Bill C-10

An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests.
It also authorizes that Minister to transfer COVID-19 tests and instruments used in relation to those tests to the provinces and territories and to bodies and persons in Canada.

Judges Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to put this on the record, I believe the member was referring to Bill C-10.

Virtually from the beginning, the Conservatives were all about trickery and the types of things they could do to play that destructive role. Nothing has changed. I am hoping that we will get a glimmer of hope this evening from some individuals saying that this is legislation they could support, that they do not have to continue to delay it and that they could respect what has taken place and look at it.

At the very least, the Conservatives could take into consideration what we did as a Liberal Party when the Conservatives proposed something with Rona Ambrose. There, we had unanimous consent; it was passed through.

I am suggesting that, out of respect for the process and so forth, this does not have to be one of the bills that the Conservatives are playing games on.

Sitting Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Criminal Code

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was December 6, 1989, at École Polytechnique de Montréal, January 29, 2017, at the Quebec City mosque and so many other dates. Those dates need to resonate with my colleagues when they consider voting on this bill.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-21. We can say without hesitation that the Bloc Québécois's contribution is undoubtedly why this bill is finally acceptable. I would like to note the exceptional work of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, without whom this bill would certainly not have progressed in the same way.

That said, it is far from perfect, as it was initially botched by the government. We can see that, as with Bill C-10, Bill C-11 and so many other bills, the Liberal signature is to introduce flawed bills and be able to brag about having done this and that. In reality, it is others who improve them and deal with the problems and shortcomings of each bill that the government proposes. Bill C‑21 is a flagrant example.

The bill was tabled in May 2020. It was essentially a freeze on handgun acquisitions and a grandfather clause. In that respect, the government did in effect prohibit most models of assault rifles with its order in council on May 1, 2020, which was issued quickly, a short time after the killings in Portapique, Nova Scotia, but several models were not covered, while new models continue to enter the market. Also, the prohibition on May 1, 2020, did not cover all “modern” assault weapons, thus allowing weapons like the very popular SKS, which is frequently used in mass shootings in Canada, to remain legal.

In the briefing to members and political staffers, officials also confirmed that the government planned to amend the bill to add other measures, which was unheard of for a newly tabled bill. There was no rhyme or reason.

In other words, the bill was not at all ready and the government only tabled it to ride the wave of support for gun control following the latest unfortunate shooting. That is called opportunism. I would even add a real lack of desire to be truly effective. In short, the government was not necessarily able to bring forward a fair and reasoned bill, but action was required because it was the right time and looked good. The results are there.

In fall 2022, the government tabled a package of amendments to its own bill. More than 400 pages of amendments were submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, although the studies were already completed. These amendments included new measures to combat ghost weapons, but also a definition of a prohibited assault weapon and a list of more than 300 pages of prohibited weapons.

Here is another demonstration of what the Liberal government has made us accustomed to: anything. These amendments were tabled without explanation, without briefing and without a press scrum. Even Liberal members of the Committee seemed unable to explain these amendments. The various positions of the advocacy groups have become entangled—that is normal, of course—in a mish-mash of various readings and interpretations, most of which were justified or unjustified, since we were in a sort of grey area.

By drawing up this list, the government created a host of ambiguities and possibilities for circumvention, and, at the same time, penalized hunters and airsoft sport shooters. This does not include the weapons market already trying to circumvent the list. The concerns kept growing.

Hunters' fears are a good example. The Bloc Québécois listened to hunters. We therefore proposed reopening the study so that experts could be brought in to testify on the matter of assault weapons. The Bloc Québécois opposed the list in the Criminal Code because it made it needlessly long. The Criminal Code is not a real-time reflection of models of weapons and their classification.

It is my colleague from Avignon—La Métis—Matane—Matapédia who was a guiding light and kept the reason for logic throughout the process. Through pressure from all over, her team's research and her consultations with scientists and advocacy groups, she and the Bloc Québécois research team made a big difference in the study process of this bill.

It makes me very proud, today, to take the floor and re-tell the entire story. The government then tabled a gag order to quickly conclude the study of Bill C-21.

However, the government itself is responsible for the slow progress of Bill C-21. It preferred to bring forward an incomplete bill quickly after the killings rather than take a few more months to table a complete bill.

Despite these shortcomings, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑21. Initially, the bill was criticized by hunters, pro-firearms control groups and air gun enthusiasts. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, it was improved and satisfied most of the groups. Again, the Bloc was proactive and made such fair proposals that they could not be refused.

The government has acted softly for years, leading to gun violence everywhere, particularly in Montreal. Prohibited weapons are circulating illegally. Bill C‑21 is a poultice on a wooden leg, as my father would say. It is not nothing, but it is little, and the time wasted with the parliamentary exercise of cobbling together a badly designed bill does not save time. However, time is running out.

It was a mistake to try to create a bill full of shortcomings, that practically put hunters, sports enthusiasts and killers in the same boat. What a lack of will and respect for the afflicted, the victims, and for the innocent. In fact, the ultimate urgency was to table a bill developed by experts and scientists and improved by consultations with associations and as many representations as needed. The government is proposing quite the contrary, and that is unfortunate.

As usual, the Bloc is being valiant. We have done the work by bypassing and adapting the limitations and mistakes of the government. The next step is urgent. Weapons are flowing into Canada. What will the names of the next victims be? Who will lose a mother, a father, a daughter or a neighbour? What does the Liberal government plan to do to prevent illegal weapons from crossing the border?

I hope it will learn from its mistakes. Above all, I hope that the next steps in the fight against crime will be firm and frank gestures, based on clear legislation and taking into account the realities and needs of organizations that oversee, that work and that intervene in the area of public safety.

Online Streaming Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to the people whom I represent in Battle River—Crowfoot across east-central Alberta, and also to ensure that the voices of Canadians are heard within this place. Certainly, when it comes to the amount of correspondence and calls I receive, or the people who come up to me in the grocery store or on the street, or who walk into my office on the main street in Camrose, or when I chat with them across the many communities I represent in Battle River—Crowfoot, time and time again I hear from constituents who share their concern and who share their dismay at the fact that the Liberals and the Prime Minister would perpetuate a type of censorship that would limit the ability of Canadians to express themselves online.

It is unbelievable that in the 21st century this would happen in Canada, yet we are seeing it now, not only through Bill C-11, but we saw it through the previous Parliament's Bill C-10. Liberals seem to stop at nothing to control what Canadians believe and think, control everything to do with their lives. My submission to this place today, on behalf of so many constituents, is to plead with the government to reconsider.

As we discuss specifically the bill, which has been studied thoroughly, what I find interesting, now that it is back before this place, with the government's response to a thorough debate that took place in the Senate, is that we see so clearly that there is no consensus on the path forward for the bill, which is very contrary.

In fact, I would like to call out a very significant falsehood that is often perpetuated by members of the government. They somehow suggest, and in fact in question period earlier today they said it very clearly, that every Canadian supports the bill and that nobody is opposed to it. They asked the Conservatives what we are doing and said that we stand alone. I will definitively answer that question and say categorically that it is a falsehood, because of what we have heard throughout the course of this study. I know for a fact that there are some Canadians who live in constituencies represented by Liberals and by New Democrats who have reached out to me and other colleagues and have said unequivocally that they do not support Bill C-11.

I want to call out that falsehood in this place today, because government ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other talking heads of the government stand and say it is only the Conservatives who are somehow opposed to this great idea called “Bill C-11”. They forget to talk about the substance of it; rather, they would simply make the case that everybody is on their side and that nobody opposes them. That is categorically false, and I am going to call out that falsehood here today, as my constituents expect me to.

We face a unique circumstance. We are facing not only a censorship bill that is before this place, in the form of Bill C-11, but we are facing the limiting of debate. Can members believe it? We see that not only does the government want to control the online feeds of Canadians, but it is truly stooping to a new level by limiting the debate in the people's House of Commons.

Can members believe it? The Liberals, with their coalition partners in the NDP, would do everything they can to silence opposition voices and to silence the voices of so many Canadians. It is not just Canadians we have heard from on this matter. It is not just regular folks who are living their daily lives, but we have seen that there is certainly no consensus across the artistic community in Canada. In fact, we have heard from many of Canada's most talented individuals, those in the more traditional spaces like art and writing, as well as television stars and that sort of thing, but we have also seen, incredibly, the rising digital creator class speak so clearly in opposition to the bill.

