.

That is not what the government wants, is it? Perhaps that is another debate for another time.

The fact of the matter is that rural Canadians are being hit hard by the carbon tax and the GST that is being charged on top of it. In Saskatchewan, it is not uncommon to have to drive one or two hours just to attend a doctor’s appointment, something that the urban population typically does not have to consider. Rural Canadians pay for more fuel. In turn, they pay more carbon tax, and in turn, more GST on that carbon tax.

Another matter to consider is the weather. In Saskatchewan it can get as cold as -50°C in the winter. Heating a home gets expensive, and these costs are then compounded by the carbon tax and the GST that comes with it. Again, these are costs that are unique to those who live in areas such as the Prairies and not those who live in downtown Toronto, where it rarely dips below -10°C.

The last thing that Canadians need right now is more uncertainty about the future, and that includes the amount of taxes they are being charged, not to mention the taxes on those taxes. Contrary to what the Liberals might think, we understand that emissions need to be reduced, but we do not think that it should be done on the backs of small business owners or at the expense of our economy.

We in Saskatchewan are world leaders in carbon capture technology, but we get no credit for it, not to mention the excellent land stewardship of our farmers and ranchers, who also do not get credit—

Industry, Science and Technology

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

Madam Speaker, it truly is amazing when we stop and think about it. In the last number of months, we have seen the official opposition, the Conservative Party, continue to behave in an irresponsible manner and play a very destructive role in the House of Commons. Even in the question that I just finished posing to the member, he tried to give the impression that the government is not passing legislation.

The Government of Canada has been very much focused on Canadians and the pandemic, and bringing forward legislation that is going to have the backs of Canadians in terms of supporting them, whether it is legislation like Bill C-14 or the budget we just voted on yesterday. That has been the priority for Canadians.

There are other important issues that the Government of Canada has been trying to get through the House of Commons. For example, today we have legislation on net-zero emissions. That is something that is important to our environment. I realize that the Conservative Party, as a group, has said that the environment is not an issue. However, recently we had the Conservative leader saying that the price on pollution is a positive thing.

Conservatives do not want to debate the important issues that need to be debated and that Canadians want to see leadership on. The Government of Canada is prepared to provide that leadership. The official opposition, I believe, will be found in need and lacking in its performance.

The issue within the report today is important. There is no doubt about that. There are lots of reports out there that are important, but it is time that we see the official opposition recognize what Canadians want us to recognize, which is the important issues of the day that the House of Commons needs to deal with, and stop playing the destructive force it has been playing for the last number of months. I believe there is a need for us to get back to an agenda that deals with the issues for Canadians.

Therefore, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Finance

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely false that the Conservative Party supported CERB at the outset of this pandemic. In fact, their leader continues to comment negatively about this program that kept so many households fed during the worst of this pandemic.

If he is concerned about the public health response, just hours ago that member and his entire caucus voted against Bill C-14, after delaying it for months, which included $500 million to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities and additional medical research.

To lay this squarely at the feet of the federal government is absolutely ludicrous. I will point out the fact that it is the same federal government that serves his province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and serves my province of Nova Scotia where we have single digit cases that are tied to travel.

With respect, if provincial governments continued to work with the federal government to offer a world leading public health response as we have had in Atlantic Canada, we would be in a much better place today than we are across the board. I will assure the hon. member that Monday's budget—

Tourism Industry

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are very difficult times for all businesses. I know they are especially difficult for tourism operators in northern Ontario. Many of these tourism operators depend on the U.S. market to thrive.

Since the start of the pandemic, we provided financial support to businesses, organizations and communities in northern Ontario. Through the RRRF alone, we have provided businesses and not-for-profit organizations across northern Ontario with more than $70 million.

As noted, Bill C-14, which is being debated in the House, has millions and millions of more dollars contained within it to support the tourism industry. I would encourage the hon. member opposite in this virtual House to support Bill C-14 and encourage the Conservative caucus to also get on board, because it has been many months where that money has not been able to get through the system without the Conservatives supporting it.

Again, I encourage the member to have the Conservative caucus pass Bill C-14 expeditiously, so we can unlock the millions and millions of dollars of support for the tourism sector, including businesses, organizations and communities across northern Ontario.

Seniors

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Scarborough Centre is right. As a result of the pandemic, seniors have experienced significant negative impacts. To help combat the isolation they have faced during the pandemic, we invested millions more into the new horizons for seniors program. In total, we have funded 5,000 community support projects across the country during the pandemic to help seniors stay connected and supported.

I want to thank the organizations, like those in my colleague's riding, that stepped up to serve seniors with projects during this extraordinarily challenging time. Together, we can make a difference in the lives of seniors. I look forward to the opposition supporting Bill C-14 to get it through to the other place as soon as possible.

Ethics

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is just not true. I spoke earlier today on Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is all about providing direct financial support to Canadians. The Conservatives continue to play their games in regards to that. As a government in a minority situation, we need the opposition to at least play ball at times to allow us to get this important legislation passed so that we can directly support Canadians.

I think that the Conservatives have kind of hoodwinked the other opposition parties to buy into the need to search under every rock they can find to see how they can paint some scary scenario of corruption when the corruption is just not there. I would recommend that if my Conservative friends spent just as much time and focus on minimizing the coronavirus, and showed their actions in doing that, they would be farther ahead.

Health

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that we can never be in this position again. That is why we are committing over $690 million in the fall economic statement.

I look forward to the member's support for the passage of Bill C-14. This is, of course, an investment in the Public Health Agency of Canada, to continue its hard work. As I have mentioned, it has added well over 1,000 employees since the beginning of the pandemic, and we will stop at nothing to ensure we have a world-class public health agency.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, we have a huge debt of gratitude to the civil servants who have worked so hard throughout the pandemic to protect Canadians.

In fact, the Public Health Agency of Canada has expanded by more than 1,000 employees, including 150 new scientists. There is $690.7 million invested in PHAC over two years in the fall 2020 economic statement.

I look forward to the member opposite's support for passing Bill C-14.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues are doing well on this lovely spring day in the province of Ontario and in York region.

I will begin by going back to the heart of what brings us here again today. Why is that important? It is because I want to remind all my dear colleagues of the colossal effort, the incredible work, the collaborative work, as well as the sheer transparency that has already gone into the production of documents for the study of the government's decision to enter into a contribution agreement with the WE organization to administer the Canada student service grant.

Let us review everything the government has done to support the different committees studying this matter.

The ethics committee has held hundreds of hours in meetings on the subject of the Canada student services grant. The Prime Minister testified at the finance committee on this matter. I was there. The Prime Minister's chief of staff testified at the finance committee on this matter. Again, I was there. The Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth testified before the ethics committee as well as at the finance committee. The Clerk of the Privy Council testified before the ethics committee and before the finance committee. Even the Kielburgers testified multiple times at various committees. I believe the time allotted for the Kielburgers has reached almost 10 hours of testimony.

An unprecedented waiver of cabinet confidence was put into place to facilitate the disclosure of documents. Over 5,000 pages of documents were provided to various parliamentary committees. Despite opposition attempts to move privilege and contempt motions, the law clerk of the House of Commons verified that the government abided by the rule of law in providing these documents to the committees.

The Conservatives seem suddenly interested in supports for students, but it is surprising. Sadly, the Conservatives voted against Bill C-14 and the relief from federal interest on loans for students contained within that bill.

Let me make it clear. The heart of what we are doing as a government, and what I believe all of us as members of Parliament should be focused on during this most extraordinary period of time in the world's history, is getting through COVID-19 and ensuring our communities, businesses and our economy are back. We know Canadians have the potential, and we need to stand with them and beside them as our recovery continues.

The motion before us today calls on a number of ministerial staff to appear before committees. I would like state categorically that ministers are directly accountable to Parliament on the administration and duties exercised within their departments and for the actions of the political staff in their political offices.

The concept is not a new one. Allow me to quote the former prime minister in 2006, who stated the following in a document called “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers”.

Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their responsibilities whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise.... Ministers are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their office.

Ministerial staff, like public servants, are not accountable to Parliament for government policy decisions or operations. Public servants may be called to testify at committee on the implementation of policy decisions, but must defer to ministers to answer questions on policy and decisions. In the case of ministerial staffers, the scope of what information they have is more restricted than public servants since they are not involved in the operations of the department.

As a government, we had sent an exempt staff member to testify at committee, and we saw what happened. The staffer was badgered by the Conservatives, repeatedly interrupted, accused of a cover-up, accused of being untruthful and accused of something that was demonstrably false and easily verified with a simple Google search. It is evident that the Conservatives are grasping at straws, and I would say grasping at air.

All the questions about the issues in today's motion have been asked and answered and all the requested documents have been provided. Multiple ministers, including the Prime Minister, have appeared before committees on this issue. I can understand that the Conservatives are frustrated by the fact that the government has answered every question asked, but at this point, I think we can all see that this is just the Conservative ethics critic and the member for Carleton creating work for themselves.

In fact, back in 2014, the member for Carleton said that the decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.

Our government co-operated and supported the committees in their important work. When documents were requested, they were provided. Public servants acted professionally to do that. When they did not disclose everything, the Conservatives attacked them for doing their job.

The opposition keeps complaining about how the federal government discloses documents, but they recognized one very simple fact when they were in power. I would like to quote Lawrence Cannon, former foreign affairs minister under Stephen Harper, who said, “officials will provide all legally available documents. Officials have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Redactions are done by independent, non-partisan public servants whose only interest is the application of the law”.

By their actions, the Conservatives are showing us that they want to undermine public confidence in our institutions.

I would like to remind the House of the kind of behaviour the opposition has shown Canadians they can expect from it. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party posted the telephone number of a private company on social media and encouraged Canadians to call and demand that the company break Canada's privacy laws and release information. This led to harassment and personal threats that left employees fearing for their personal safety and required the police to get involved. The Conservative ethics critic sent a letter to a private company asking it to break the law. There have been numerous attempts at committee to compel the personal financial information of private citizens.

While the opposition may try to play political games and to create doubt in the public's mind with regard to the independence and the strength of our institutions, on this side of the House, we will stay laser focused on Canadians regardless of the Conservative Party's petty politics.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member's parliamentary work, having watched her in action during the entirety of my time as an MP.

To be clear, I did not make the suggestion that it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister to appear before committees. In fact, I supported his appearance before the finance committee on some of the same issues for which they are seeking to have him come back. What I think is important, though, is that it is not necessarily the Prime Minister who is the appropriate person to testify before all committees in all circumstances. When I look at some of the individual staff members who the motion contemplates should actually be testifying, in many cases I think a different minister would actually be in a better position to do so than the Prime Minister.

I must say I am a bit jaded after my own experience, having been through one of these fishing expeditions at the finance committee. I literally sat through hundreds of hours, watched thousands of documents be produced and watched numerous ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, come to testify, only to see the opposition continue to try to drag the proceedings out, rather than getting on with the important work of government, including pre-budget consultations, and most recently, the consideration of Bill C-14.

Ethics

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, as committee members have requested, I have testified at committee and provided this information. As we have confirmed, the contribution agreement was negotiated between the professional non-partisan public service, and this information is all on the public record.

The member opposite seems to be very concerned about students and youth. It would be great if his Conservative colleagues would stop holding back Bill C-14 so that we could help students with interest relief and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, as we are still in the midst of the pandemic and have a lot of work to do.

Health

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, this government has used science and evidence every step of the way to respond to COVID-19. I will also say that since the beginning of the pandemic, we have expanded the Public Health Agency of Canada by more than 1,000 employees to date, to bolster our capacity in a number of critical areas. I would urge the member opposite to stop stalling and pass Bill C-14, which would allot a further $690 million for the Public Health Agency of Canada, as dedicated in the fall 2020 economic statement.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020, and other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Opposition Motion—Plan for Reopening the Economy

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been there for workers and businesses every step of the way. Through various COVID response measures like the caregiver response benefit, CERB, and the changes to EI, our government has made transformational changes in the shortest amount of time to make sure that we are there to support workers, businesses and Canadians, so that they do not have to choose between going to work or staying home because they might have been exposed to COVID-19.

We have been there every step of the way. We will continue to make investments, and I encourage all members to support Bill C-14, so that we can further those supports for Canadians.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, wow, the Bloc and the Conservatives now just blame everything on the federal government. Meanwhile, it was actually the federal government that had been working with provinces and territories to supply them with vaccines, with the supplies they need and with PPE.

In fact, we have more supports available to provinces and territories and small businesses in Bill C-14, so why will opposition members not work with us to actually make these supports available to provinces and territories? If they are so concerned with ensuring that we have the best plans in place and the funding in place to support local jurisdictions, then why do they not vote in support of Bill C-14 so we can deliver on just that?

Small Business

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I announced earlier today, we will be presenting our budget on April 19.

However, I must take issue with the simply false notion that Bill C-14 does not include measures to support small businesses. It would provide the RDAs with an additional $206.7 million to replicate CEBA loan limits for gap-filling programs and RRRF gap-filling capacity. Bill C-14 also gives us the formal authority to provide rent support programs for rent payable.

Many other important measures are there and I hope all members of the House will support this essential legislation.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week at finance committee, Philip Cross from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute said that there was nothing in Bill C-14 for economic recovery. The government has repeatedly said that program like the HASCAP and the RRRF were the answer for businesses that had fallen through the cracks, but the criteria for these programs is virtually the same as the other programs that are failing to reach Canadians.

The minister admitted at the finance committee that there was nothing in Bill C-14 for businesses that had fallen through the cracks because they opened after March 2020. When are the Liberals going to table a plan and do something about it?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about Canadian small businesses. That is why I would like to urge him and all members opposite to join us in supporting Bill C-14. This is legislation that would help small businesses, and he does not need to listen to me. He can listen to Dan Kelly, who says, “Bill C-14 has some important measures for small business, including fresh funding for regional business support programs. CFIB urges all parties to ensure this support is passed quickly.”

Ethics

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, as has been shared, the non-partisan public service recommended that this was the only organization that could deliver this program in the timeline and degree that was required to respond to student and youth needs. Unfortunately, the program did not unfold as it was intended, and all of the money that was allocated for this program has been returned. Our government remains focused on youth and students and on responding to their needs.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party has been slowing and delaying Bill C-14, which actually would provide interest relief to student programs. I am pleased to see their interest in supporting youth and students and I hope we can continue providing programs to Canadians—

The Economy

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week at FINA, I asked Philip Cross, who was the chief economic analyst at Statistics Canada for years, if he saw anything in Bill C-14 or the fall statement that would give him comfort that there is an actual plan on growing our way out of this crisis we are in today. His answer was a flat out “no”.

After 422 days of small business shutdowns and sector collapses, can the government tell us today what its plan is for economic recovery?

Opposition Motion—Long-Term Care

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

It is imperative that Bill C-14 and the fall economic statement make it through the House. If members are supportive of creating better conditions in long-term care homes, then they need to support and work with us so we can provide $1 billion that will do just that.

I agree that we do need to look at profit models in long-term care homes. Like my hon. colleague who asked at question in the last round, I have family in Newfoundland. There are private long-term care homes there. My family members talk about how incredible they are as is the service that is provided.

I worry about a motion like this, with a one-size-fits-all approach. I come from Ontario where we were very hard hit with the lack of protections for our seniors. With a one-size-fits-all approach, what happens in other provinces and territories that do not have the same conditions, that have homes where the level of service is quite high?

I support looking at the idea of how we change funding models to ensure that service is at the core of what is being offered in our communities, that any federal funding or government supports is actually going to services and not just to the profits of shareholders. I think this is a fundamental approach with which we could all.

However, what I take exception to in this motion is that it feels like the NDP wants to move forward with policies written on the back of a napkin. There is no background. This motion is not based on evidence or what happens after. We have not looked at how we take the profit model and turn it into a service model or what will happen with the facilities? Would these operators just close up and leave these seniors homeless? Would they get passed on to municipalities and the public service? How would municipalities absorb that?

While I support the idea of looking at ensuring our standards are increased, I cannot get behind a motion that essentially creates a blanket approach, without looking at what would happen to our seniors. Our seniors deserve a policy that is thoughtful, one we can all understand and one that can be worked on with provinces and territories to ensure the delivery and the outcomes we want are delivered.

What we have seen from the government has been reaction and support. There has been a lot of accusations around the federal government claiming that it is not its responsibility. We have stepped up. We have provided $19 billion for the safe restart agreement, which was to help long-term care homes. In my home province of Ontario, the federal government provided funds and supports to the Government of Ontario to prepare for the second wave. These funds went unspent. These funds did not make it into the long-term care homes to protect our community members. Instead, the funds sat there.

We need standards to ensure that every Canadian across the country can access the same level of care, no matter where they live, that Canadians can hold provinces and territories accountable if they do not live up those standards and that the funding is set up to hold these service providers accountable.

In my community, we saw PPE under lock and key. That is absolutely outrageous, but the federal government was there to support these community members. We also invested in increasing wages for workers, but if provinces and territories do not move forward with legislation, then we do not see changes. This is why it is critically important.

The member for Kingston and the Islands continues to ask about consultation with provinces and territories and has yet to receive an answer. This is crucial because families deserve to know that if we are going to move forward on a policy, it can actually be enacted. If we were to pass this NDP motion without any details of how it would impact our communities and family members, if a province said it was not going to pass legislation that would change the funding model, then what would happen?

It is absolutely disingenuous to say that one wants to support seniors and increase standards in long-term care and then come forward with a motion that is nothing but optics and would do nothing to actually create the change we need to see. We need to see changes in infrastructure and national standards to ensure that every Canadian across this country gets a standard of care, and stop playing politics with seniors' lives and move forward on policies that would actually make a difference in this country.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that I want to speak on this item, and not only in my new role. I and several of my colleagues have been discussing the conditions in long-term care homes and are outraged by them. My riding in particular was hit very hard, with over 70 residents passing away from COVID in the first wave at Orchard Villa, and we saw, even after the second wave, a continuation of our community members getting sick and dying.

We also saw the horrible conditions. My riding was one of the ridings that had the Canadian Armed Forces in their long-term care homes, and we had to read about the unbelievably deplorable conditions that our community members and elders had been left in. Families were feeling helpless and hopeless about being able to provide their family members with care and to be able to be there with them.

We had been advocating support for provinces and territories and for national standards in long-term care and talking about those needs, and those are things I continue to advocate to this day. I was really pleased, along with my colleagues, when I saw the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne recognize and acknowledge moving forward with national standards on long-term care, and then that was backed up again in the fall economic statement by providing a $1-billion safe long-term care fund.

Unfortunately, opposition members have been holding up Bill C-14—

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House today who are speaking to this very important issue. I am pleased to rise to address the motion by the hon. member for Burnaby South. I share his concerns and, I can safely say, all members' concerns for Canadians living in long-term care facilities during this unprecedented COVID-19 health crisis. The Government of Canada recognizes the impact of the virus on many vulnerable populations, including those living in long-term care facilities.

As members know, the administration of long-term care falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. However, as committed to in the Speech from the Throne, the federal government is taking action and will continue to take any action we can to support seniors while working alongside the provinces and territories. From the outset, these facilities were hit hard in many parts of the country. During the first wave, approximately 81% of the fatalities from COVID-19 were residents of long-term care facilities and, to date, more than 66% of deaths due to COVID-19 have occurred in long-term care.

An analysis by the Canadian Institute for Health Information in June 2020 compared Canada's experience in long-term care facilities with that of other countries in the OECD. As the member has noted, this report found that the proportion of COVID-19 deaths among long-term care residents in Canada was higher than in other OECD countries. Of course, there was substantial variation in the experiences of people and long-term care facilities across Canada's provinces and territories. Some regions have fared better than others. Generally, jurisdictions with lower COVID-19 infection rates in the community reported fewer long-term care cases and deaths, but right across the country the pandemic has highlighted long-standing and systemic challenges in Canada's long-term care system, and has had a significant impact on residents and staff in these facilities, exposing gaps in infection prevention and control, staffing, infrastructure and testing.

In response the federal government is taking important steps to respond to the significant challenges faced by long-term care facilities across the country, and the Government of Canada recognizes the need to work with the provinces and territories to develop long-term care standards. The government has committed to establishing national standards for long-term care as a means to address critical gaps in long-term care facilities, including the working conditions of lower-wage essential workers in senior care, particularly personal support workers, who have persevered in the face of adversity.

In the early stages of the pandemic, all levels of government began working in close collaboration to ensure that the public health measures being taken were in alignment. Public health authorities continue to closely monitor COVID-19 in Canada and carefully consider approaches to easing public health restrictions when and where possible. The epidemiology of COVID-19 is different in each jurisdiction, and this means that approaches across Canada will not all be the same and will need to be tailored to the unique challenges and context of the disease in each province and territory. Each jurisdiction in Canada is looking at different kinds of community settings, such as long-term care facilities, and developing risk-based approaches and assessments based on what is taking place within their own jurisdiction.

I would like to outline two key measures from the fall economic statement: the safe long-term care fund and the expansion of the long-term care plus initiative. Both measures would be implemented with funding provided through BillC-14. Unfortunately, in the House we have seen partisan games preventing this important legislation from passing.

Under the safe long-term care fund, up to $1 billion would be transferred to provinces and territories to help protect people in long-term care facilities, by their implementing additional measures for infection prevention and control. Specifically, provinces and territories would have the flexibility to use these funds to help facilities retain and hire new staff, including through topping up wages. It would also help them upgrade infrastructure, such as increased ventilation to reduce transmission, as well as undertake needed assessments to determine what other infection-prevention and control measures might be required to prevent and mitigate the effects of COVID-19. To help Canadians better understand the significant efforts under way, provinces and territories would develop detailed action plans and would report on progress and results.

Officials are working out the details now with a view to getting these investments to provinces and territories as quickly as possible to further protect Canadians who reside and work in long-term care settings. This legislation is critical, and it needs to be passed.

In July 2020, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement published a report on lessons learned from the response to COVID-19 in long-term care and retirement homes. It was called “Reimagining Care for Older Adults”. The report is based on interviews with family partners, health care leaders and policy-makers. It focuses on promising practices that have the potential to reduce the risk of future COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care and retirement homes.

From these findings, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, now amalgamated and known as Healthcare Excellence Canada, launched a new program called the long-term care plus initiative. This program helps prevent and control infection in long-term care homes and seniors residences, allowing them to prepare for possible future outbreaks and mitigate the pandemic's effect.

Direct support is available through coaching and seed funding to help participating facilities address gaps identified through the program.

The fall economic statement committed an additional $6.4 million over two years to further expand this initiative. As of March 10, 2021, a total of 1,086 facilities have submitted applications and are participating in the long-term care plus initiative. Of course, the safe long-term care fund and the long-term care plus initiative are only the most recent of many programs launched over the past year. I will provide a few examples of other initiatives that are already making a difference in long-term care facilities.

Last April, Health Canada, with support from the Public Service Commission of Canada, launched the COVID-19 voluntary recruitment campaign. The Government of Canada supported provinces and territories by facilitating this inventory of skilled Canadians to provide surge capacity in the following key areas: case tracking and contact tracing, health system surge capacity, case data collection and reporting. Provincial and territorial governments continue to draw upon the volunteer inventories as needed to support local public health responses.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the Canadian Armed Forces provided support in Ontario and Quebec for outbreaks in long-term care facilities. Now the Canadian Red Cross continues to be available for deployment to homes that are experiencing significant outbreaks and has already supported more than 130 long-term care facilities in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. The Canadian Red Cross is also overseeing the recruitment and training of workers to support infection prevention and control, basic care and facility management.

Last summer, the Government of Canada negotiated the safe restart agreement with the provinces and territories. The agreement provided $740 million in funding to support vulnerable Canadians, including those in long-term care, home care and palliative care, who, as we know, are more at risk of severe cases of COVID-19.

The government is also providing comprehensive and evidence-based preliminary guidance on key populations for COVID-19 immunization, including residents and staff of congregate living settings that provide care for seniors.

Finally, a temporary COVID-19 resiliency stream was created to provide provinces and territories with added flexibility to use existing resources to fund quick-start, short-term infrastructure projects, including health infrastructure, such as long-term care homes.

Besides these activities, the Government of Canada is providing support to provinces and territories through the procurement and distribution of millions of authorized vaccines and rapid tests, which help protect long-term care residents and staff.

As well, the COVID-19 testing and screening expert advisory panel released a report this winter to help inform the development of robust testing and screening strategies in long-term care homes.

I would like to speak for a moment about the role of personal support workers. Now more than ever, Canadians understand that personal support workers are an integral and important part of the health care system, providing close direct support to residents. Every person entering a long-term care home, including essential visitors and volunteers, has a responsibility to prevent infections among residents of those facilities, who are at a high risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19.

It is because of this high risk that access to personal protective equipment and training is critical for the workers' own safety and the safety of residents. The Government of Canada is taking action to ensure that health care workers have the personal protective equipment and medical supplies they need. We have done this through collaborative bulk procurement with the provinces and territories, building domestic production capacity and identifying potential alternatives to extend product life.

We also need to recognize the contributions of workers in long-term care facilities and better compensate them for taking care of our most vulnerable citizens. Their work is essential in reducing the spread of the virus, and the government understands that. That is why up to $3 billion of federal funding was provided in support to provinces and territories to increase the wages of low-income essential workers, which could include front-line workers in hospitals and long-term care facilities. Provinces and territories will also be able to use the funding under the safe long-term care fund to top up wages of staff members in long-term care facilities.

Finally, the Government of Canada recognizes that we need to increase the number of personal support workers in the country, and we committed funding of $38.5 million over two years for Employment and Social Development Canada to support training of up to 4,000 personal support worker interns through an accelerated six-week online training program. This will be combined with a four-month work placement to help address acute labour shortages in long-term care and home care.

As we have learned more about this virus and the populations at risk, we are doing everything we can to help protect citizens in long-term care facilities. The Public Health Agency of Canada has provided infection prevention and control guidance to help prevent COVID-19 infections among residents and workers in long-term care and assisted living facilities, as well as in home care, including the appropriate use of PPE.

Many facilities have already implemented their own measures, such as restricting visitation or other non-essential on-site services. Now, as we learn more about the impact of these restrictions on residents, more and more facilities are developing nuanced and compassionate approaches to visitation. The long-term care plus program has recently released a checklist for the safe re-entry of essential care partners in long-term care facilities.

Long-term care facilities should also follow the best practices developed by the relevant provincial or territorial health authority. Examples include daily screening of anyone entering facilities, rapidly testing people who are ill, widespread testing if there is an outbreak, and supporting people in isolation and quarantine.

We know these measures have to followed diligently. We also know, now, that one of the best practices is to ensure support for the workers. Many personal support workers from racialized communities are not paid well and do not have sick leave benefits. Some of the federal supports, such as the Canada recovery sickness benefit, help with that, so that people can stay home if they are ill.