In fact, I remember the previous iteration, Bill C-10. It can get a little confusing for those watching, and I am sure there are many watching this egregious attempt by the Liberals to censor not only members of Parliament, but all Canadians. The previous iteration of the bill in the last Parliament was called Bill C-10, and I remember chatting with the president of a digital film festival. I can assure members that this person was not a natural Conservative.

This was not somebody who would be predisposed to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada, but the plea from this pioneer in the creation of digital content was to say to stop it, stop the Liberals from being able to control our feeds and stop the Liberals from being able to introduce a massive government bureaucracy that would endeavour to control what we see online. I am proud to stand in this place with my Conservative colleagues as the only party that stands for freedom and democracy and against censorship.

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

Madam Speaker, much of the work was also done during the study of the old Bill C‑10, so we need to look not only at the study of Bill C‑11, but at all the debates on the Broadcasting Act.

People in the cultural community, especially those in Quebec, told us there was an urgent need to act and warned against missing this opportunity. That is why it was so important for us to press the government to move forward and pass this bill. Too much time has been wasted already.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, this afternoon the minister is trying to defend the indefensible from coast to coast. Bill C-11 is a disaster, as was Bill C-10, and it is being shut down once again. We had 20 written submissions handed to us last Wednesday at committee from people who wanted to come to committee. The member talks about LGBTQ and indigenous issues. We have not heard from APTN, which was one of the guests the NDP wanted to bring to the committee. It has yet to come to talk to us.

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Why do the Liberals want to shut the bill down in the House of Commons, do nothing over the summer and hand it over to the Senate? We have time to bring other issues forward. Proposed subsection 4.1(2) has always been an issue. It was an issue a year ago when we debated Bill C-10 in the House, which they rammed through and then called the unnecessary election. This is the same situation we are seeing today with Bill C-11.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C-11

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

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful abuse.

We as parliamentarians owe it to our constituents, our stakeholders and Canadians from coast to coast to do our due diligence, evaluate amendments, debate amendments and ensure the amendments being proposed achieve what is in the best interests of Canadian creators, Canadian viewers and Canadian consumers.

Could members do that, with dozens of amendments and dozens of clauses, in two hours and 59 minutes? It is not acceptable. It is unreasonable, and it is not possible.

I will tell us what could happen. What could happen is the same thing that happened with Bill C-10, where the Liberals tried to force through amendments that do not improve the bill but in fact worsened the bill. That is what happened with Bill C-10. The Liberals, out of the blue, moved an amendment that took away the exception for user-generated content.

As an aside, we see in this bill, and I will talk about it a little later, an exception to the exception for user-generated content, so the Liberals have clearly not quite learned their lesson when it comes to user-generated content and the importance of protecting it.

Here is another issue: We have the unique situation where there are members of the House who are not represented at committee. I am speaking about independent members, members from unaffiliated parties, such as members from the Green Party, who do not have the opportunity, or I would say the privilege, to sit on committees.

In traditional times, those members are able to come to committee, any committee reviewing pieces of legislation, and submit amendments and move those amendments during the clause by clause.

This programming motion, this guillotine motion on steroids, in subparagrah (iv) says, “suggested amendments filed by independent members pursuant to subparagraph (a)(ii) shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill”.

It says “deemed to have been proposed”. The member for Kitchener Centre and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will not even have the opportunity to appear before committee and move their amendments to this piece of legislation, which is the largest update to the Broadcasting Act in over three decades.

This is like a bad novel. It keeps getting worse and worse. Obviously, it is a bad novel written in a foreign country because Canadians only produce great novels, but this is a bad novel because it keeps getting worse as we go. Subparagraph (v) states:

if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9:00 p.m. on June 14, 2022, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill

That means no debate. Not just limited debate, but not a word of debate on a clause-by-clause or amendments at clause-by-clause. Our job, as parliamentarians and as elected officials, is to debate legislation. It is to debate legislation on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of Canadians.

Under this motion, Motion No. 16, each and every question necessary will be put without debate. It means that we cannot even suggest minor amendments to proposals. We cannot suggest to the Chair that perhaps an amendment may be out of order based on various reasons, including the parent act rule. That would not be possible because this proposal does not provide for it.

This proposal states that there shall be no debate, no debate on the largest update to the Broadcasting Act since 1991. No debate on a piece of legislation that could affect each and every Canadian who listens to music online, watches videos online or creates content that is posted online. There will be no debate on clause-by-clause or amendments after 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 2022.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member is going to let me speak to the question of witnesses.

Originally, three of the four parties at the committee thought that a certain number of hours would be sufficient to hear from witnesses. The Conservative members then proposed 20 hours, which was more than the other parties thought needed to be given to witnesses, given that many of these witnesses had already been there for Bill C-10. However, the rest of the members of the committee agreed to accede to the request from the Conservatives and provide 20 hours to hear from witnesses. At that point, the members from the other parties felt that we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses and the Conservative members disagreed. The majority of the committee believed we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses. As a result, instead of just coming to a vote and deciding by majority whether we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses, there was a filibuster of each and every motion to try to move to clause-by-clause on the vote.

If the hon. member had been there at the first meeting, he would know that was actually the history of the committee.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the hon. member: This bill has nothing to do with censorship. Freedom of speech is protected in this country under section 2, and it is very clear that freedom of speech is protected under this bill.

Second, this bill would not be necessary except for the fact that members of the hon. member's party have continued to filibuster the committee, preventing us from ever getting to a vote on any of the many motions, amendments and subamendments the Conservatives are making. In meeting after meeting, and now I have seen it on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, their end goal is for the committee not to be able to get to clause-by-clause. I think this frustration is shared not only by the Liberal members of the committee, but also by the NDP and Bloc members of the committee.

In the end, we are doing something that is asking the House to instruct the committee to do its job and get to clause-by-clause, so it is actually very democratic and parliamentary.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, everyone, for sticking around.

Would you be able to provide us a breakdown—I've asked previously about this—for the money in Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and the supplementary estimates (C)s for the duplicated funding request for the rapid tests? Just provide it for the committee. I don't need it right now.

In the supplementaries, there's $823 million for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. In the supplementary (A)s it mentions it's for disasters, etc., over the last 10 years. I'm curious why it's in the supplementary (A)s now for items going back 10 years? What would it be addressing?

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it mind-boggling and ironic that the minister talks about Conservatives bringing in U.S. problems, when the current government's whole modus operandi is to import U.S. culture wars.

I want to give an example of why it is so important that we continue debate. We heard the exact same response from the government over Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and the supplementary estimates (C), where there was $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 for rapid testing, and then a duplicate $4 billion in the supplementary estimates (C) for rapid testing.

We just found out today that the government is sitting on hundreds and hundreds, if not billions, of rapid tests unused, warehoused. This is the reason we need debate on this and other issues, so we do not have a repeat of this incompetence where the government is spending billions of dollars for items that are not even used.

Would the minister perhaps comment on why he wishes to stop any oversight of taxpayer spending and the government's incompetence?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

I will start with you, Ms. Messier. I know you have been carefully following our discussions on Bill C‑11, and even on Bill C‑10, since the beginning. This is an issue that is important to you. I would like to hear your thoughts on the situation.

[Karine Moses, Vice-Chair Québec and Senior Vice-President, Content Development & News, BCE Inc.]

Madam Chair and honourable committee members, thank you for hearing from us today.

Bell is Canada's largest broadcaster. We operate a variety of broadcasting services across Canada in English and in French.

We support Bill C‑11 and urge its swift passage into law. It is long overdue. The bill begins to level the playing field between us and our foreign competitors, and that is important to the Canadian broadcasting system.

That said, the bill can and must be improved. Bluntly put, it does not properly recognize the central role Canadian broadcasters should have in our own broadcasting system. After all, it is the Broadcasting Act. The discussions to date—including those that occurred as part of Bill C‑10—have dealt with important issues, but have also almost completely ignored what domestic broadcasters require to succeed.

As it stands, Bill C‑11 does not explicitly incentivize foreign content providers to work in partnership with Canadian broadcasters.

This needs to change. Let me explain why.

Historically, Canadian broadcasters have succeeded by running hugely popular U.S. shows that appeal to Canadian audiences and attract significant advertising and subscription revenues. In turn, these revenues are used to fund the creation, production and showcasing of Canadian content.

At Bell Canada alone, we spend $1 billion annually on Canadian productions, both our own and with independent producers. Part of this spend is for local, national and international news that provides uniquely Canadian perspectives on events here and around the world.