Our government is taking action to support residents of long-term care homes, but we do know there is more to do. The pandemic has highlighted challenges that the long-term care sector has faced for many years. The Government of Canada is working with provinces and territories to address these challenges and protect residents of long-term care facilities from exposure to the COVID-19 virus by helping the provinces and territories deliver on their health care responsibilities. Together, we are making progress.

After more than a year of living with the threat of COVID-19, provinces and long-term care homes across the country are ramping up vaccinations for their residents. Infections and death rates in long-term care homes are reduced. However, we still have to be able to quickly detect and respond to outbreaks if they occur. We need to be prepared for possible increases in the number of infections caused by new variants. This continues to require a coordinated effort.

As people can imagine, a lot of work is happening behind the scenes with our many partners across all levels of government, and indeed with non-governmental organizations that have stepped up. All of this work will deepen our understanding of the disease and provide the data we need to inform our response and decision-making.

If we have learned anything over the past year, it is that we have to continue with strong public health efforts to reduce transmission of the virus and minimize its impact on the vulnerable residents of long-term care facilities, and we have to work together. We must also plan and be ready for the future, as there is a lot that we still do not know about COVID-19. We have to address the needs of residents in long-term care as the situation evolves.

I can assure this House that the Government of Canada will continue to do everything within our power and jurisdiction to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and protect the health, safety and well-being of all Canadians during these difficult and uncertain times.

Employment Insurance Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, part of it is because games are being played by the opposition, in particular the Conservatives. For example, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-19 the other day, but a concurrence motion was moved, which prevented us from being able to debate that bill.

There are only so many days in the House in which the government has the opportunity to bring forward legislation. At the first opportunity we get to bring forward legislation, we attempt to do it. There is other legislation we have to try to get passed. Do members remember the days and hours the Conservatives held up Bill C-14? That prevented us from being able to look at other pieces of legislation. It is a finite amount of time. That is the reason why I spent as much time as I did at the beginning—

[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, it is quite a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24 at third reading.

Earlier in the week, I spoke on Bill C-24 at second reading. Back then, I emphasized how important the legislation was to the Government of Canada. Since the very beginning of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to have the backs of Canadians. Once again, we have legislation before the House that is absolutely critical with respect to supporting Canadians today and continuing to do so going forward.

When I spoke on the bill earlier in the week, I was somewhat upset and I expressed my feelings about the Conservative Party and how it was filibustering important legislation on the floor of the House of Commons. In fact, I recall citing a tweet by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul about importance of the legislation for workers. However, the Conservatives were filibustering important legislation during the pandemic, and we witnessed that during the debate on Bill C-14. At the time, I indicated that the only way the House could see legislation passed was if the Conservatives were made to feel ashamed of their behaviour. I am pleased that it would appear as if the Conservatives saw the merit, through a bit of shaming, in allowing the bill to pass. It is important to recognize that.

If we review what has taken place during the week, there are some encouraging signs, at least from some of the opposition parties. However, that is not universally held. I am afraid that the Conservatives still feel obligated to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, and I will expand on that.

Bill C-24 would provide badly needed funds, essential funds, to thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country. To see how we should proceed, all we need to do is look at the desire and what we have seen this week. I will cite a few examples of that. The reason I am doing this is because I want to encourage members of the Conservative Party particularly to recognize the true value of legislation like Bill C-24, and it appears the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has recognized it, and to see the value in passing it.

The best example I can think of is something that took place yesterday. We had very important legislation, Bill C-7, which is literally on life and death, before us. Because we are in a minority situation, it does not take very much to prevent the government from passing legislation. However, in this situation, the Bloc, indicated that it supported the legislation and would assist the government to bring forward closure. Had we not received that support, we never would have been able to advance it through the House of Commons and people would have been denied the opportunity to have access to this through this legislation.

Earlier in the week, we also had some indication from my New Democratic friends about Bill C-5, important legislation that is not necessarily as direct as Bill C-24 is with respect to the pandemic. Quite possibly it could be somewhat of assistance indirectly during the pandemic.

In this situation, the New Democrats said that they would like to have unanimous consent to allow that additional debate and ultimately see Bill C-5 passed in the House. Of course, much like with the Bloc's suggestion, the Conservatives outright said that they did not want anything to do with it. Again, it is not to come across as not being grateful for the Conservatives recognizing the importance of Bill C-24, but it is more so to encourage the Conservative Party to look at what other opposition parties are doing to facilitate the passing of important legislation.

Bill C-24 was recognized the other day by the Conservatives when they stopped debate, allowing it to get out of second reading so it could go to committee. As a result, we are now at third reading stage today. We know that if the Conservative Party wanted to do more, it could.

For example, look at what the Conservatives did with the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, which is critically important legislation. It would have a direct impact, even during the coronavirus pandemic. The Conservatives requested unanimous consent for a motion with respect to the trade agreement, and we supported it.

It is important to recognize that my New Democratic friends, who have traditionally voted against anything related to expanding trade relations, also supported the motion to see the bill on the United Kingdom trade agreement pass through the House of Commons even though they opposed it. It is important to recognize that. The NDP and the Bloc have, on occasion, have recognized what I have been saying to the House for quite a while, which is that the behaviour of the Conservatives has not been favourable to the House of Commons in passing the legislation that is so badly needed to support Canadians during this difficult time. They have gone out of their way to frustrate the House of Commons and our desire to see important legislation like Bill C-24 passed.

I will continue to remind my Conservative friends that they have an important obligation to Canadians, as the government has since day one, to focus their attention not on an election, but rather supporting Canadians. One of the ways they can do that is by providing support on legislation such as this.

When I spoke on Bill C-24 earlier in the week, members of the Conservative Party were somewhat critical of me, saying that the government had just introduced the legislation so how could I expect them to pass it, implying that I was maybe not being as principled on enabling members to speak to important legislation. I want to assure members of the House that I have always been an advocate for members of Parliament to express themselves on legislation.

Many would say that I have no problem expressing myself on a wide variety of issues on the floor of the House. I am very grateful for the position that I have been put in by the Prime Minister and the support I get from my caucus colleagues. I often speak on behalf of many of my caucus colleagues in expressing frustration and in expressing support for initiatives that are being taken on the floor of the House of Commons.

The bill was introduced for the first time in February, and nothing would have prevented further discussion and additional debate if in fact—

Motion in Relation to Senate Amendments

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned thousands of hours of debate around Bill C-14 and Bill C-7.

Would the member not agree that, in comparison, when we are talking about this amendment about mental health or those who are mentally ill having access to MAID, that such a little amount of time has been given to debate such a large expansion of the definition of MAID?

Could the member comment on the discrepancy between the thousands of hours that went into the beginning stages of this bill and the short time frame we have been given for this new piece of legislation that is a critical component that, I think, we need more time for?

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out a few things. First of all, in our fall economic statement, we offered extensive financial information, including extensive five-year fiscal forecasts, which took into account varying possibilities on the virus resurgence scenario.

The second thing I would like to say is our government has been there for Canadians throughout this crisis and we will continue to be there for Canadians. I would like to urge the Conservatives to join us in supporting Canadians by supporting Bill C-14.

Employment

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me share a very important statistic with the member opposite and all Canadians. In the fourth quarter, Canada's GDP grew at an annualized rate of nearly 10%. That was higher than the GDPs of the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France and Italy. I would like to congratulate the Canadians whose hard work and innovative approach made that possible, and I would like to say to all members of the House, particularly the Conservatives, that by supporting Bill C-14 we can all support those hard-working Canadians.

The Budget

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note two things.

First, we received an extraordinary response from Canadians during our pre-budgetary consultations, and I want to thank all Canadians who took part.

Second, if the Conservatives truly want to support Canadians, and they need support during this crisis, they should support Bill C-14. That would be the right way to support our country.

Employment Insurance Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oshawa. Indeed, I will be splitting my time with my colleague.

As I said, if we were playing baseball, the umpire would have called the government “out” by now. That is not all. Even CERB, EI, had multiple changes, which is the main part of this bill after all. Canadians have been relying on those programs over the course of the pandemic. It is no surprise that the Liberals did not have them down pat. One would think that by now they would get it, or at least after three or four tries, but it seems we are still dealing with the same dilemma.

We know how the government loves to put things off to the last minute, and it has become what I call a “piecemeal” government. We see this again, with these new suggestions for implementation. Am I shocked? Of course, not. The mentality of the government to leave everything to the last minute, even its agenda, is well and good during normal years. We experienced that in the 42nd Parliament, and we see the same thing happening right now.

However, now we are dealing with a pandemic. Everything is an emergency and is taken with a different approach. We must be aware that we cannot do things the regular way. This is a time when governments need to be more proactive and determine how to get the best results from the best plans. The only words that come to my mind with what the government has come up with now is “not good enough”.

While obviously I do not agree with my Liberal colleagues on most things, I would have thought that we would agree that Canadians needed us to get this right the first time. This is the bottom line. We need to get it right the first time, not the second, third or fourth time. I have no idea why this is happening.

Now we have the highest unemployment rate in the G7. It is not acceptable for the government to get those programs wrong again and again. The government has to stop to think about what is going on and why we are facing these experiences again and again every time it comes near a new law or legislation.

As of January 2021, 213,000 Canadians lost their jobs due to the pandemic. That number is huge. Those 213,000 people are relying on us to get this bill right and get proper legislation passed that will serve them and help them carry on with their lives. Canadians do not expect us to keep screwing it up, not the first time, the second time or the third time, nor leave it to the very last minute by not planning properly.

The failures add up. For example, high school students cannot have money now for university. University students cannot find jobs after they graduate or pay for their tuition. Young Canadians who are looking to start their careers are facing barriers as tall as the CN Tower. New Canadians, who only arrived in our country last year or this year, are also struggling to find jobs and starting their lives here.

What has the Liberal government been doing all this time? It has not been getting support programs right the first time; it has not been getting it right the second time; and the money, of course, was delayed getting out the door. After all, it takes four months just to send Bill C-14 to the finance committee, and now we find out that we do not have a budget this March either. It has been two years without a budget. This has broken the record as far as how we do finance in the country.

We have seen everything come in at the last minute. Last minute does not come without mistakes. Last minute does not come with proper results.

We know what the government has been doing. It has been sitting back, twiddling its thumbs and introducing bills that, honestly, Canadians never asked for and certainly do not want at this time, such as Bill C-22 and Bill C-19. Instead of debating bills on which Canadians are relying, ones that would fix programs that Canadians have been counting on getting fixed, the government has been debating, for example, a bill that would prepare the government to call an election during a pandemic and a bill that would lessen the penalties for violent offender rather than the bills that can support Canadians to get jobs, to get their lives in order and, of course, to get the economy back in order.

It is a very dark picture. It is very sad that Canadians do not get the support they need, but criminals, for example, face lesser penalties. The PMO is clearly lives in some sort of bizarre world to think that this is the way to go.

That is just begging the umpire to point to the government and say, “You are out.” I seriously cannot reiterate enough just how much of a disappointment this has been. The government does not have a plan for economic recovery. The support programs that the Liberals created have been without economic recovery. The programs have to be amended time and time again, and that delay causes Canadians to suffer, because it takes longer now to get needed support out to them. The list goes on and on.

Canadians cannot afford to wait around for the Liberals to finally get the programs in working order. They cannot afford to wait for vaccines to trickle in slower than a snail. They cannot afford to wait for the government to finally present us with a plan so our country and our fellow Canadians can start to recover from the effects of this pandemic. Canadians simply cannot wait.

When the government waffles and delays for months then suddenly introduces the bill, trying to rush it along, it is simply not right. It means we get poorly created programs that need to be taken back to the drawing board. It means there is a lack of transparency and accountability that we would normally afford a bill. It means that Canadians get stuck with an even longer—

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Workers

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

Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my speech, I talked about how the Conservatives continuously try to spread misinformation. I cited a couple of examples of the airline industry and of charitable groups using specific quotes from the critic for finance. He, and through him the Conservative Party, tries to give Canadians the impression that the government is not there to support small businesses in Canada. Once again, nothing could be further from the truth.

When we look at the initiatives we have put in place, whether the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the Canada emergency rent subsidy program, the Emergency Business Account, the credit availability program or relief and recovery funds, the government has been there for small businesses and will continue to be there for small businesses.

The second problem I have with the Conservatives is frustration with how the Conservative Party continues to play a destructive role inside the House of Commons, on the floor of the chamber, by not allowing things to be done. Talk is cheap. Action is what we want to see.

I was encouraged when the opposition House leader indicated moments ago that the Conservatives were prepared to pass Bill C-18, which is a trade agreement. That means they support the legislation with no issues and they are going to pass it through. I suspect, as I indicated previously, that the only way to get things passed through the House of Commons is to shame the Conservatives so that they feel so uncomfortable that they feel there is more than an obligation to allow legislation to go through.

A good example would be the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. She is the critic for workforce development and she tweeted that time was running out for Canadians with expiring EI benefits. That is Bill C-24. It is one of the pieces of legislation that we want to see pass through the House of Commons. If the leader of the Conservative Party would actually listen to some of the members of the Conservative caucus, we might even see that bill pass.

I would encourage the opposition House leader to take the initiative and look at what that bill is actually saying and proposing to do. Maybe he could consult with his Conservative caucus colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, and recognize how that bill is going to help Canadians. As I indicated, actions speak louder than words when it comes to the Conservative Party.

On Bill C-14, another bill that ultimately helps small businesses, they have been filibustering, yet today there is a motion on why we are not doing enough to support small businesses. Do we see some irony there? I see a great deal of irony there. From the destructive force better known as the Conservative Party, we have seen that many issues are not being dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons because of the role that they have decided to play. It is politically charged, instead of serving Canadians by fighting the pandemic.

Women and Gender Equality

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the Conservatives focusing on a central preoccupation of our government, which is the uneven impact of this pandemic on women. That is why I was so delighted to announce yesterday with my colleague, the Associate Minister of Finance, the creation of a task force on women and the economy that will focus on precisely this issue.

Let me say to the member opposite, if she is sincerely concerned, as I hope and believe she must be, about Canadian women in this pandemic, that I hope she will join us in voting for Bill C-14, which provides essential support to small businesses, workers and families.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I must be honest: It is hard to take my Conservative colleagues at face value on the importance of helping small businesses considering their weeks-long blockade and vote against Bill C-14, which would provide additional relief for our small business owners. It is hard to take them at face value when they refuse to work through the evening to debate and pass important legislation.

The member, for example, for Kildonan—St. Paul, the critic for future workforce development, said herself that it was of the essence to pass Bill C-24 very quickly, and yet that message has not gotten to the Leader of the Opposition.

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are definitely listening. I am so grateful to the Canadians who have participated with such enthusiasm in our pre-budget consultations. We have received more than 58,000 written submissions. We are working hard with Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Let me just say that our priority today is to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to support Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, so let us get Bill C-14 passed so that we can do that.

Small Business

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that our government agrees with the leader of the NDP that it is absolutely essential to support small businesses. That is why I would like to call on all members of the House to join us in supporting Bill C-14. Small businesses need it.

Let me say that we are here for small businesses, and let me point to just one program, the CEBA. Over 842,000 small businesses across the country have received CEBA loans as of March 4. Credit card fees are another important issue that we are looking at closely.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree with the hon. member and leader of the NDP that it is very important to help small and medium-sized businesses. That is what our government is doing.

That is why we urgently need to adopt Bill C-14. I want to thank all hon. members who joined us and supported this urgent and important bill.

Credit card fees are also an important issue and we are looking into it.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Workers

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Davenport.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their thoughts and contributions to this debate on the impact of the pandemic on Canadians, small businesses and various sectors of our economy.

This has definitely been a very difficult year for so many Canadians across the country. In recent months, and particularly in recent weeks, with the acceleration of vaccine deliveries to the provinces, we have reason to hope that better days are coming. I know they are coming, but until then, the federal government is committed to doing whatever it takes to help Canadians weather the crisis. That is what we have been doing since the beginning of the pandemic.

I am always pleased to discuss federal programs to support Canadian workers and small businesses. However, I am a little surprised that now, one year later, this is a new focus for my colleagues from the Conservative Party. After all, it was the member for Carleton, the then Conservative finance critic, who proudly proclaimed he and all Conservative members did not believe in “big, fat government programs” and that the COVID-19 pandemic's economic impacts could be addressed with just a few tax cuts.

In this light, let us then take a moment to appreciate just how far we have come and take stock of the Conservative motion before us today, which aims to broaden existing programs, increase government expenditures and even create new programs. In short, it sounds like now they are asking us to make our existing government programs even bigger and fatter.

Have no doubt, when it comes to our position and the position of the entire government, we knew from the very beginning, one year ago, that we had to intervene to ensure Canadians and Canadian small businesses had the supports they needed, and intervene we did. We quickly put into place Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan. This plan continues to keep our economy stable, protect jobs and give Canadians the means to support their families.

One of the first measures we implemented was the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, so folks could continue to pay their rent and mortgages, and feed their children, while doing their part to defeat the virus by staying home. Between March and October, as the House knows, the CERB alone supported nearly nine million Canadians.

As the situation continued to evolve, we put in place other critical benefits for Canadian workers. I am pleased to report to this House that, as of February 28, the Canada recovery benefit has supported 1.8 million Canadian workers. In addition, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit has supported close to 350,000 Canadian workers, and the Canada recovery sickness benefit has supported over 400,000 Canadian workers.

We recently introduced Bill C-24 to increase the number of weeks of benefits offered under those programs, but the Conservatives do not want to debate it. I will talk more about that later.

Of course I cannot mention our support to Canadian workers without mentioning the emergency wage subsidy. We are subsidizing the paycheques of over five million Canadian workers across the country through this subsidy. Every single day I speak to entrepreneurs who tell me that, without this program, they would have been forced to lay off employees. Their team, the essence of their business, would have been gone, and it is nearly impossible to recover from that.

In early April of last year we launched the Canada emergency business account, which is an interest-free loan that provides up to $60,000 to small businesses, 33% of which is a grant. Close to 850,000 small businesses have already benefited from this critical funding. When businesses told us they needed additional help with their fixed costs, we introduced the rent subsidy program and the associated lockdown support, which is covering up to 90% of rent expenses for small businesses. There are 130,000 businesses across the country using this subsidy.

I am going to stray a bit from my remarks, but yesterday the Conservatives voted against Bill C-14, which would allow small businesses to claim the rent subsidy before their rent is due. Essentially, this measure would help businesses keep a greater cash flow and entrepreneurs weather difficult times, at no real extra cost to the federal government.

The Conservatives voted against something that would support small businesses with cash flow without allocating additional government funding. I cannot think of a more fiscally prudent way of supporting our business community, and Conservatives voted against it.

The motion before us calls upon the government to provide new support for the hardest-hit businesses. We have already done just that. In January, we launched the highly affected sectors credit, which provides low-interest loans of up to $1 million that are fully guaranteed by the federal government.

The motion also talks about providing specific support for the airline industry. My colleagues are well aware that we are currently in negotiations to provide support for this industry and that we are asking the industry to provide refunds for consumers and make certain commitments regarding regional transportation.

It is interesting that the Conservatives are proposing this motion now. Now that we are making progress on the negotiations and getting close to an agreement, the Conservatives have suddenly decided to make this their pet issue.

Our government recognizes the importance of our airline industry and will do what it takes to support it.

I am not going to sugar-coat it; all of these support programs cost money, and this government did spend a lot of money. It was money well spent. Personally, I consider myself to be somewhat fiscally conservative. We are the trustees of taxpayer dollars. We have a duty, in my view, to be prudent and wise in how we spend, but who in this House is willing to make the argument that families, workers and businesses should have gone deep into debt so that the government did not have to? Canada has a AAA credit rating, and we borrow at about a 0% interest rate. Small businesses cannot say the same.

As the parliamentary secretary responsible for small business and international trade, I am always willing to discuss with my colleagues opposite the ways we can support our entrepreneurs and business community, but there is simply no clear position being taken by the Conservative Party on how to do that. For example, the Conservative member for Steveston—Richmond East complained that we are spending like there is no tomorrow. The member for Souris—Moose Mountain said government spending was leading him to be disappointed in the current state of Canada, yet here we are today debating a Conservative motion asking for more spending. While I am aware that the Conservative finance portfolio recently changed hands, and some policy changes are normal, this is close to a complete U-turn.

It is hard these days to figure out what the Conservatives actually stand for. Is it more spending, or is it less? Do they agree that Canada should run a deficit to support Canadians, or do they not? Are they asking us to spend today so that they can attack us on the deficit later? Are they refusing to sit for extended hours in the evening to delay supports for Canadians?

Bill C-24 would substantially expand support for our workers. Unfortunately, our Conservative colleagues have refused to work through the evening to debate and pass Bill C-24. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul, the critic for future workforce development and disability inclusion herself, stated that Bill C-24 was straightforward and that time is of the essence to get this bill through, but that message does not seem to have made its way to the leadership of the Conservative Party.

It is a good thing Canadians know where we stand and where this government stands. They also know that we will continue to ensure Canadians and Canadian businesses are supported right through to the end of this pandemic, because protecting and supporting Canadians is, and will always be, our top priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that this member touched on cruise ships. My parents were on the Grand Princess, which was the cruise ship that was stuck off the coast of California for a number of days. They were quarantined in their cabin for five days before being led out of that ship by Canadian personnel, boarded onto a cargo flight that had been converted to have seats, and brought back to Trenton, where they went into quarantine.

Do you know what my father said about that flight, Mr. Speaker? He said that as that flight was taking off the ground on its way back to Canada, the entire cabin of 150 passengers broke out into singing O Canada.

This government has been there from day one to support Canadians and has been there every step of the way, giving Canadians the supports they need to get through this pandemic. If this member is so interested in helping small businesses, why did she vote against Bill C-14 last night?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the height of irony is the member for Kingston and the Islands criticizing someone for a personal attack. I do not think that gentleman has once stepped into the House without spewing personal attacks on other members of the House.

Getting back to his question, Bill C-14 passed. However, where his government has been for two years without a budget? It could have put this support through at any time, perhaps in the summer, when it was not proroguing to avoid an investigation into a scandal. I suggest this gentleman look in the mirror and ask the question of himself and his party as to why it has taken so long, an entire year after the pandemic started, to get some of this support out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to hand it to my NDP colleague. Moments ago we heard him say that we should put the bickering and individual personal attacks aside and focus on a real question. What did the member for Edmonton West say in response? He diverted it right back to personal attacks on the individual, which the member from the NDP asked that he not do.

I will ask the member a very pointed question. If he is so interested in small businesses and getting them the supports they need, I will read to him a quote from Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business regarding Bill C-14. He said, “Bill C-14 has some important measures...CFIB urges all parties to ensure this support is passed quickly.”

His party held that up in here and then yesterday voted against it. What does he have to say to Dan Kelly and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for bringing up WE. I am sure it sends shivers through his spine, like early PTSD.

If he wants to talk about Mr. Baylis, I will bring up another issue. When he was on the industry committee, that same Liberal MP lobbied a bit on a government contract. He lobbied the committee for more money for research. He ended up getting that contract about two months after he left. Sure the member can pass off one Liberal insider issue regarding ventilators, but others have to be looked at.

As for the subsidies, the Conservative Party has been there from day one supporting the government to get subsidies out fast. With Bill C-14, we have asked that the bill be split so we can get that part approved quickly, but that other issues, such as the $1.83 trillion debt limit, be debated separately.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will do my best to avoid impugning the motives of my political opponents, whom I view as friends and colleagues. However, I will register my disappointment with their approach of insisting on multiple hours of debate to affirm a unanimously supported report that dealt with the competence of the Canadian Tourism Commission's president; to extend debate on a unanimously supported motion on human trafficking; and to delay a vote on the passage of Bill C-14.

Let me remind the House that Bill C-14 would provide direct cash support to families and parents of young kids, and provide direct support, through the regional relief and recovery fund, to small businesses and—

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary always does such a great job in delivering his points. I certainly look forward to seeing him back in the House.

He talked about some of the games he saw the Conservatives playing in holding up various pieces of legislation. In particular, I note he referenced Bill C-14, a very important piece of legislation for small businesses in Canada. As a matter of fact, Dan Kelly, the head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said that “Bill C-14 has some important measures.... CFIB urges all parties to ensure this support is passed quickly”, and yet the Conservatives voted against it.

Does the member have any thoughts on why the Conservatives would allow it to move as slowly as possible and then, when push came to shove yesterday, voted against it?

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am able to take part in this debate. I was tempted to say, “to rise in this House”, although it has been more or less a year since we have had the opportunity to be there in the flesh, and maybe that is a good point to begin my remarks.

It was a little more than a year ago when the world did not know what COVID-19 was. As I mentioned, a year ago we were physically attending debates in the chamber of the House of Commons, but it feels as though it were a century ago. So much has changed in the world since that time as a result of this pandemic, which has turned the ordinary lives of Canadian workers and families upside down.

The motion before us today highlights a number of areas where the Conservative Party would have us seek to develop supports for individuals, families and certain industries, and I think it provides a healthy starting point in the conversation. Although, quite frankly, the starting point for us was more or less a year ago when we were arriving at solutions for some of the issues that are now coming up in debate.

Over the course of my remarks, I hope to highlight some of the measures that the government has actually implemented to help Canadian workers, families and businesses get through this pandemic and discuss briefly where we go from here. I do have some criticisms of the motion before us, which I will be happy to share as well.

However, I think it is important to begin by addressing the significance of COVID-19 and what it has done to Canadian households and families. The starting point is obviously the public health consequences that have stemmed from a global pandemic, the likes of which the world has not seen in a century at least.

There are 22,000 Canadians who are no longer with us as a result of this illness, despite the heroic efforts of frontline health care workers in long-term care facilities and community-level decision-makers to keep their communities safe. Nevertheless, despite these efforts, there are grieving families in Canada today, and to those who may be tuning in, please know that I extend my sympathies to those who have lost their loved ones.

In the early days of the pandemic, before the full scope of this emergency had made itself apparent, like most MPs who are attending virtual Parliament today, I was taking phone calls from small business owners. They were asking if this was going to last a couple of weeks, and if there would be some support coming through so that they could enjoy this and show some solidarity with their community members.

However, a week or two after that, people started to appreciate just how serious this really was. They were worried whether their business would survive this pandemic. I remember being on the phone with family members who were sincerely worried about whether they could afford groceries, and whether there would be food at the grocery store at all, even if they could afford it.

I talked to people with the most human concerns possible, and they were asking, “Will I be able to keep a roof over my head and food on the table for my family?” The small business owners I spoke to were by and large concerned with the well-being of their employees, more so than they were concerned for themselves. I saw an enormous sense of community come out of those early conversations.