Let me be clear. Everything we are able to achieve as Canadian broadcasters is directly related to the profits we make by accessing foreign content. Without it, we simply don't have a business. We have achieved that access through a regulatory regime that enables it.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

[Hélène Messier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de la production médiatique]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for having me today.

I am Hélène Messier, president and chief executive officer of the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, AQPM.

The AQPM advises, represents and supports more than 160 independent Quebec film, television and web production companies. Members of the AQPM also produce content for online platforms, such as documentaries or web series. Therefore, many of them are also creators of original digital content.

On February 1, 2021, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to talk about the importance and urgency of passing Bill C‑10. One year later, I am reiterating the same message concerning Bill C‑11.

How do things stand one year later? Canadian domestic production and Quebec production are both declining. Less and less Canadian content is being produced in Canada. In fact, 58% of spending in the Canadian audiovisual sector now comes from companies that are headquartered outside Canada.

Independent production companies now account for 31% of the production volume—that figure was 35% last year—and broadcaster in‑house productions, which are essentially news, public affairs or sports programs, account for 11%.

Some will say it's great that Canada is a land of welcome for foreign businesses, but that leads to a loss of intellectual property for Canadian businesses and job losses for Canadian creators and actors.

Giving up our ability to create, produce, showcase and broadcast our cultural content to benefit foreign interests is like accepting foreign companies exploiting 58% of our agricultural land, according to their own standards, and controlling the marketing of grains, fruits and vegetables, while selling them back to us at a profit. On top of that, we would be thanking them for the jobs they have created. That is what Bill C‑11 remedies by giving the CRTC the tools it needs to support all actors that decide to do business in Canada.

Online broadcasting services occupy a space that is constantly growing in the broadcasting ecosystem. In Quebec, 70% of francophone adults subscribe to at least one on‑demand video service, with Netflix being at the top of the list. In the francophone market, individuals in the 18 to 34 age group consume on‑demand online content more than they do traditional television. In the 18 to 24 age group, people watch YouTube nearly eight hours a week, while TikTok is now one of the most used platforms by the youngest people and has grown by 55% over the past year. The TikTok platform even became an official partner of the Cannes Film Festival this year and created for the event a competition of short films under three minutes in which both experienced and emerging filmmakers participated. This situation was unimaginable only a year ago.

The use of social media to broadcast original and professional audiovisual content to reach audiences that are forsaking traditional media is a phenomenon that will keep growing. So it is essential that Bill C‑11 enable CRTC to include in its area of jurisdiction both subscription-based streaming companies, such as Netflix and illico, and social media companies, such as YouTube, Facebook and TikTok.

It is also important for companies that provide Internet and mobile telephone services to be included in the bill, so that the CRTC may potentially determine how they could contribute to the creation and presentation of Canadian content. Those companies are currently completely excluded from the application of the act. Yet they play an important role in the ecosystem, not only by enabling content broadcasting and distribution, but also by providing privileged access to certain broadcasting platforms. For instance, Telus users get free access to ICI TOU.TV Extra; Vidéotron users have the same privilege, for three months, for Vrai and Club illico; and Bell Media and Rogers offer similar packages for Crave or Disney+.

The AQPM is also proposing certain amendments for the audiovisual industry, which are the result of a collaborative effort with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions or with the Canadian Media Producers Association and the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada. I may tell you about this later. Otherwise, I will send you those amendments.

Thank you very much.

[Jérôme Payette, Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association]

Good morning, everyone.

Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee.

I am very pleased to represent the francophone music sector, which at times is overlooked in discussions concerning the Broadcasting Act.

The Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale, or APEM, represents the Quebec and francophone music publishers of Canada. Music publishers, partnering with author-composers, support the creation of musical works and promote and administer them. Music is published wherever there are music, online and concert music services and audiovisual productions.

The music sector needs the continuity that the Canadian broadcasting system affords.

There is much talk of the potential negative effects of the bill and the potentially twisted way in which the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, may interpret it. The CRTC currently has more power than what it would be granted under Bill C‑11, and the work it has done over the past 50 years hasn't troubled a single citizen. CRTC regulations are of critical importance to the francophone music sector.

I will therefore begin by discussing the very real effects of the lack of a regulatory framework that applies to online undertakings. It's quite simple: the further the online transition progresses, the more the Canadian music sector shrinks and strains to reach its audience.

The revenues that the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, has paid to Quebec music publishers have fallen by 24% since 2016. Revenues from conventional sources such as radio and television are declining, and we have been unable to obtain a substantial share of revenues from online undertaking, which are growing.

According to SOCAN, the royalties distributed to Canadian authors and composers from digital distributors are 69% lower than those from traditional broadcasters. Only 10% of royalties from digital media are distributed to SOCAN members compared to 34% for conventional media.

Growth in the online music sector mainly benefits the platforms and a very limited number of international artists. It has not helped local music or niche music artists, minority artists or those who speak languages other than English.

Quebec music struggles to reach its audience online. According to statistics obtained by the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, or ADISQ, our market share in Quebec is only 8% for online music services compared to 50% for record sales. Our francophone music is in even greater trouble as it represents only 6% of total streams. The situation is dire.

In the music business, if no one listens, you don't get paid. If your music doesn't reach an audience, that has a spillover effect that affects concert ticket sales, the uptake of songs by performers, the incorporation of music in audiovisual productions and the entire value chain. Apart from financial aspects, this concerns our culture. Our cultural sovereignty is in question.

Online undertaking have no financial interest in promoting, recommending or supporting a diversity of cultural expression. For them, cultural standardization is less complex and more profitable.

This is nothing new. We have been protecting our diversity of cultural expression with statutes and regulations for decades, and we must continue to do the same. The CRTC's regulation operates in the traditional environment, and it is high time it was adapted to the digital environment.

Bill C‑11 is a good piece of legislation and should be promptly adopted.

The web giants and opponents of the Broadcasting Act are exercising enormous pressure to create flaws in the bill. We must not yield to the platforms' lobbyists, who use misinformation and try to mislead.

The portions of Bill C‑11 concerning social media broadcasting activities should not be amended further. As you know, the text of Bill C‑10 was adopted by the House of Commons, but contained no social media exception in clause 4. The criticisms were heard and Bill C‑11 featured the return of that exception, but in a way that remains acceptable to us.

Any further change to the text of clause 4 could create a loophole for social media that will be felt by all broadcasting undertakings. It must be understood that TikTok competes with YouTube, which competes with Spotify, which competes with radio. The act must apply fairly to all undertakings or else it may be obsolete as soon as it is passed.

Some say the text lacks clarity, but the bill's opponents are focusing their attention on a single pixel to distract us from the big picture. The text of the bill is not limited to clause 4. The Broadcasting Act sets forth clear objectives and provides many guardrails. Any attempt to revise too many elements in the bill would stiffen the Canadian broadcasting system and rob it of the flexibility it needs to adapt to the rapid changes in our sector. The CRTC must be given the means to exercise adequate regulation over the web giants' broadcasting activities.

However, we are in favour of moderate amendments to Bill C‑11. We support the amendments proposed by the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, particularly so that the use of Canadian talent is equivalent for Canadian and foreign undertakings solely under paragraph 3(1)(f) and so that the CRTC's orders are subject to appeal to the Governor in Council.

We are also in favour of a public hearings process for the making of orders so that the CRTC is required to demonstrate that Canadian broadcasting policy objectives have been achieved. The maximum amount of potential penalties must be increased in the administration of administrative monetary sanctions in the event the act is contravened. It would also be desirable that the CRTC demonstrate transparency as a general rule.

Bill C‑11 should be quickly passed. The process has been dragging a very long time.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

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

Thank you for that.

You mentioned policy direction from the government. In advance of Bill C-10—well, I guess Bill C-10 never did pass, but in advance of the committee's discussions of it, there was a policy directive issued. I just want to confirm that you have not yet received a policy directive from the minister in relation to Bill C-11.

Online Streaming Act

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill, the online streaming act, which we know amends the Broadcasting Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.

At the outset, I want to state, as my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, did in his excellent remarks on this bill, my support for those sections of it that would see major international companies pay their share and invest in Canadian content. However, my remarks will focus on the impact this bill would have on the rights of all Canadians.

First, I will give a recap. When the first iteration of this bill was introduced in the last Parliament, it did not capture the attention of many Canadians. In fact, at second reading the bill was simply passed on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for review. Then, during the clause-by-clause deliberations, the Liberal members of the committee voted to remove an important safeguard of Canadians' freedom of speech. Canadians began to take notice, and started to loudly voice their opposition to this amendment and, by extension, to the bill's passage.

It bears repeating that the clause the heritage committee removed was a substantial clause that the justice department, in its opinion of the bill, made specific reference to as being necessary for the protection of the rights of Canadians.

It is baffling to me that the government, in particular the Minister of Canadian Heritage, along with his allies in the NDP and the Bloc party, could not see why millions of Canadians became opponents of this bill overnight. I believe that Canadians rightly suspected that this was not a case of the Liberals, together with the Bloc and NDP, just having a difference of opinion, but rather knowing that Bill C-10 infringed on their fundamental rights. They did not care that it did so.

Equally troubling was how the Liberals rammed Bill C-10 through the House without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee. The many outstanding concerns that had been expressed by experts, parliamentarians and Canadians went unaddressed. In fact, the shadow minister at the time, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, made the following observation: “Weeks ago, the Trudeau Liberals secretly withdrew the section of their own bill that protects individual users’ content.”

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in the House again with respect to Bill C-8, now at report stage. I would like to start by sharing that I intend to continue to support Bill C-8, as will my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which she shared when she spoke last week. The bill has much in it that we both continue to appreciate, such as funds for rapid tests, money for ventilation for schools, and delays on loan repayments for small businesses at a time when they need those the most.

With respect to the Conservative motion that is proposing several amendments, I do not intend to support them because they would remove many of these same items, including the school ventilation improvements, the ventilation tax credit for businesses and a tax credit for school supplies for teachers. That being said, I do want to raise a red flag that my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands and several others have raised with respect to the allocation, or even a double allocation, of funds. As she shared, I expect this was done with the best of intentions, but it is also important for us to be mindful of it.

In Bill C-8, there is $1.72 billion allocated for rapid tests. There is also $2.5 billion for rapid tests in Bill C-10. Last Thursday, in the supplementary estimates, we approved the allocation of another $4 billion for rapid tests. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer has called out, it seems to be that there is at least, if not double spending, a double allocation of this $4 billion for rapid tests. Certainly, with respect to Parliament reviewing this legislation, we both see it is important to address this, so that there is some measure to ensure that those funds are only spent once.

With the rest of my time with respect to Bill C-8, I would like to talk about what I see as the ambition gap in this legislation. In the fall economic statement, and in the legislation to bring it forward, there is so much more that could have been done to really meet the moment we are in.

I will start with the housing crisis that many colleagues have spoken about. In Kitchener, it is significant. There has been almost a 35% increase in the cost of housing in the past year alone. On Friday afternoon, I spoke with a neighbour of mine. Nick is a young person who shared with me, as many others have, that not only does he not expect that will he ever be able to buy a home, but when it comes to staying in Kitchener he does not expect that he will continue to be able to afford rent. He was just so concerned. That is as a result of a market that has increasingly become commodified. This is a market designed to provide a commodity for investors, when we should be focused on homes being places for people to live in.

In Bill C-8, as members know, the underused housing tax is being introduced, but it has also been diluted from what we know has worked in other jurisdictions. Vancouver is an example. In Vancouver, it is a 3% tax that applies to everyone. As a result, that measure has started to have an impact. It has reduced the number of vacant homes by 25%. It has reintroduced 18,000 units back on the market and it has generated tens of millions of dollars for affordable housing.

We can compare that with what we know is in this legislation. Not only is it not 3%, but it is down to 1%. I think there are fair questions to be asked about whether, even if it was broadly applied, a 1% tax would meaningfully change the behaviour of those who have begun to commodify the market and pull housing off the market simply to speculate on its value.

It is not only that. We also have exemptions everywhere: on every citizen, every permanent resident and every Canadian corporation. The list goes on and on. I think there are fair questions to be raised. Certainly, on its own, it would not be enough, but would this measure meaningfully shift and be a helpful contribution? At this time, in terms of ambition, this could have been the housing economic statement. It could have been the time we said that we have great ideas that have worked before, such as co-op housing, for example. Back in the 1980s, when we invested in co-op housing, we were able to build thousands of new rental co-op units.

Of course, when that is not in statements like this, it is less and less the case today.

It could have also been the time when we could have said we were going to put in meaningful measures to move away from the blind bidding process and move toward investing in public and subsidized housing with really bold and visionary measures to make progress on the housing crisis. If they are not here, I aspire to seeing more in the budget that we are expecting over the coming weeks.

In terms of this ambition gap, at a time when this House has affirmed that we are in a climate emergency, should not every economic statement focus on taking substantive, transformational action on the climate crisis? I certainly believe that to be the case. In Bill C-8, of course, the word “climate” is not mentioned even once. Instead, we see talk of more and more subsidies for oil and gas. Sometimes they are introduced under different names. The most recent one we are expecting is a new tax credit for carbon capture and storage, a tax credit that some are estimating could be worth up to $50 billion in this new subsidy for a solution that has already been subsidized significantly over past decades and only leads to 0.001% of reduction in global emissions.

As so many academics and scientists have called out, this is not a climate solution, so we need to be mindful of both what is not here as well as what could have been here and should be here going forward. We could take that $50 billion and invest in proven climate solutions, such as incentivizing homeowners to move forward on retrofits to their homes and businesses. Whether it is electric vehicles or high-speed rail, we could be mobilizing funds at the scale of a green new deal and at the pace that scientists tell us is required, and not to hold on to some faraway net-zero 2050 but to address what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us is required, which is the possibility of 1.5°C being the highest increase in global average temperatures at a time when we are already at 1.1°C. Yes, this is an emergency. As a result, I wish every economic statement we see in this House would have a stronger focus to give us te best chance of ensuring that our nieces, nephews, kids and grandkids have the possibility of a safe climate future.

Finally, I will close with respect to another gap in ambition, and that is with respect to mental health. We know the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, the Royal Society of Canada and so many in my community and across the country are calling out to address the significant gaps in mental health. We know there are significant wait times for young people in particular. As is the case for so many challenges we face today, this situation was present before the pandemic and has only been accelerated and made worse. This was another opportunity missed to increase the amount of health transfers from the federal government to equip provinces and territories to have the resources they need. If we are going to say the words “mental health is health”—as we all should, because it is true—then we should also be allocating the funding to ensure that we follow through and that across the country the resources are there to treat mental health as such.

In closing, I will continue to support Bill C-8. While I am disappointed that the ambition is not there for some elements, that does not take away from the fact that there are measures and funding that would go a long way in my community, and I want to continue to see those measures advanced.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise again today.

I want to begin by acknowledging that we are all on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation and express our deep appreciation for their patience as we remain on unceded territory. Meegwetch. We need to re-establish in every speech, at every opportunity, the ongoing demands of reconciliation, and it has to be more than a land acknowledgement.

Today, I stand to speak at report stage on Bill C-8, a bill I support and which I have spoken to at previous stages in this place. Report stage gives us an opportunity to look at where we are on the verge of the bill passing and going forth to the other place. Some concerns have arisen, and I want to address those because I would like to know from the government that there is a plan to address issues that surfaced from the hard work and diligence of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I also want to reflect, as we have this opportunity at report stage, when we are more than two years into a pandemic, to perhaps look at some of the elements that are at a higher level of abstraction in the bill before us, but which are related. Nothing will be off topic, but I do want to reflect on where we are now two years into the pandemic.

First, let me address what Bill C-8 is, just as a quick refresher. This is a bill in seven parts exclusively in response to COVID-19 at various aspects: its health impacts; the essential equipment that we need, such as rapid testing; and impacts on different sectors, including schools, businesses, individuals and workers. It is one more of the many, many bills we have seen since we started down this road March 13, 2020, when this place adjourned because we realized we were in a global pandemic and we could not continue meeting as we had. Since that moment on March 13, 2020, we have in this place, generally by unanimous consent, approved tens of billions of dollars of relief similar to what is in the package before us today in Bill C-8, which I support.

We have things like rapid tests, ventilation for schools, delays for small business for when they have to start repaying loans. It is a package with which I think all of us in this place are now very familiar. One thing was surprising, and I want to dive into it a bit because the citizens of Canada need to know that we are paying attention to the billions of dollars we pass in this place, and that was a certain redundancy, which the sharp-eyed people at the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer noticed. It is in relation to spending for rapid tests, which again, I support.