Across parties, across regions of Canada, I thank those who reached out to me, because of my position on the team of the Minister of Finance, to tell me what they were hearing in their communities. We heard what people in different regions of Canada were reaching out to their MPs about, and those concerns reflected what I was hearing in my community.

This provided good examples of the areas we needed to be tackling: income support for people who lost income as a result of COVID-19; support to businesses, so they could keep their doors open; and, perhaps most importantly, a response to COVID-19 that spared no expense, because everyone knew that the best economic and social policy we could have was a strong public health response. That remains the case today.

Going back to shortly after this time last year, one of the first things we decided to do as a government was to figure out how we could replace lost income for Canadians who had been impacted by the pandemic. Initially, there was some consideration around the employment insurance system to help people in affected industries. However, we very quickly realized that the infrastructure of the federal government was not sufficient to deal with the sheer volume of people who would need to put in a claim, which was really the origin point for the Canada emergency response benefit. That program alone, up until it ended, serviced almost nine million Canadians between April and September. We are talking about close to half the Canadian workforce individually receiving a government benefit, which was designed in no time at all, implemented even faster, and nevertheless successfully reached the kitchen tables of nine million Canadians.

This was perhaps one of the most remarkable policy successes that I have been a part of, and may continue to be over my career in politics. I remember hearing from people at home that this was a godsend, and that this is what helped them keep food on the table. In my community, which has a comparatively lower household median income compared to much of the country, we have started hearing from people who work at food banks that there were fewer people attending the food bank because the government supports so effectively landed in those households. They could now afford to buy groceries rather than take them from the food bank.

This is not the case in every community across Canada, but I was very impressed that people, particularly at lower income levels, were able to survive some of the most significant economic challenges that had ever faced.

We realized as well that there needed to be additional supports put forward for businesses. One of the great strengths of the government's economic response was not any one given policy, but the willingness to iterate responses so we could adjust to reflect the reality of what was going on in Canadians communities.

I will point in particular to the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which started out as a 10% contribution to employees' wages. We realized very quickly that was not going to be sufficient to allow many employers to maintain a connection with their workforce. That particular program has the advantage of not just keeping people on payroll, but also ensuring those employees still have access to the benefits they may have been entitled to, so they do not lose opportunities that are tied within their company to seniority. Most of all, it kept cash coming into companies that allowed them to keep their workers paid throughout the most difficult portions of this pandemic.

For small and medium-sized businesses, we created the Canada emergency business account. There have been over 800,000 Canadian businesses that have now been supported. We are looking at record numbers of Canadians who have been supported by these programs, including nine million with CERB, more than five million workers with the wage subsidy and nearly 900,000 businesses with the Canada emergency business account. That number is closer to a million if we include a similarly styled program offered through the Regional Development Agencies, the regional relief and recovery fund.

We were hearing loud and clear that businesses needed support to address the fixed expenses of staying open. The emergency business account has literally helped businesses in my community keep the lights on and deal with Internet bills, allowing them to maintain some cash flow during a time when revenue had completely dried up. We realized as well that we needed to establish further supports, which justified initially the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, which has transitioned into the Canada emergency rent subsidy. It provides more direct and accessible support to tenants, who can actually stay on their premises as a result of the federal support that has been offered.

In cases where public health measures have actually locked businesses down, this particular program can provide up to 90% of the cost of rent. We have looked at the fixed expenses that businesses were telling us they needed support for, and we came up with new programs to help support rent, keep the lights on, pay the utility and Internet bills, cover the cost of keeping workers on payroll. As well, when workers were laid off, we established programs that supported them in their time of need.

However, there are particular programs that were more specific to the areas they targeted. I know the motion discusses certain hard hit industries. I will draw attention to tourism and hospitality, the arts and culture sectors, and charitable sectors. Statistics Canada put out numbers recently that indicated Canada's GDP has returned to about 97% of pre-pandemic levels, and it has broken it down by industries. The shocking piece of the graphic it published shows the severe impact that remains on sectors that depend on getting people together or coming from different places to travel.

Tourism, hospitality, arts and culture in particular are still very much feeling the pain of the pandemic because we cannot gather in spaces in large numbers. We cannot travel from one jurisdiction to another safely without the potential to spread some of the variants of concern that have caused so much difficulty.

We did develop certain programs that were designed to help these industries over and above the fact that these industries qualify for the cross-sector support programs, which I have canvassed in my remarks today. We developed programs like HASCAP for highly affected sectors to make sure that there was liquidity support for businesses that have been hit particularly hard.

We developed the large employer emergency financing facility, or LEEFF, as a last resort program to ensure liquidity for large employers that had high operating costs to keep them in a position where cash flow enabled them to meet the expenses they would come across so they could remain open and keep Canadians employed.

I mentioned the regional relief and recovery fund, which was tailored to help businesses that may not have qualified for some of the other supports for various reasons. It was offered through the regional development agencies, which, at least in Atlantic Canada, I can say with confidence have an intimate knowledge of the people in communities, who are doing business and need help, and what the regional nuances may be.

Some of these programs have been very successful in their delivery. Others are still rolling out, and we are continuing to hear about how they can be improved, but more work needs to be done.

I want to draw attention to the comments of the previous speaker, who indicated that there was some great exercise in reimagining the Canadian economy in a radical fashion. To be clear, the path forward requires us to look at some very important strategic challenges facing the Canadian economy, which may have been made more apparent as a result of this pandemic. However, I see nothing radical about fighting climate change as part of the economic strategy for Canada going forward. I see nothing radical about investing in housing to ensure vulnerable Canadians have a roof over their heads. I see nothing radical about investing in transit, which disproportionately benefits seniors, low-income Canadians and Canadians living with disabilities, to create more livable communities. I see nothing radical about implementing a strategy to increase women's participation in the Canadian economy. To me, these are sensible and obvious things that the federal government needs to tackle if it wants to maximize our opportunities for success on the back end of this pandemic.

We have learned things through this pandemic, such as social deficits we have accepted for generations at which we need to look, but addressing problems that have been made apparent is the job of government, not some radical agenda. I wanted to ensure that point was put on the record as part of my remarks.

Before I address some of the shortcomings of the motion, I want to provide a bit of context to those who may be listening. This motion is directed, when I read the language contained in its text, at supporting workers and families, and I have mentioned certain areas that have some common ground between different parties. However, when I look at some of the measures that have actually been advanced in recent weeks to support workers and families in various industries, the Conservative Party in particular has been implementing delay tactics and playing partisan games in the House of Commons to delay the passage of certain very important supports.

Bill C-14 and Bill C-24 are perfect examples. Thankfully Bill C-14 came to a vote at second reading and will go to the finance committee in short order. That bill would provide direct financial support to families through an increase in the Canada child benefit. It would enhance the quality of support for local businesses through the regional relief and recovery fund. It would allocate a billion dollars toward fighting the spread of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities. I think my Conservative colleagues support those efforts. Nevertheless, they are trying to implement delay tactics to prevent us from getting these supports where they are needed, which is in Canadian communities and Canadian households.

Some of the tactics to delay this kind of bill have included forcing three hours of debate to concur with a report on the competence of the Canadian Tourism Commission president, which could have been dealt with in a second. These kinds of things have no place in our legislative deliberative body. We would be far better served if we could get on with it.

We have seen delay tactics implemented for Bill C-24, which includes the extension of very important supports through our employment insurance system. I would urge my colleagues of all parties to do this. If they have objections to the bill to raise them in debate, but to not use procedural delay tactics to prevent supports from reaching Canadian households, where they are desperately needed.

Substantively with the motion, although I support many of the areas it covers in spirit, there are some deficiencies that are important.

First, the text of the motion ignores many of the programs I have canvassed in my remarks to date. It calls on the government to effectively do things we are already doing. When I look at the call to support the hospitality, tourism and charitable sectors, the motion forgets that we have advanced hundreds of millions of dollars to the charitable sector to date and are willing to look at other additional solutions. The motion ignores the fact that many of these sectors benefited immensely from the Canada emergency wage subsidy. For those who have been laid off in those sectors, support has come to them through the Canada emergency response benefit. It ignores liquidity support we have provided through the Canada emergency business account.

If we are going to be called on to support specific industries, it should be specified what we should be doing to incrementally improve the programs that exist today. The motion creates the impression that here has been no support for these sectors to date, which is patently not the case on the face of it.

Second, one of the problems I have with respect to the piece that deals with airlines, and I deeply value I think the all-party support for finding a solution for the Canadian aviation sector, is that by including what the solution may be in the text of a motion on the floor of the House of Commons could jeopardize negotiations that have been going on for months with the Canadian airlines. Declaring what outcomes should be will interfere with the negotiations the government is currently undertaking.

We have stated publicly that to secure support from the federal government certain conditions ought to be met, including the restoration of regional routes, the refund of passenger tickets that have already been booked and support for the Canadian aerospace sector. We have already established certain things, and prejudging the outcome of those negotiations in the text of an opposition motion is not the best strategy going forward.

Finally, although the motion highlights a few areas, if it purports to be any kind of comprehensive look at what the federal government's strategy ought to be to support Canadian workers and families, it falls woefully short, in particular in the strategy to support families that have been affected, that have lost jobs and that will need income support.

I expect there may be some ideological divisions within the House of Commons on whether the federal government has a role to provide direct income support to families. I can certainly speak for the government side of the House that we do believe the government has role, which is why we implemented the Canada emergency response benefit, why we are moving with certain reforms to the EI system and why we repeatedly state at every opportunity that we plan to be there for Canadians, no matter how long it takes or no matter what it takes, to see them through this pandemic.

We are accused sometimes of not having a strategy to deal with this pandemic. That is obviously not the case. The strategy, in simple terms, is as follows. First is to make every investment that is necessary to defeat COVID-19 as quickly as we can, because we know the best economic policy is a strong public health response. Second is to extend the support to Canadian households and businesses they need so they are still here on the back end of this pandemic, so we can limit economic scarring in the interim and ensure the recovery will be robust. The third phase, which we are not quite at because of the continuing impact of COVID-19, is to make investments that will be focused on job creation and economic growth that is sustainable and inclusive so we can ensure Canada's recovery will actually help ordinary Canadian families and ordinary Canadian communities.

Employment Insurance Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, sometimes we have seen it all in politics. I just listened to a 30-minute speech by the member for Winnipeg North talking about how we should quickly pass legislation. That member consistently gets the award for the most words spoken in Parliament, yet all of a sudden, it is time for no one else to speak. It is time to rush legislation through and we should not debate anything. Some days we have seen it all in the House of Commons.

When we talk about Bill C-24, we are looking at three important things that the government is trying to do. I will agree that they are important. The government is trying to increase the number of weeks available to workers through EI, it is trying to make changes to rules for self-employed workers who have opted into the EI system and, of course, it is trying to fix its original blunder in the recovery sickness benefit that, because of a loophole, allowed leisure travellers to come back to Canada and claim the recovery sickness benefit after their vacations, while they were quarantining.

The question might be asked: Why did that happen? Maybe it was because of exactly what the member for Winnipeg North was just asking us to do: speedily pass legislation without review or debate. When that is done, we end up trying to patch the holes in the leaky ship five months later. That is what we are doing here today.

I want to talk about that a little. The speech we just heard from the member for Winnipeg North is the epitome of what is happening in the House of Commons these days. Legislation gets dropped, then we are told that it is urgent, important legislation, and that it should not be debated but should be rushed through committee, because we have to help Canadians.

Of course we have to help Canadians. That is what we are all here for. That is why we vote in favour of the majority of legislation for benefits for workers from the government.

However, the process is the problem. These bills could have been introduced at the start of Parliament. We have been here for two months, since the session resumed. Where was this bill? Why was it not here?

We have known of the problems with the Canada recovery sickness benefit for five months. Why was it not introduced five months ago? We have known of the loophole.

Instead, we get a piece of legislation put forward to us, then all of the proxies go out about how the opposition, especially those terrible Conservatives, are delaying this legislation and obstructing Parliament.

When there is a failure to plan, there is a plan to fail. That is what the government repeatedly does. It does not plan its legislative agenda properly. All of a sudden, it wakes up one day and says, “Oh my goodness, we need to introduce legislation on this. Let's get this passed quickly. Let's not review it. Oh, there are problems with it? Well, we will fix that someday.”

This is not the way that things should be run. It is a cynical pattern, and it is a clear pattern. We have seen articles on this as recently as February 28. “Conservatives accused of 'playing politics' in the House: Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of systematically blocking the government's legislative agenda.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Bills are introduced. We have procedures to debate them. In debate, we find problems with legislation, such as the problems with the recovery sickness benefit.

The members of the Liberal government say that debate has so little value that it should not occur. They want this legislation to be debated for two hours, and the member for Winnipeg North just added his 30-minute contribution. It was a valuable contribution of course, but he wants a quarter of the debate to be his. I am not sure what we would say if we were in kindergarten, but we might say that the member was trying to hog all the toys.

We can look at February 24 and see the same thing. The Liberals went out to the press and said:

Unfortunately the work of the House has been held up by Conservatives obstructing [this legislation].... We are calling on the Conservatives to put politics aside.

I am calling on the government to better manage its calendar, to better manage its legislation and to introduce legislation on a timely basis. We have been in the pandemic for a year and we know these things have to get done. We had a big break at Christmas, and the government probably could have done some work and prepared some legislation so that it would be ready to go when we came back, instead of just dropping it on the Order Paper and telling us that we better pass it in two hours. That is not the way we should govern.