There is $1.7 billion for rapid tests found in Bill C-8. There was $2.5 billion for rapid tests found in Bill C-10, and then there was the $4 billion in the supplementary estimates that we have also passed. The question is this: Are we paying more than once for rapid tests? The answer is yes. The money is allocated, at least $4 billion, twice. I see an alarmed parliamentary secretary looking my way, yet Yves Giroux, our Parliamentary Budget Officer, has confirmed that there is in fact more money allotted than is needed.

I will quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer speaking in the other place:

When we asked questions about the intended use of this funding, it was to procure rapid tests for COVID-19 and to distribute them to provinces and then to Canadians. When we [the Parliamentary Budget Office] asked why try to have it go these two different routes to get to the same end, the government responded that it wants to get the funding as soon as possible, so they’re trying this through Bill C-10 and Bill C-8, as well as Supplementary Estimates (C). They will use whichever authorities come first to procure these tests. However, they have already started procuring these tests, so they are doing some risk management should the spending not be approved. That seems to be the reason why they are pursuing the two different approaches.

The discussion in the Senate then went on to discuss if would we spend $4 billion twice, or would there be some way of stopping the additional approvals once the tests are purchased? I do not really feel I have an answer to that question in this place.

I am still voting for Bill C-8. I want to make sure we get the rapid tests. I want to make sure we know what we are spending the money on, but I would also like to register now in this place, especially to government members, that we want to make sure there is some mechanism in place to avoid spending $4 billion twice. It appears from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's questioning of the government that this was not by accident, but I would like to flag that I have never seen it before, and I think it is quite unusual to approve spending $4 billion twice to make sure we get it once.

With that, I want to turn to a key area I think is, at a higher level of distraction, a problem with our federation. I am not proposing ways to fix it, but I want to flag it. It has been the reason we failed to meet our climate targets. I do not mean just recently; I mean over the last three decades. It is a reason why, I think, we have been less effective as a country, and I am not speaking of a particular government or political party, than we could have been in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. My thread on this is that, spoiler alert, I do not think the provinces and the federal government work particularly well together. They should, and we must.

I note that on COVID-19, eight dollars out of every $10 spent on COVID relief came from the federal government. We passed that in this place. Collectively, we did that. However, there was the speed with which we acted. The federal government might have been ready to act on numerous occasions, but the provinces were not, and if the action was in an area of provincial jurisdiction, we were delayed.

I definitely know this is the case on the climate emergency. Ironically, the European Union, which is made up of more than two dozen independent separate sovereign nation states, has done a better job than our federal government, our 10 provincial and three territorial governments, all together in one country, being able coordinate, negotiate and come up with a shared solution.

Leaving the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the European Union went back to home base and within weeks had negotiated a global agreement, global meaning all the EU countries in a bubble, on who would do more cutting of greenhouse gases and who would do less, so they could achieve the target they collectively negotiated. They are now collectively about 40% below their 1990 levels of emissions. Canada is about 20% above our 1990 levels of emissions, and I think a lot of this is because of federal-provincial tensions and a failure of collaborative leadership. I do not know how else to put it.

In the case of the ventilation for schools, which is my thread here, I worked all summer of 2020 on an idea I got for how to get kids back to school safely. I thought about it, and I thought of all of these tourism facilities, as I am very committed to the tourism sector, such as convention centres and hotels, that were vacant because of COVID-19. They would like to be able to put people to work. We had schools that would have overcrowding if kids went back to school. I wondered why we could not take the places that were empty because of COVID and allow schools to take place there. Then they would have had a lot more air and a lot more ventilation. It might have worked. I started talking to people, like the brilliant Paul Nursey, who heads Destination Greater Victoria. I started talking to people who run convention centres. They said they loved the idea and that it could work.

I will fast-forward to how many people and groups I got involved: People for Education in Toronto; the Tourism Industry Association of Canada; the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the union that was negotiating and talking to other levels of government; and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities gave me the time of day too. We started thinking we could put this together, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of this nation and her staff were interested in the idea. The one place I could not get any pickup at all, where I could not get anyone to pick up the phone and call me back, was the provincial ministry of education, and no one was going to go anywhere with this idea unless the provincial minister of education signed on.

Now we have here in Bill C-8 one of the things I was trying to address in my completely ad hoc volunteer way to try to get something to happen, and we are now approving ventilation for schools. That is provincial jurisdiction. We should have acted on that a year or more ago, and in my opinion, the reason we are approving it now in the federal Parliament, as opposed to much sooner, is that we could not get the provinces on board.

Opposition Motion—Federal Vaccine Mandates

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see all my hon. colleagues here in the House and to be speaking to today's opposition motion.

Before I begin my formal remarks, I want to say a few things.

First off, with respect to the residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the residents of the York region, where I live, we have achieved about 85% coverage for two doses of vaccination, which I think is incredible. I thank all of the residents who have done the right thing, or what I call the collective responsibility, and gotten vaccinated and who are doing that continually.

When the pandemic started, we asked much from Canadians. We asked them to stay home and we asked businesses to shut down. During that time, our government had the backs of Canadians, whether through the CERB, the CEWS or the number of other programs we put in place. We have done things prudently. We asked Canadians to do these things because we wanted to protect their health and safety first and foremost.

Every government knows that. If we read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and a number of those books, we see the government's job, fundamentally, is to protect the health and safety of its citizens. That is what we have done as the federal government in all of our measures. We asked Canadians to wear a mask and socially distance. We ensured that we had capacity in our health care system. We helped out the provinces by sending the army into long-term care facilities. Also, we put in place restrictions, including mandates, for the health and safety of Canadians.

Obviously we have been evaluating the data, as it comes in, on how we are doing against COVID. Thankfully, we can see a light and we continue to see more light as we go along. We have seen changes to the restrictions that are in place, including the removal on April 1 of the requirement to do antigen or PCR testing when returning to our beautiful country after taking a vacation or going somewhere for business. We continue to see progress, and that is very important.

As a government, it is important to highlight prudence and responsibility, because we must have responsible leadership. When we talk about governing a country or province or being a mayor, we must demonstrate responsible leadership. I would say it is irresponsible leadership on the part of the official opposition for it to say we can just magically turn a switch and COVID‑19 will vanish. That cannot happen. Rather, we must follow the advice of medical practitioners.

Today, I am pleased to speak about the federal government's ongoing commitment to the well-being of Canadians and our economic recovery as we collectively transition from stringent lockdowns and restrictions to a stage where each of us is assuming more personal responsibility. Ensuring that all Canadians have what they need to be safe during this critical time is a responsibility that our government takes very seriously. We are committed to continuing to work hand in hand with the provinces and territories on these efforts and have done so since the beginning.

Unfortunately, COVID‑19 continues to have a significant impact on the lives of Canadians. Despite Canada's high vaccination rate, COVID‑19 continues to challenge our health, social and economy well-being. We need to ensure that Canadians have the tools they need to keep themselves and their loved ones safe as we enter this new phase.

Over the past few weeks, many jurisdictions have begun to ease some or all public health measures that were put in place to diminish the spread of COVID‑19, including limited occupancy in bars, restaurants and gyms, the use of vaccine passports and the use of masks indoors. In this phase, it is important that individual residents are equipped with information and the tools that will empower them to manage their own risk, including making decisions surrounding their own care and health.

This shift has heightened the urgency for the government to continue to procure and distribute COVID‑19 rapid tests. Equitable access to tests across and within jurisdictions is just as critical as procuring and distributing the tests themselves. Canadians will be relying on these tests to inform their own decision-making, whether it is to assess if they are able to visit a loved one in a long-term care facility or send their children to school.

Canada has been a leader in vaccine uptake, with over 80% of the entire population having received two doses of a COVID‑19 vaccine. As members know, the primary objective of the vaccine is to reduce hospitalizations and deaths, and it has been suggested that COVID‑19 vaccines have been very effective in this regard. They have worked. Thanks to scientists and health practitioners, vaccines are doing their job and continue to do their job. Recently, a number of provinces and territories have moved to the general public distribution of tests and are leveraging the retail sector to make COVID‑19 rapid tests available free of charge.

To support provinces and territories, Health Canada sought and received authority through Bill C-10 to distribute tests to provinces and territories, organizations, and individuals. With this authority, Health Canada is distributing directly to entities that have experience receiving medical equipment, such as pharmacies and the Canadian Red Cross, as well as to provinces and territories.

The omicron variant changed the landscape of the virus for countries around the world. The rapid spread of the virus among vaccinated individuals, even today, led many countries to move to refocus lab-based PCR testing and scale up COVID-19 rapid tests as a key testing method. As a result of the global resurgence of COVID-19 and the increased adoption of rapid tests, an already scarce resource became even more limited in supply, leading to a very competitive market. I would like to commend the Minister of Public Services and Procurement on her job in procuring rapid tests for this country and the ability to get that done.

Fortunately, Canada was an early adopter of COVID-19 rapid tests and had contracting vehicles already in place to quickly procure additional tests from last fall into this winter. Furthermore, to assist with transporting inventory from Asia, the government has secured international logistics support that suppliers can access in the event that they cannot secure their own airlifts.

In addition, Health Canada has prioritized applications that seek regulatory approval of COVID-19 rapid tests. Just last week, another point-of-care rapid antigen test was approved, bringing the total number of approved COVID-19 rapid tests to 29, plus 11 self-tests.

Given the globally competitive market, the government is putting in place additional contracts to secure a critical supply of tests for the coming months. The reality is that not every Canadian finds help readily available or easy to access. Keeping these realities in mind, our government is taking important steps to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 rapid tests.

As provinces and territories, as well as the federal government, started to roll out workplace screening in spring 2021, the government partnered with the Canadian Red Cross to support the non-profit sector. Through this partnership, non-profit organizations were provided with guidance materials, support and COVID-19 rapid tests free of charge directly from the Canadian Red Cross.

Given the success of this initiative and the standing that the Canadian Red Cross has in communities, this partnership has recently expanded to support broader distribution of tests, with a focus on individuals who have been hesitant to access services and supports. Working with food banks, YMCAs and YWCAs, and Boys and Girls Clubs, the government, through the partnership with the Canadian Red Cross, is taking steps to ensure equitable access of COVID-19 rapid tests.

The ongoing commitment to ensure access to COVID-19 rapid tests is an important enabler for the economy. Vaccines, along with rapid tests, are allowing the economy to function to its fullest extent. Ready access will allow Canadian businesses to continue with their voluntary workplace screening, thus diminishing the possibility of outbreaks. In addition, ongoing general population testing will provide a level of comfort to those travelling both internationally and domestically that they are not putting close contacts at risk during or after their travel.

As I said, on April 1 we will lift the antigen or PCR test requirements for Canadians returning to this country. I know many Canadians have asked for this, and over the last few months I have said to my constituents and many other friends that we would do this when it was prudent and safe to do so. We have done so. We have followed the signs. I have great faith and confidence in the Minister of Health, a great colleague and a dear friend. I know full well he is following the science and advice of medical professionals here in Canada who are doing a great job, day in and day out, and who have been asked and tasked to do a lot over the last two years.

This will further enable Canadians to travel unimpeded and will support the recovery of the Canadian travel and tourism sectors. As the members of this House are aware, Canadians' health and safety is this government’s main priority during this difficult and unprecedented time. As we have stated throughout the pandemic, this government will be there for every Canadian. The first priority of government should be protecting the health and safety of its citizens, and that has been our primary job over the last two years.

It goes without saying that the months ahead of us will continue to be full of challenges as we transition from having numerous public health measures in place to supporting tools to empower Canadians to make risk-informed choices and decisions on how to manage the risks of COVID-19.

I look forward to questions and comments. I would like to extend well wishes to the Speaker of the House, who is recovering from his operation.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today in the House to address this very important topic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has obviously impacted everyday life across Canada and around the world for two years now. It has also put our health care systems to the test, disrupted our economy, and altered our social and economic interactions.

In response to the crisis, the Government of Canada took serious measures to protect Canadians' health and safety. As the pandemic evolves, it is important to keep reviewing the effectiveness of the measures we have taken.

I understand what the Conservative Party and the House itself want, and I understand the importance today of reviewing various mandates, such as the vaccine mandate, because it is something the Government of Canada does every day. This is part of the ongoing review of the measures in place to fight COVID-19.

As I said earlier, the Government of Canada is constantly reviewing the measures and will continue to do so with a view to protecting Canadians' health and safety using the least restrictive measures possible, in order to minimize the impact of these measures on our individual, personal, family, economic and social lives.

There are real consequences to adding or eliminating any public health measure. That is why, before imposing these measures, we have always done a thorough analysis based on scientific evidence and consistently reviewed our decisions. It is important to point out that the situation today is totally different from the situation we faced in March 2020.

In the past two years, Canadians have rigorously followed public health measures to protect one another. Most of them got vaccinated, wore masks, physically distanced, and stayed home when they were sick.

Thanks to these often difficult efforts, we entered a phase where it is easier to participate in activities in person, to attend gatherings and to travel. We all did our part. We learned lessons. As a result, we are now better prepared to move forward.

As Dr. Tam reminded us again recently, COVID-19 is here to stay. We are monitoring the omicron subvariants and in particular the BA.2 subvariant, which have led to an increase in the number of cases in many parts of Canada and the rest of the world.

Although the number of serious COVID-19 cases is dropping in Canada and most other countries, several hospitals in Canada are still under considerable stress. The pandemic is therefore still putting pressure on our health care system and our health care workers.

We need to be able manage this pressure when public health measures are lifted in many parts of the country. We must also be aware that, during this transition period, we do not all see the lifting of health measures in the same light. Some people are thrilled to get back to their usual activities, while others are more careful and sometimes far less comfortable.

In the past two years, Canadians have shown incredible flexibility and great resilience, and they will continue to do so. They will make choices that reflect their own reality, based on factors such as their personal situation, their aversion to risk, their COVID-19 vaccination status, the number of COVID-19 cases in their environment, underlying medical issues, and the risk associated with contact with friends and others who are infected. For example, some people could very well continue to wear a mask, even if it is not mandatory in certain places.

We therefore encourage everyone to continue making informed decisions in order to protect themselves, their family and their community, and to respect others’ decisions by showing compassion.

Screening tests are among the tools that will help Canadians make informed decisions in order to manage their own health and safety. I would like to take a few minutes of your time to discuss them.

Rapid testing, in particular, empowers Canadians by providing them with the ability, on their own terms, to determine quickly and easily whether they have COVID-19, thereby building confidence and supporting reopening efforts.

Ensuring equitable and efficient access to COVID‑19 rapid tests will remain a priority because Canadians are increasingly relying on them to make decisions about things such as whether they should visit a loved one, particularly someone in a long-term care facility, send their kids to school or organize a family gathering.

The federal government started buying and providing rapid tests, free of charge, to the provinces and territories as soon as October 2020. In last December alone, the Government of Canada delivered more than 35 million rapid antigen tests to provinces and territories. Another 140 million landed in Canada in January.

In light of the growing demand for rapid tests across the country, the Government of Canada also introduced Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. The bill, which received royal assent earlier this month, will provide Health Canada with $2.5 billion in funding and the statutory authority to purchase and distribute rapid tests across Canada. With this funding, the Government of Canada will be able to ensure Canadians continue to have the rapid tests that they need, free of charge and in all provinces and territories.

In addition to supplying provinces and territories and indigenous communities, the funding also allows Health Canada to continue to provide tests for distribution through important partners such as the Canadian Red Cross, chambers of commerce and pharmacies. This will allow schools to stay open and help protect our children, as well as our parents or grandparents in long-term care. With this funding, the Government of Canada will put in place critical contracts in a highly competitive global market to purchase efficient and sufficient quantities of rapid tests to meet the anticipated demand across the country.

As we continue to manage COVID-19, the Government of Canada is also making use of waste-water surveillance to help us understand the community transmission of COVID-19. This waste-water surveillance is an extraordinary tool, which PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, is using independently of clinical testing so that we can learn whether the virus is increasing or decreasing in a community by testing the community's sewage.

Waste-water testing is conducted in collaboration with communities and local health authorities to help inform decision-making and public health guidance. The Government of Canada's scientists are working together on a community-level waste-water surveillance program in 65 locations across the country. Samples are then sent to the Public Health Agency of Canada's national microbiology laboratory in Winnipeg, and I know some of our members of Parliament will be happy to be reminded of the pride we have in that laboratory, for analysis and detection of the virus that causes COVID-19, including variants of concern.

Waste-water testing provides unique opportunities to detect and monitor emerging variants of interest and concern. With limitations related to clinical testing, for example, molecular and PCR testing across Canada, waste-water is therefore an important surveillance tool to provide a picture of the community burden related to COVID-19.