There is a question we might want to ask: Why did the Liberals do things this way and what is their end game? Well, one, this is political. They want to shamelessly blame the opposition parties for holding up the benefits for Canadians, who, of course, need those benefits. Two, we have issues with the government's transparency. It is a big problem. The Liberals do not want transparency, because they do not want us to know what is actually going on with legislation and other things. It is very well documented.

Members might recall that the government said it would be open by default. It was a signature promise by the Prime Minister back in 2015. I know that was six years ago, but it was his big thing. Guess what has happened since then? As noted in an article in the Telegraph-Journal:

In its latest edition, Canada’s Access to Information Act ranks 50th out of 128, behind stalwarts of transparency such as Russia (43rd), Pakistan (32nd) and South Sudan (12th). That’s hardly a spot we want to find ourselves in given just how important a strong right to information is when it comes to holding our leaders accountable.

Another article from February noted, “Government and its information should be open by default”, as the Prime Minister promised. “Data paid for by Canadians belongs to Canadians. We will restore trust in our democracy, and that begins with trusting Canadians.” Who said that? It was the Prime Minister, a mere six years ago.

However, when do we get this transparency? For example, all the opposition parties have been calling on the government to release the vaccination contracts. Have we received those contracts? No, we have not, because there is an absolute lack of transparency.

Why is this lack of transparency so important for Bill C-24? Well, the Liberals are making changes to the Canada recovery sickness benefit, and they are making the changes because they rushed through legislation that allowed people on a leisure vacation to come back and, during their mandatory quarantine, claim the benefit. Constituents in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon find this absolutely outrageous. It was raised repeatedly with the government, and it has taken months and months to try to fix it. Here are my questions. How much did this cost taxpayers? How many people have claimed this benefit? How many millions of dollars have been spent?

We know the Liberals like to filibuster at committee. They accuse us of filibustering legislation, but boy oh boy we are rank amateurs when it comes to that. Look at any committee demanding information from the government and it is delay and obstruct. It refuses to give the information. We have seen it in the WE Charity scandal and when we ask for vaccine contracts. The health committee has been filibustered for ages over that issue.

Why do I think that is important? It is because governments make choices during a pandemic, and during this pandemic the government has made a really big choice. I have raised this question with government members many times: Why are they not providing any funding to new businesses and start-ups? They had clearly made the decision that they are not going to do it. Is it an economic reason? We do not know because they will not answer the question. If it is an economic reason, they are saying they have made the economic choice to let these businesses fail. However, how much money did the government waste on giving vacation returnees access to this benefit? That money could have been given to support new businesses.

When I spoke to this with respect to Bill C-14, I told members opposite that they should spend some time talking on the telephone with new businesses that are going bankrupt. People have invested their life savings and their family's savings. They may have taken out a mortgage on their home to fund a business, and they are going to lose it all.

I have written pleas and letters to the finance minister, the Prime Minister and to the small business minister. None of those letters get answered and nothing changes. We do not end up with any support for small business.

I bet they would be grateful for the $5 million, $10 million or $50 million spent on this benefit to people returning from vacations. Will we see that information? Will my colleagues on the other side of the House commit to looking into how much money was spent on this benefit for returning vacationers and inform the House? I doubt it because it is very difficult to get information from the government, whether it is vaccine contracts or how many people accessed this benefit who should not have accessed it.

For members of the government to say that Parliament is so small, that we do not need to debate legislation, is an insult to all Parliamentarians that—

[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, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24, yet another important piece of legislation designed as a direct result of the coronavirus. I would like to approach this debate in terms of what I have been listening to throughout the afternoon.

My colleague from Kildonan-St. Paul made reference to the idea of hope, while other Conservative members were quite harsh in their criticism, saying, “Where is the plan?” I want to address both of those issues and how this legislation fits in so well.

Virtually from day one, the Prime Minister, cabinet and government as a whole indicated that we were going to be there for Canadians and we would have their backs. We wanted to support Canadians throughout our great nation in making sure that we could minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus. We have been working on that seven days a week, 24 hours a day, in one way or another. I am sure I am not alone: Members of Parliament from all sides of the House are deeply engaged within our constituencies and caucuses with regard to the coronavirus, what is taking place in our communities and what we need to do as a government to minimize the damage.

The Conservative Party talks a lot about the plan, asking where the plan is, and the issue of hope. I have had the opportunity over the past 12 months to comment on the plan that we talk about consistently. There is no list of one to 1,050 thoughts, ideas, dates and so forth. That type of document does not exist, except in the minds of many of my Conservative friends. We have worked very closely with many different stakeholders, provinces, indigenous leaders, territories, different levels of government, school divisions, municipalities, unions and so many others, including small, medium and large businesses, to understand the impact that the coronavirus is having on our society and economy.

The programs that we have developed have done an excellent job of making sure that we minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus, and have put Canada in a great position not only to build back, but build back better, as many of my colleagues will talk about.

Look at the legislation that we have today. Members will say that I am a government member and I am just saying good stuff because I am obligated to say good stuff. I would like to provide a couple of quotes specifically on this bill.

The Canadian Labour Congress released a statement that said:

Canada’s unions welcome the extension to income supports announced by the federal government today as a necessary step towards providing further financial security to those who need it.

The release also stated:

It’s good to see the federal government fulfill its promise to take care of workers with these measures, including extending the duration of the federal sickness benefit for those who aren’t covered through their workplace.... The provinces must step up and offer workers universal paid sick leave.

That is what the CLC has pointed out. I put it to my friend from Elmwood—Transcona that we can talk all we want, but there is nothing that Ottawa could do that would meet the full standards of the NDP. If we extended something to 30 weeks, NDP members would say that we should do 35 weeks. If we did 35 weeks, they would say to do 40 weeks. It is endless in terms of what they would want to see.

If my colleague from Spadina—Fort York who talks about housing could do a comparison between NDP policies and what we have done as a government, we will find that in the last five years, the Government of Canada has far exceeded anything that the NDP could have ever created, even in their minds, yet they still say that there is not enough, even though it is tenfold in terms of the numbers they were talking about.

That is why I put to my friend the question. He himself recognized that when we talk about some of these permanent changes, and hopefully someday we will get to that point, the fact is that governments of different levels all have an important place in this debate. When we see what has taken place during the pandemic and we see the Minister of Labour sitting down with her provincial counterparts, I believe that there is merit in having that debate continue, and hopefully we will see the provinces there. Often it is a province that will take an action that will ultimately see other provinces and even the national government move forward.

On the issue of sick leave, we are, although somewhat temporarily, taking action. It is being recognized, but it is a relatively small percentage of the workforce. I am hopeful that provinces will see what we are doing, and maybe this will assist us going forward when we talk about building back better. I would like to see our workers treated far better than they were in the last 20 or 30 years, and we need to see more co-operation among provinces.

It was interesting that the National Council for the Unemployed also provided comment in regard to this bill, and they are calling on Parliament to swiftly pass the legislation. The council stated, “This extension is important for the thousands of families struggling to get through this crisis. Their fate is now in the hands of parliamentarians. Our message to them is simple: Every citizen has the right to emerge from this crisis with dignity. All of us will be stronger and more united. We must therefore adopt this bill.”

I asked a very simple question of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul: Will she support this legislation? What is the Conservative Party's position on this legislation? Members can read for themselves. There was an absolute non-answer coming from the member, yet the appeal to pass this bill goes beyond Liberal members of Parliament. That is because, as I am sure the House knows, Liberal members of Parliament are constantly working with stakeholders, in particular their constituents, in taking ideas and bringing them back to Ottawa to help us deal with the policies that are necessary in order to implement what is going to help Canadians. We recognize that, and I believe other political entities inside the House also recognize the importance of passing this bill, as does the National Council for the Unemployed.

We are all familiar with Unifor. I would like to share the message that came from Dave Cassidy, the Unifor national skilled trades chairperson for local 444. He wrote, “The expansion of EI coverage is critical to the workers and families of Windsor and Essex, and I urge all parties to come together to ensure swift passage of this important legislation.” He called for all parties to work together and move quickly to support and pass Bill C-24.

Part of the problem is that the legislative agenda is fairly substantial. There has been a great need, because of the pandemic, to bring forward legislation that is necessary for us to support Canadian individuals and businesses. When we brought in legislation, at times, especially earlier on during the pandemic, there was a high sense of co-operation coming from opposition parties. However, when it comes to my Conservative friends today, nothing could be further from co-operation. I would argue that they are being a very destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. They are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing. The only time we can get something through the Conservatives is if they are shamed into doing it.

I was disappointed earlier, as it was difficult for us to get the Conservatives to agree to vote on Bill C-14. It was all about the pandemic and supporting small businesses. It was hours and days before we could get it to a vote.

What about the games that are being played in the House, again mostly by the Conservative Party? There are concurrence reports and points of order. These are measures being taken to minimize the amount of time for debate so the Conservatives can say a bill cannot be that important if the government has not actually called it up. On the one hand they are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing, and on the other they are criticizing us for not getting legislation passed. How long will they hang on to Bill C-24 before they will ultimately agree to pass it? It is for the workers. For businesses we saw what they did. Ironically, they even voted against the legislation for them, which surprised me somewhat, I must say. However, we still do not have Bill C-24 through the House.

We have limited time on the House agenda and have tried to extend the time for debate. Even earlier today, a member from the New Democratic caucus asked for additional time to address Bill C-5. However, time and time again, the Conservatives are playing partisan politics in the chamber over and above what is a responsible approach to dealing with legislation that is for supporting Canadians during the pandemic.

Bill C-24 is yet another good piece of legislation, but I do not know when it is going to pass because I do not believe the Conservatives, unless something has happened very recently, have given any indication as to whether they want three hours of debate or 20 hours of debate. I know they will say that we all have the right to debate, and they will want to debate everything extensively. However, they know full well that it does not take much to stop legislation. I could get 12 students from Sisler High School in my area to easily prevent the government from passing legislation. It does not take much to do it. The only way we can get legislation through is if we are prepared to provide some form of time allocation. However, in a minority situation, that could very much be a challenge, even though at times I have seen my New Democratic friends support time allocation when they recognize important pieces of legislation.

I am suggesting that the legislation we have today is both widely supported and progressive. The Conservatives have nothing to fear from allowing it to go through because many of the measures are temporary. At the end of the day, if they want to support workers, I strongly encourage them to get behind the legislation and allow it to go to committee. After all, there are other things the government wants to see additional debate on, and I am sure that many of the issues Conservatives might have with it could be addressed at committee.

We could talk about the Canada emergency response benefit. It is an incredible program that appeared virtually out of thin air last year because of the incredible work of some of the finest civil servants in the world. We, from nothing, created a program that close to nine million Canadians ultimately accessed in some form or another. As it started to wind its way through, we developed three programs via the Canada Recovery Benefits Act: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit, all of which are referred to within this legislation.

In this legislation, we are seeking an extension of employment insurance. In essence, it would amend the Employment Insurance Act to temporarily increase the maximum number of weeks regular benefits may be paid to 50 weeks.

My New Democrat friend talked about everyone in the House unanimously supporting it. In fact, he implied that there would be unanimous support for it to be a permanent change. Let us see if we can get this to committee.

One of the things I have noted about the minister responsible for the legislation is her openness to hearing what opposition members have to say about legislation she has introduced in the House. There have been some incredible pieces of legislation by this minister, particularly in the area of disabilities, historic legislation recognizing for the first time the significant issue of disabilities and the need to address it in a much more formal fashion, which would ultimately lead to benefits.

This legislation would help workers, and I ask that my Conservative friends to take that into consideration as they caucus and determine whether they are going to filibuster or attempt to prevent this bill from passing to committee.

The government has been very much focused on Canadians since the beginning of the pandemic. We see that with the development of the programs I just referenced. I could talk about those programs for small businesses, whether it was the emergency wage subsidy, the emergency rent subsidy, the emergency business account and more. These programs support small businesses, which indirectly support workers. Again, millions of jobs have been saved.

Canada is in an excellent position to be able to build back better because we have a government that recognizes the need to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

[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 disagree with so many things my colleague said, but I am afraid I will not be allowed the time to express that. Hopefully I will be able to address them a little later in more detail.

The question I have for the member is this. Does she actually support the legislation? This legislation is there to support a great number of Canadians. We just witnessed the Conservatives vote against support packages in Bill C-14. Does the Conservative Party support this legislation? If Conservatives do support the legislation, will they recognize the urgency and start allowing government bills to pass?

Electronic Voting App

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the vote. The voting application showed that I was on the app. I was ready to vote for Bill C-14 and would have voted against it, but it did not give me the opportunity to vote at all. I see the vote has been counted, so I ask you to investigate that for the future.

Small Business

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, we are always pleased to work together to support our entrepreneurs. I would be happy to work with the member opposite.

I would like to know why the Conservative Party is playing politics with a bill that will help our small businesses and entrepreneurs in this country. Bill C-14 is going to provide additional support to our small businesses. Will that member and the Conservative Party help us help our small businesses, yes or no?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising the CFIB. The CFIB has been asking all parliamentarians, including the Conservative Party, to stop delaying the passage of Bill C-14, which would allow more small businesses and more entrepreneurs to access our financial support programs at the federal level. I would encourage all members of the House to work for our entrepreneurs, work for our small businesses and help us support them through this pandemic.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for sharing this excellent news. I believe hon. members were unanimous on this.

That being said, I thank my colleague for his Thursday question.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the Bloc Québécois opposition day. Tomorrow morning, Friday, we will begin second reading stage of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments in relation to firearms. Tomorrow afternoon, we will resume debate on Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, March 9, the week we return, will be an allotted day.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleagues an excellent week in their respective ridings and excellent work with their community.