The testing and monitoring tools I just mentioned and briefly described all help orient our public health measures, particularly those in effect at the Canadian border. These measures, together with all the other COVID‑19 measures, are based on scientific data and evidence about the current epidemiological situation in Canada and around the world.

That is why, as of April 1, fully vaccinated travellers will not have to present COVID‑19 test results prior to entering Canada by air, land or sea.

We will obviously continue to review and adjust our border measures, as we have always done, in an effort to keep Canadians safe while ensuring efficiency at our borders for both travellers and trade.

Everything I just mentioned has helped put us in a position to be able to manage COVID-19 more effectively in the coming months. The measures will continue to change along with the epidemiological situation.

All the knowledge and tools we acquired over the past two years, including the strategic use of testing and tracing, as well as changing border measures based on the most recent data, will be very useful to us.

That being said, it is very important to remember that vaccination continues to be the most important tool for protecting against the serious consequences and spread of COVID-19. Over 85% of Canadians have already received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and approximately 81% of Canadians are fully vaccinated. Nearly 18 million people received a booster dose, and approximately 57% of children aged 5 to 11 have now received at least one dose of the vaccine. Vaccination will continue to be essential as new variants and subvariants continue to emerge.

When it comes to COVID-19, we cannot afford to become complacent. This virus does not follow a predictable path. There will continue to be ups and downs. There will continue to be new variants, and there will continue to be new waves. We have to be prepared to manage that. This is a matter of responsibility and transparency. As well as we have done so far, we can always do better. In the short term, that means continuing to get vaccinated, including boosters.

About three million eligible individuals in Canada have not yet received the first or second dose of the primary vaccine series. In addition, approximately 60% of adults have received a booster shot, which considerably reduces the risk of serious consequences. That is not enough though. Even though we would like to put COVID‑19 behind us, we cannot take our success for granted.

In conclusion, over the past two years, the Government of Canada's approach to addressing COVID‑19 has always been based on scientific data, the epidemiological situation, and the precautionary principle, and that will not change.

We will continue to base our policies on the latest data and lessons learned over the past two years. Canadians expect nothing less. Even though many communities are beginning to reconsider their public health measures, we must acknowledge that COVID‑19 is still very much a part of our lives, which means we must continue to be careful.

As Dr. Tam said before the Standing Committee on Health on Monday, the epidemiological situation in Canada is improving but it is unstable. We have seen this in Europe, where there has been a resurgence of COVID-19 very recently.

The same thing could happen here in Canada because of the presence of omicron and the emergence of the BA.2 subvariant, which is 50% more transmissible and contagious than the original omicron variant.

As such, even as we carefully return to the many activities we have missed over the past two years, we must not let our guard down. Vaccination continues to be one of the most effective ways available to all Canadians to protect themselves and their family. This, combined with masking and other personal protection measures, will remain important in the weeks to come.

As I conclude my remarks today, I want to acknowledge the full range of emotions that we are feeling right now as jurisdictions adjust the public health measures that we have lived with on and off for two years now.

I strongly encourage everyone to be prudent and patient and compassionate toward others as we continue to adapt to the evolving pandemic.

[Scott Benzie]

That's correct. In fact, our organization didn't exist before Bill C-10, and I hope it doesn't exist six months from now, but we'll see where that goes.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton West did a bit of tracing of what looks like double accounting for the same money for the purchase of rapid tests. It looks to me, and in fact there is testimony in the other place by our Auditor General, that the money found in Bill C-10 and found in Bill C-8 is also in the supplementary estimates. He hinted at this. It looks like $4 billion twice. I am curious to know how we think we account for that and make sure $4 billion does not get spent twice on the same rapid tests.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Benzie, thank you for your answer to that. I want to give you an opportunity to expand on that a bit more.

We have heard from the heritage minister that in no uncertain terms does Bill C-11 include user-generated content, that Bill C-11 has fixed that mistake that was in Bill C-10. I guess I'm just wondering what your response to that would be.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your role. It is wonderful to see you take part in a fine Canadian federal institution such as the Speaker.

I am pleased to rise again to talk about Bill C-8. It is another massive Liberal spending bill, with little oversight and probably little chance of delivering on what they have talked about. It is almost a Liberal pre-engagement gift to our colleagues in the NDP.

To summarize, the fall fiscal update added $70 billion in new spending and this is spending on top of that. This is $70 billion, as I mentioned, that does not even include the Liberals' campaign promises, which will be tens of billions more for their election goodies. This is going to add on top of what we saw in the public accounts, the $1.4 trillion of debt for the Canadian taxpayers. Think about that: $70 billion more on top of the $1.4 trillion that has already been added up until now. That does not even include probably $100 billion to $200 billion, depending on which discount rate we use, for unfunded public service pension liabilities and hundreds of billions of dollars more in Crown corporation debt that is not accounted for.

One of the problems I have with Bill C-8, and I have talked about this a lot in the House and in committee, is the lack of proper oversight for the bills and spending. We have heard the previous Treasury Board president admit to committee that he had not been following the rules. We saw it with the WE Charity scandal. The Treasury Board is required to have, for their submissions, an official language analysis. The Treasury Board, under the current government, decided to ignore it and not require an official language analysis, even though it is right in the rules that it is required. They break these rules in order to benefit their friends at the WE Charity, which, of course, was funding members of the Prime Minister's family.

We saw it with the wage subsidy, with the $100 billion. We asked the President of the Treasury Board if it had gone through the Treasury Board approval process. It had not. This is, again, the problem we have. The Treasury Board rules are not just suggestions. They are not mere guidelines. These are actual rules. The Treasury Board is supposed to be the gatekeeper, the adult in the room at the cabinet meeting to ensure that Canadians are getting value for their taxpayer money.

What did we see? The Treasury Board said they were not going to look at that and that it was more important to get the announcement out than to do its job. Therefore, $100 billion did not go through Treasury Board approval.

What did we get? We heard about massively profitable companies making out like bandits. We hear the NDP demanding higher taxes on these companies with excess profits, but it is funny that we never hear them going against their colleagues in the Liberal government to end these massive subsidies and this corporate welfare. As long as we are spending, that is okay. They do not care where it is spent.

We saw that with the Liberals. We saw the Thomson family, one of the wealthiest, the second, if not the top, wealthiest family in the country, receive money in the wage subsidy. Companies like Berkshire Hathaway, worth half a trillion dollars in market cap, a company owned by the Oracle of Omaha, got money from taxpayers in the wage subsidy. Then there is Nike and Rogers. Rogers has $25 billion to do a buyout bid for Shaw Communications, yet it got money from the government. Chinese state-owned banks and airlines received wage subsidy money.

Of course, what would a government handout from the Liberals be without money going to their friends at Irving? It was not enough that they are getting, probably, a $100-billion contract for the Canadian surface combatants and hundreds and hundreds of millions more for the offshore patrol ships, yet the Liberals are also giving them wage subsidies.

As for the offshore patrol ships, the way shipbuilding works, the first ship is the most expensive, the second one a bit less expensive and so on, as the company learns and improves productivity. The sixth, seventh and eighth ships should be a lot less expensive, yet, for the government, with Irving, the price is going up. The more ships, the more productive they get, but somehow the ships are becoming more expensive. Again, it is just another handout without proper Treasury Board oversight.

We heard of an exclusive ski club with a $43,000 membership. We hear the government talk a lot about the middle class and those hoping to join the middle class. How many in the middle class can afford $43,000 for a membership at a ski club? This ski club had $13 million for a new lodge, paid $13,000 in taxes and yet got $1.4 million from the government for the wage subsidy.

Here are some of the other companies. Suncor energy, much as I love energy companies, with a $31-billion market cap rate, got money. Bell Canada was another. Couche-Tard from Quebec, with a $45-billion market cap, got money. Lululemon is another. The money was used for share buybacks and executive bonuses.

Unlike our colleagues in the G7 or the OECD that were also offering wage subsidies, we were the only country that did not set up fencing around who got the money. Britain had a program for wage subsidies, but it banned the use of money for share buybacks and executive compensation. Not this government. “Why?”, we asked. Well, it did not go through a Treasury Board program. We asked the Auditor General. Her comment was that the government did not set up the fencing even though it knew it would be more expensive and knew that companies would take advantage of that.