Small Business

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the Conservatives say they are concerned about small businesses. I sure am, and that is why I would like to urge the Conservatives to stop their delaying tactics and pass Bill C-14. Members do not need to believe me that this is essential for small businesses. Let me quote Dan Kelly, who says that “Bill C-14 has some important measures for small businesses.... CFIB urges all parties to ensure this support is passed quickly”. Let me echo that and urge the Conservatives to pass these essential supports.

Criminal Code

[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 glad to share with members a few thoughts on the very important legislation before us.

I was pleased to see the government, through a unanimous consent motion, attempt to get the consent that would allow us to continue the debate on this legislation. I found it interesting that some members chose not to allow that to take place, and I am somewhat disappointed. If their intent was to have an ongoing debate on this very important issue, we should have seen the unanimous support necessary to allow the debate to continue. One can only imagine the real agenda of the Conservative Party.

I previously asked one of the Conservative members about issues with the court. It has a deadline that has now been extended to, I think, February 26. It is the Superior Court in Quebec. He was asked if he felt there was any obligation for us to pass the legislation, recognizing that it has gone through first reading, second reading, report stage and third reading. This is legislation on an issue that we have been talking about primarily because Stephen Harper could not get the job done back in 2015.

As a direct result of that, since the Prime Minister was elected we have had to deal with this issue. We brought forward legislation, and various forms of consultation took place. If we were to weigh the amount of debate here and in committees and the dialogue on this, it really is incredible. We are talking about literally thousands of hours in committees of the House, the chamber, the Senate and the Senate committees. Every possible aspect of debate has happened.

My worse fear is that now we are going to see the Conservative Party play games to try to use this legislation as a tool to ultimately prevent other bills, such as Bill C-14, from coming to a vote, as the Conservative Party tries to set the House agenda. In essence, it is trying to get the government to go on its hands and knees and beg to try to get things passed through the House. The way the official opposition, the Conservative Party, continues to play an obstructive role inside the House is incredible. In some sort of twisted way, it will say that I am trying to limit debate on this important issue.

I recognize that medical assistance in dying is exceptionally complicated and is a deeply personal issue. That is the reason I believe this debate could go on indefinitely. There are some members within the Conservative caucus who would like that. They would like to see this never come to a vote. There are also some within the Conservative caucus who likely will be voting in favour of it. However, there are some who do not want it and will be voting against it. If it is left up to them, they will continue this debate indefinitely.

In a minority situation, things become very difficult. The Conservatives will say they want more debate and will try to justify having additional debate by noting the very significance of the issue we are debating: life and death. That is why if they were genuine in regard to the issue itself and the importance of having debate on it, they would have allowed us to continue debating the issue tonight. However, because they were not prepared to allow that to take place, I am very suspicious that, once again, we are seeing destructive games being play on the floor of the House of Commons on an important issue. This speaks volumes about the leadership of the Conservative Party and their sense of commitment to Canadians in allowing for business to be carried out in a reasonable fashion.

We have opposition days, private members' bills and all sorts of votes that are opposition-oriented. However, the government does have some responsibility too. This legislation is critically important. It is life or death. We are looking for opposition parties to recognize the importance of it and allow it to pass.

With just a few seconds left, I will express to my colleagues in the Conservative Party that if they wanted to debate the issue, they should have allowed the debate to continue tonight. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party has once again chosen the path it has chosen: a very destructive role for the proceedings of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comment about the many hours of debate on both Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 and I am also sensitive to the court deadlines.

That said, it was the government's choice to bring forward a motion that is going to, in my view, substantially alter Bill C-7 with the sunset clause on mental health. By that very action, the government is probably going to provoke much more debate in the House because, as the parliamentary secretary will know, the House already took time to pass a version of the bill. The very fact that the government chose to bring in a sunset clause is going to provoke a lot more debate. That is beyond my control.

The other thing I would note is that I wish the government had been a bit more respectful and had introduced this bill for debate tomorrow so that individual caucuses could have had the opportunity to have a thorough discussion of their concerns around the table.

Industry, Science and Technology

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

Madam Speaker, nobody is debating the importance of the tourism sector. What I and the parliamentary secretary have brought up on a number of occasions is the fact that what we are debating right now is a concurrence motion, which we are all most likely going to vote in favour of. What the member and the Conservatives are neglecting to do is talk about a bill that would actually bring the measures to people, Bill C-14.

Why will he not talk about that? Why will he not vote on it?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the reality of what we see right now in Canada: half a million Canadians without jobs. If we could circle a date on the calendar when it was the absolute worst time for this pandemic to have hit, it would have been March 2020. Most of these industries were coming off a tough winter, which is normal for the tourism industry. They do not make money during the winter months, but they look forward to the spring and the summer, when they are able to make money once again. As the pandemic hit, we saw the economy shut down, and they lost the entire 2020 tourism season. Unfortunately, they had to rely on government programs to survive, although it was fortunate the programs were there. These business owners and the individuals who work in the industry do not want to have to rely on government; they want to rely on their own hard work, ingenuity and entrepreneurship to get back working in the economy.

Unfortunately, many of these small businesses do not see that light at the end of the tunnel. They lost the 2020 tourism season, and they fear they are going to lose the 2021 tourism season as well. I should note that I said that 28 Liberals had spoken to Bill C-14 when it is actually 22. I want to make sure that is clear for the record.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would point out a few points to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who is a seasoned member of the House.

First, I would say that concurrence motions are absolutely essential to vibrant House of Commons debate. These are opportunities for members of the opposition primarily to take the floor and debate the issues that are important to the people of their ridings and the people of Canada, and the tourism and hospitality industry is absolutely essential to the livelihoods of so many Canadians. Half a million Canadians are out of work in the tourism industry because of this pandemic, so I believe, and I think my hon. colleagues on our side of the House absolutely believe, it essential that this debate occur.

I would point out as well that when the member talks about Bill C-14, 28 Liberal members have thus far debated that bill. Is the member saying that only Liberals can debate government legislation in the House of Commons and that the members of this opposition should not be in a position to debate government legislation and should simply rubber stamp the government's agenda, rather than doing our duty as parliamentarians? I think that is unfortunate.

[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 wonder if the member can explain to me and to Canadians how the Conservative Party can justify playing the games it is playing on the floor of the House of Commons. While its members say they care about the travel and hospitality industries, they continue to drag their feet on passing Bill C-14. The bill does exactly what the industry needs in part, yet the Conservatives have refused to allow it to go to committee to date.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

This summer, I got to go camping in his riding, as I was unable to stay at a local hotel. In any event, I gave a speech about Bill C-14, and I mentioned the challenges faced by the tourism industry, which the member for Winnipeg North will be happy to hear.

In our speeches on this bill, we spoke about the importance of this assistance, and I remember that my colleague from Drummond used the key word predictability. At many meetings, people told us that they needed to know what kind of support the government would provide to these businesses. They need assistance with fixed costs, some of which are not being considered by the federal government in its assistance measures. If the assistance is to be predictable, we must look at all fixed costs.

We must reinvest in the human resources who will be able to establish links between activities and tourism routes. My colleague mentioned the Village Québécois d'Antan, but we must also develop the villages themselves so they can offer a warm welcome to tourists visiting a region. The entire tourism industry must provide a sensational experience so tourists will want to visit again and tell their family members and friends about their experience, so they will come discover these regions as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those who follow the House will know that this morning we were supposed to be debating Bill C-14. We were hopeful, after many days of debate, that it would be allowed to come to a vote. The Conservatives, of course, are dragging their feet on that.

We had another very important piece of legislation, and I know it is important for all Canadians. In fact, the minister who just posed the question and has done a great deal of work on it is saying that we should discuss this legislation and get it to committee. He wants to be able to work with all members of all sides of the House, in recognizing how important it is that this legislation be dealt with. However, much like with Bill C-14, the Conservatives would appear to want to continue to play these destructive games, which are not healthy for Canadians. I—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member should maybe ask his colleague from Edmonton Centre, to whom I had posed a question asking whether he supports the current restrictions that are in place. His response to me was yes, so I believe that the Conservative Party does support it. If I am wrong, the Conservatives should probably so indicate.

To answer his innuendo in terms of why I might feel frustrated at times, it is because I feel very passionate about doing what I can to combat and fight the pandemic. I see, as we all do, the impact it is having on Canadian society and I see how important it is that the government be at least allowed to do some of the things it needs to do, such as pass Bill C-14.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes members of the Conservative Party feel a little uneasy when we get into the reality of why they play their games.

The Conservatives talk about the importance of the tourism and travel industry. That is why they brought it up. The reason we are debating this today is because apparently the Conservatives are concerned about that one industry. If they are concerned about that industry, Bill C-14 would go a long way to support it.

It is important for my colleagues across the way to understand the consequences of their most inappropriate behaviour when it comes to debate and the games on they play the floor of the House of Commons. They need to start shying away from some of the games and start focusing on what the government has been focused on since day one, and that is Canadians first and foremost.

On the government side, my colleagues and I get a little frustrated when we want to share with members the concerns we have for the many different industries in Canada. Today, this report focuses on travel and our tourism industry. We have been putting a lot of resources into that, hundreds of millions of dollars. We have not neglected this area.

I was talking about the aerospace industry just the other day. Our aerospace industry is so vitally important, and the amount of travel taking place today has significantly dropped. We all know that. It has an impact. I am concerned about the aerospace industry. I did not hear the members talking about the travel industry and the impact it is having on our aerospace industry. That should have also been tied in with this.

The reason I say that is when we look at it, what should we do? Should we do one industry at a time and debate that? This seems to be what the Conservatives want to do right now. Maybe we will forgo opposition days and some government days, and go through one industry at a time.

I am very concerned about the aerospace industry. Travel has gone down. I do not know to what degree the committee had that discussion about the aerospace industry and the impact on it.

I take great pride in the fact, and it has been said before, that an aircraft can be built in Quebec from the very start, from the nuts and bolts to a 100% completed aircraft. I am very proud of that fact.

Manitoba also has an aerospace industry. We all know Boeing is being affected by air travel. It is looking at ways in which we can support the travel industry. In fact, I met with some members of Unifor to talk about the aerospace industry and the impact that travel is having on it.

Manitoba has a wonderful aerospace industry. So do the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. Those provinces probably have 98% of the entire aerospace industry in the country. Do not quote me on that, but I do not think I would be too far off. That is a direct link to travel.

I understand how important it is, but I do not think I would favour of having a day for every subject matter in regard to the coronavirus. There is not enough days in the next couple of months to cover them all.

Why would the Conservatives bring this up at this point? There is a government agenda. The government is moving forward. During the debate, both speakers were critical of the government because the Liberals did not get rapid tests out fast enough. Members will recall that the critic for health jumped up and down, yelling that the sky was falling and asking where the rapid tests were.

Over 20 million rapid tests have now been provided by the federal government, and a very small percentage of them have actually been utilized. It sure sounded good back then when members of the Conservative Party tried to get people to lose confidence in the government. That seemed to be their priority, not the travellers.

To what degree did the committee look at that issue? We have over 20 million rapid tests, and they have not been utilized anywhere near the degree they could be utilized. Has there been representation coming from the tourism industries, whether restauranteurs or travellers, in regard to it? Are the Conservatives trying to blame the provinces for not doing their jobs in terms of the circulation of rapid tests? Is that what the Conservatives are trying to say?

They raised the issue. I could not believe the ridicule and so-called outrage coming particularly from the critic of health for the Conservative Party. Of course, members, in talking about this motion, talked about the vaccine, and they were critical of the government about as well. They said that it was going to be the saviour.

This government, through its process and procurements, has put Canada in a fantastic position. We committed weeks ago to six million vaccines by the end of March and well over 20 million by the time we get into June. We are on track to reach that. There have been some bumps here and there and some things we have had to overcome. Some of them are an act of God through a snowstorm to restructuring or retooling of a company overseas.

The Conservatives have one agenda and that agenda is not to provide the type of official opposition that I believe Canadians truly want them to be. What do members think Canadians would say with respect to the debate we are having today and the games being played on the floor of the House of Commons? It is very frustrating.

I would like to be talking about the travel industry and the tourism industry once Bill C-14 gets back from committee. We should allow Canadians, committees and parliamentarians of all political stripes to have that debate about this industry and other industries at the committee stage. We can look at ways to improve it.

The previous speaker made reference to us having some programs. That is right. From day one, this government has been focused on ensuring we were there for small businesses in a real way. Those small businesses, in good part, are doing that much better as a result of the programs we put in place, and he cited some of them. A Conservative member previously made reference to the emergency wage subsidy program. It is a fantastic program.

Late last year, the Prime Minister and I had a discussion via Zoom with members from the folk arts council, which puts on Folklorama in Winnipeg. Close to 200,000 people participate in that event. Members can google it if they like. It is a major tourist attraction for the province of Manitoba.

We had representatives from the folk arts and others were involved in that discussion. They talked about how grateful they were for the wage subsidy program. A couple even indicated that if it were not for the wage subsidy program, the folk arts council might have had to close its doors. Think of the impact that would have had on my province. This institution has been around for over 50 years. There are literally thousands of volunteers. There are 200,000 plus people who will visit the different pavilions. Historically, it has been such a wonderful organization that provides jobs and economic boosts, whether to hotels, artists, and the like. It is very important to our tourism industry. It benefited from the emergency wage subsidy program. Members can talk about tourism and that program under Bill C-14 if they so choose.

However, the Prime Minister also made reference to the emergency business account, another outstanding program. I do not know if he made reference to the emergency rent subsidy program. What about the business credit availability program? One could even talk about the regional relief and recovery funds. All these programs virtually started from nothing.

The Prime Minister and this government are focused on the pandemic and working with Canadians, provinces and territories wherever we can to protect these industries. We worked with some of the best civil servants in the world and because of that, we were able to get these programs in place to protect the types of industries that are absolutely critical to our future. Because we were so successful at doing that, we are in a much better position to build back better. That applies to our travel industry. Our travel and tourism industry, like other industries we have, has benefited dramatically and positively from these programs.

We have admitted that we can do better, that there are opportunities to improve. That is one of the reasons for Bill C-14. The Conservatives continue to play this stupid game of filibustering, preventing the bill from going to committee, because they are not concerned. They might say they are, but saying it is different than doing it. It is time to have less talk and more action from the Conservative Party of Canada. We need a higher—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I heard the member specifically talking about how Bill C-14 addressed the issue of the tourism industry, so he has completely been on point. Although I do not believe I need to defend this particular member, as he does a great job of doing that himself, I thought I would throw that in for your consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hearing a lot about Bill C-14 and Bill C-19. I am just wondering if the Speaker could remind the member of the matter of relevance?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and somewhat frustrating and a little disappointing, to watch the Conservatives play their political games on the floor of the House of Commons. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Conservative Party of Canada is completely out of touch with what Canadians want their political leaders to be talking about and actually doing.

I do not say that lightly. I genuinely believe that the direction the current leadership of the Conservative Party and its House leadership team are taking, as well as the discussions and debates on the floor, do a disservice to Canadians.

I will expand on why it is we have a report on travel and tourism. I listened very carefully to the former speaker and the member for Edmonton Centre, who brought forward the motion on this concurrence to talk about travel and tourism in Canada. There was nothing said by either member, nothing at all, that could not have been said during debate on Bill C-14, for example.

There was nothing implying the urgency of having that debate today. When the member for Edmonton Centre presented his arguments to debate this, he expressed concerns in regard to all the restrictions. However, I asked him point-blank whether he supports the current restrictions that have been put in place by the government. His response was that yes, he does support them.

Where is the need to actually bring forward this report at this time? If the members were saying that this is such an important industry, and we should be talking about it, I would agree. It is an important industry. It is a very important industry for all Canadians, whether they are directly employed by it, indirectly employed by it or not even employed by it. Our tourism industry is of critical importance to our economy and to our society, in terms of how we ultimately evolve. However, if it were that important, they could have dealt with it when we were debating Bill C-14 earlier today.

They have opposition day motions, and they could do it at that time also. They could single out an industry and say that they are concerned about that industry and that they want to debate it all day, and ultimately it would come to a vote.

Members of the Conservative Party have been filibustering and doing whatever they can to play a destructive force in regard to Bill C-14, where there has been a great deal of talk about tourism and the tourism industry. There has been a great deal of discussion about that. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands pointed out the number of days we have been sitting for Bill C-14 versus what we would actually spend on a budget debate. As well, the Conservatives have given absolutely no indication. I asked earlier today when the Conservatives would see fit to pass Bill C-14, and there is no indication.

Now, we get this report that is so urgent that the House of Commons needs to have hours of debate on it. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and members of Parliament from the Conservative caucus believe that it is so very important.

For those who might be following the debate, I do not believe that it has anything to do with the industry, nothing at all. I think the Conservatives have factored in and brought in this report because they want to continue to filibuster and prevent debates from taking place. Interestingly enough, they will then criticize the government for not having debate. They will ask why we are not debating Bill C-14 more and why we are not bringing forward Bill C-19. This is not the first day on which we have tried to bring forward Bill C-19, which is a Canada Elections Act bill.

We look forward to getting that high sense of co-operation coming from all opposition members. They talk about the issue of vaccines in reference to this particular report, but vaccines apply to every aspect of our society, including issues being debated in many different forums.

What should we be debating today? We could have been debating this. Not necessarily the report, but why did members of the Conservative Party not talk about this more during the budget debate, or the mini budget debate, however one might want to refer to Bill C-14?

It has come to the extreme where the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, had to write a letter to the Conservative leader and say that Conservatives are dragging their feet on important legislation. That legislation will have a positive impact for our tourism industry. As members talk about the—

Carbon Pricing

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, our government is absolutely committed to supporting small businesses, and I would love to see members of the Conservative Party join us in that commitment. We disagree about a lot, but if we all believe we need to support small businesses, let us get behind Bill C-14. Dan Kelly was out there yesterday urging us all to pass this law. It would deliver concrete support. Let us do that.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member shares my concern for helping Canadian small businesses. While we continue to fight COVID, they do desperately need our support, and that is why I would like to ask the hon. member, and all of his Conservative colleagues, to join us in getting Bill C-14 passed.

In fact, Dan Kelly, the head of the CFIB, has called on all of us to get this done. He said that the CFIB urges all parties to ensure this support—

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I welcome that question because it gives me an opportunity to share something concrete that we can all do to help small businesses and workers, and that is pass Bill C-14. I would like to quote Dan Kelly, who said that this bill has some important measures for small business and urged all parties to ensure this support is passed quickly.

That is one thing we can all do to help Canada's workers and small businesses.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, my colleague wants to know what the legislative agenda will be for the next few days.

Tomorrow morning, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-14, which would implement certain provisions of the economic statement. In the afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then, Monday and Wednesday of next week, we will continue the debate on Bill C-19. On Tuesday, we will consider Senate amendments to Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying law. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, February 25, will be an allotted day. On Friday that same week, we will begin second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms act.

I thank my colleague for his question.

Employment

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the very positive report we received today from the IMF, which says Canada's economy will grow by 4.4% this year.

With respect to Canadian workers, I agree with my hon. colleague that we have to support them, and we can do that by voting in favour of Bill C-14. We must do so because we need this legislation and this help.

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating the hon. member for Abbotsford on his recent appointment as his party's critic for finance. He and I worked together in our previous roles in trade, and I look forward to working with him in this new role.

Let me take this opportunity to encourage the hon. member and all members of his party to end their delaying tactics on Bill C-14, to wrap debate at this stage and to move this legislation, which is really important in our fight against COVID, to the finance committee so it can do its work.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am pleased to have the Thursday question. It allows me to talk to him, which is increasingly rare these days.

To answer his question directly, tomorrow we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

When we return from our constituency week on February 16, we will resume consideration of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement. It is absolutely vital that we pass it quickly.

Wednesday, we will begin second reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is also referred to as UNDRIP.

Thursday, February 18, shall be an allotted day.

On Friday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-13 concerning single event sport betting, as well as Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I hope all our colleagues have an excellent week working in their ridings.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I also want to thank all the parliamentary leaders for their collaboration in developing a hybrid Parliament that can operate safely. I also want to thank everyone, the Speaker and his team, and everyone else who makes it possible for us to get together and debate.

As for my colleague's question, this afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debate on Bill C-18, an act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at second reading.

On Monday, we will have a day of debate on the Standing Orders, pursuant to Standing Order 51. This debate must take place between the 60th and 90th sitting days of a Parliament. We are in that period now, and the debate will take place on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.

On Wednesday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-19, which provides temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of COVID-19.

Finally, next Thursday, February 4, shall be an allotted day.

Criminal Code

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are debating a matter today of life and death. This is not an easy topic for anyone to think or talk about. I cannot imagine how much harder it is for people who find themselves in a position where they are faced with a choice between the two. It is a choice that directly affects suffering individuals. Each of their loved ones will also be affected. What makes it even more complicated and difficult is that it involves people having vulnerable moments and often, for many reasons, they were already disadvantaged members of our communities.

How we treat our most vulnerable neighbours reflects back on our personal and social character. It makes all the difference if someone who is struggling receives support to have a fulfilling and meaningful life, or if they are mistreated and neglected. It also gives the rest of us a good or bad example to follow in how we should treat each other. We have to consider all of this when it comes to Bill C-7. There are way too many problems with it, but for now I want to step back and focus on the heart of this issue.

Many brave and passionate voices from the disability community have stepped forward to call out the dangers of stigma and discrimination in the government's bill. One of those voices is Roger Foley's. He was born with a severe neurodegenerative disease and his condition got worse. He was denied the necessary supports for continuing to live at home. He has been speaking out about his troubling experiences while he is in hospital. According to him, the health care system has not provided him with any assisted home care team of his choosing. Instead, among other things, he has been offered the option of assisted suicide. From his hospital bed in London, Ontario, he told the justice committee his story and further said:

What is happening to vulnerable persons in Canada is so wrong. Assisted dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live.

Speaking from his experience living with a terminal illness, he had been calling for assisted life before he should ever have had to consider assisted death. The idea that the opposite could be true here in Canada should be unsettling for all of us. There is definitely a problem for the population with disabilities, in terms of aggravating stigma and discrimination towards them. Other people are at risk too.

If someone is thinking of ending their life, we know that it is most often related to mental health challenges or their emotional and social needs. Recently we heard the story of the late Nancy Russell, who was a senior living in long-term care during the COVID lockdown. She maintained an engaging and outgoing life. During the first wave, the usual activities she enjoyed were restricted. At one point, she was confined to her room for two weeks. Her family noticed an unmistakable decline in her life from the first wave. Her daughter was quoted in the media as recalling that:

It was contact with people that was like food to her, it was like oxygen. She would be just tired all the time because she was under-stimulated.

When news of a second wave came, along with the possibility of another lockdown, Nancy decided to apply for MAID. She was approved for it and died this past October. Her decision, within the larger issue of our response to COVID, is a separate discussion, but her daughter's words are important for us to consider in this different context. When deprived of our human needs, it is easy for someone to consider such an option. On the other hand, whenever these needs are met, it can have a remarkable effect.

I also want to talk about Harold, who passed away this summer. His daughter reached out to share with me the story of what happened near the end of his life when his wife, Barb, was visiting him. I will once again quote: “A COVID-19 restriction allowed window visits only. Because of being hearing impaired, he could see his wife Barb through the glass, but could not hear her. At times, staff were available to repeat Barb's words but not usually. Three weeks ago, Harold's life declined. Barb was informed she could come inside the facility to visit, provided she followed their protocols: masks, gloves, handwashing; only visit within his private room, etc. These preventative measures seemed reasonable. These visits continued for three days and each day Harold's health improved.”

She also included this reflection in her message, “Face-to-face physical and emotional contact directly influenced Harold's well-being, and now Barb is left with the lingering remorse that she was not allowed to hold her husband's hand as he breathed his last breath. It is well known that face-to-face human connection fuels wellness and, as end of life naturally draws near, the end for togetherness is just as real.”

She makes a good observation about the power of social and physical connection. Whether we are dealing with the case of Roger Foley's physical condition or emotional and relational suffering, we have to make sure that we do not misidentify any cries for help when somebody asks to die.

On a similar point, I want to make sure we consider the great potential for struggling Canadians to not find the help they might desperately need. For the justice committee study on Bill C-7, physicians, together with vulnerable Canadians, submitted a statement signed by doctors from every province. As of today, over 1,000 signatures are on that document. They explained the problem this way:

The shock of a sudden illness, or an accident resulting in disability, can lead patients into feelings of anger, depression and guilt for requiring care—emotions that, with proper support and attention, can resolve over time. The care and encouragement shown by physicians may be the most powerful force in overcoming despair and providing hope. Unfortunately, patients can no longer unconditionally trust their medical professional to advocate for their life when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable.

The lack of available alternatives and support could only make it more difficult. The same statement notes the following:

We live in a country where the wait time to see a psychiatrist in certain areas is 4-8 times longer than the 90-day waiting period proposed in the bill for those whose natural death is not considered “reasonably foreseeable”, and where 70% of citizens nearing the end of life still have no access to basic palliative care services. Yet MAID has been deemed an essential service under the Canada Health Act and palliative care has not. This bill creates the conditions for cheap and easy death through euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Without addressing the root causes of suffering or actually providing someone with different options, it is impossible for a real choice to be made.

Finally, I share the concerns of advocates for people with disabilities and for other causes, that this bill would help to normalize suicide in situations similar to the stories I have shared and more generally.

In 2020 and beyond, there is a real risk for an increase of suicidal thinking. This year has pushed many to the brink of despair. Now is the time for us to live up to our international reputation as a nation of compassion and caring. We should offer those who are struggling a helping hand, not a cold shoulder of indifference.

In my province of Saskatchewan, in particular, there is a suicide crisis in parts of the indigenous community. I know that many indigenous leaders and communities have raised this concern in regard to the expansion of assisted suicide. In 2016, during the last debate in Parliament to legalize assisted suicide for the first time, the former Liberal member for Winnipeg Centre, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, spoke about the impacts that he believed this would have on indigenous communities.

One of the overarching themes from his speech was that by allowing suicide to become a way out of suffering, we are encouraging a spirit of death in indigenous communities. Rather than telling indigenous peoples that if they are suffering their lives are no longer of value, we should first improve the conditions of their lives and help them carry their burdens.

It is hard to know where to begin with fixing the government's plan for assisted suicide. Bill C-7 rapidly expands the framework of MAID, at a rate never seen before. In this effort, the government has ignored its own framework set in Bill C-14 and the advice of hundreds, and even thousands, of medical professionals.

Where is the expansion of palliative care and other support? How long before we go even further in offering assisted death without first better providing people assisted life?