The CRA did not have all the information it needed to validate the reasonableness of the applications before issuing payments. Why is that important? The Auditor General stated that $300 million in the first tranche of the funding went to companies with a high risk of insolvency. He stated and showed that $2 billion had gone out to companies that had not filed taxes or GST remittances in years. The CRA knows that these companies have a much higher chance of going into bankruptcy. It is one of its leading indicators of companies going into bankruptcy, and yet the government handed out the money without any oversight. The Auditor General's report stated, “We noted that the subsidy was paid to applicants despite their history of penalties for failure to remit and other advance indicators of potential insolvency.” This is the Auditor General. This is not a partisan Conservative MP. Again, why was there no oversight?

I will go back to the poor planning. We have been asking for rapid testing since 2020. If members go back to Hansard, they will see many requests from our health critics over the last two years for more money for rapid testing. Those requests fell on deaf ears.

The government will say, “Well, look, there's $1.7 billion in Bill C-8 for rapid testing, and there is also $2.3 billion in Bill C-10.” I am sure that is going to come back as well, so it is $4 billion. “Big deal”, members are probably thinking, “That's great.” However, in the supplementary estimates (C), which are being deemed reported tomorrow, there is also $4 billion for rapid testing. Therefore, is there $8 billion for rapid testing, because that is what the government is asking approval for? Well, no, it is not $8 billion; it is just $4 billion. The government has basically said that it messed up, so it is going to duplicate the request to Parliament in order to make sure that it has the money. Honestly, one could not run a lemonade stand with such advance planning, yet this government thinks to run the government that way.

Here is the funny thing. The supplementary estimates (C) will be approved tomorrow for $4 billion, and Bill C-8, which was brought in a couple of months ago, will actually approve the $1.7 billion after it is already approved in the supplementary estimates. Again, it just goes back to poor planning by the government.

Also, in Bill C-8, the repayment of the CEBA is being extended for six years. We asked in public accounts if there was no provision for bad loan writeoffs. We were told that there is no provision for loan writeoffs for this money, because there is such little chance of any of it, they were saying, being written off, which is wonderful. However, why then is the government extending payback for a couple more years if the government itself is saying that there is almost no chance of any losses? Again, it just goes back to poor planning by this government.

Bill C-8 all around is a poorly written bill and there are a lot of items that are not needed, which is why we are not going to be supporting it.

Royal Assent

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 4, 2022

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 4th day of March, 2022, at 12:20 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The bill assented to, on Friday, March 4, 2022, is Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's not very reassuring. I'm not blaming you personally, but it's not very reassuring—seeing what's going on in Ukraine and the threats from Russia—that we could be potentially delaying this another year on top of several more months before a decision is made.

On the rapid tests, walk me through the arrival, please. You said $330 million has been spent so far. How many rapid tests is that? There are Bill C-8 and Bill C-10, and there is $4 billion more in the supplementary estimates (C). Walk me through the arrival time and the numbers, and what that $4 billion covers.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Very quickly, of the $8 billion, how much is actually going to be spent on rapid testing? I thought it was $4 billion, but I thought I heard someone say $2.5 billion.

How much will be spent on rapid tests between supplementary estimates (C), Bill C-10, and Bill C-8?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

Could you explain how the supplementaries and Bill C-10 both fund rapid tests?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Why was vote 5 not used, the contingency? There is about $650 million unspent. Why was that not used? Why Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 and now the supplementaries? It seems very poor planning, or perhaps it's being used as a PR stunt by the government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay.

So if we approve the supplementary estimates (C) for $4 billion and Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 receive royal assent, what will happen with that added $4 billion that you're asking for? Will it lapse or will it be reprofiled?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

But you're asking for $4 billion in the supplementaries. You already have $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. Why the $4 billion more? Supplementaries will die on March 31. Is it your intent to have that lapse or reprofile that for something else?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay. That's good.

Let me move on to the $4 billion for the rapid testing. There was $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. I understand that this is a duplicate $4 billion—or is this $8 billion altogether for rapid tests?

Online Streaming Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, as an aside, I would first like to point out to the House that, like many of my colleagues, I am wearing the colours of Ukraine today.

I was in Montreal yesterday, along with several of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, to take part in the rally in support of Ukraine. A number of rallies were held across Canada and Quebec. I saw yesterday why the people of Ukraine will emerge victorious from this conflict. Whatever the outcome of this Russian assault, the people of Ukraine have embarked on a path that will inevitably lead them to achieve their goals. When a people or a nation decides to live freely and to live in a democracy, the path to get there does not stop until the ultimate goal has been reached.

Quebeckers are worried about loved ones who are currently stuck in Ukraine. One of my constituents in Drummond, Mr. Nelson, comes to mind. His wife is sheltering in the basement of the school where she teaches in Nizhyn. He has not heard from her, although perhaps it is for some silly reason, like she cannot charge her phone or has no way to reach him. I want Mr. Nelson to know that the Bloc Québécois and his representative will never give up.

This long preamble on the situation in Ukraine is somewhat related to what we are debating today. War in the digital era plays out at different levels than it did a few decades ago, or even one decade ago. These days public opinion is infinitely easier to manipulate. We have seen it many times and examples have been pouring in for a few years now. It is a threat that we must confront urgently.

An example of this came up just today. My colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood mentioned it. This afternoon, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and we talked about the Russian propaganda media, Russia Today, which has been banned from several Canadian cable companies. I am not saying that muzzling or censorship is the solution. I want to make it clear that this is an exceptional measure.

The solution is not always to silence the voices of people with different opinions, and I pointed this out to the minister earlier. I told him that this was warranted in the case of Russia Today, which is broadcasting disinformation and propaganda from the Russian regime to justify Russia's despicable attack on Ukraine, but I said that this instance must not create a precedent for censoring or silencing other press or media outlets that might broadcast questionable content that we do not agree with or condone.

This is why a bill on the Broadcasting Act that takes today's reality into account is so important. As members know, the current legislation was passed in 1991. I think we explored the issue thoroughly during the debate on Bill C‑10 last year. This old and outdated legislation is long overdue for revitalization and modernization. I am very pleased to finally rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which will also address online streaming.

It is rather sobering to see that, 16 months after a bill that was urgently awaited by the cultural industry, broadcasters and the media was first introduced, we are essentially back to square one. I say “essentially” because some improvements were made to Bill C‑11. These improvements were obviously the result of the numerous amendments proposed when the bill was studied in committee last year. I also want to point out that many of these improvements were championed by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, in particular the improvement regarding the discoverability of Canadian and French-language content and content from different cultural communities, which add colour and beauty to our cultural universe.

Had Bill C-10 passed, the CRTC would now be holding hearings to regulate the industry with a view to creating a more level playing field for all actors in cultural sectors and broadcasting.

Had Bill C-10 passed, we would be starting to see our content creators, programming undertakings and artists getting back to creating television shows, movies and music because they would have renewed confidence in the government's ability to create an environment where their content will do more than just make Chinese and American billionaires richer.

These people are not asking for a pandemic relief program. They are asking to create, sing, dance, produce shows, play, produce and earn an honest living through their passions.

We have lost many people and a great deal of expertise in the cultural and radio and television sectors since the start of this pandemic. Many people have left for more stable and less stressful sectors because they are also mothers and fathers. We underestimate these people's contributions to society.

I will repeat it, because I get the impression that it takes time to sink in, that it is not immediately or quickly understood: Culture is not an expense. Culture is an investment. Culture pays off. Culture contributes to the Quebec and Canadian economy. Artists and cultural workers are not a bunch of lazy old fogies who live off subsidies. Culture is an industry worth about $60 billion per year. Culture is an industry that supports more than 600,000 people in Canada. It is is wealth. It is not just wealth from a financial perspective, it is our wealth because it both reflects and conveys what and who we are as a nation. Culture conveys to the whole world what our identity is, what our values are, what our personality is, what our colours are.

If the means of disseminating our culture are taken away, what will be left of us? The rest of the world will continue to think that Canadians play hockey, that they drink beer and Tim Hortons coffee, that Quebeckers wear arrowhead sashes while eating poutine around a campfire in winter. We will see the usual familiar clichés that all of us are a little tired of seeing around the world. That is what our television, our radio, our cinema allow us to convey. They allow us to showcase our stories, what and who we are.

We must ensure that our creators, producers and broadcasters can continue to do just that on the new platforms forced upon us by the new technologies on which we are becoming increasingly dependent.

We have heard a lot of criticism about the regulation of content. Sometimes the criticism is ideological, while other times it is more partisan. Sometimes it is well-founded, while other times it is less so. I think the criticism is relevant in the sense that everyone is entitled to their opinions. For instance, someone might not be a big fan of quotas for French-language content.

I started working in radio as a young host in the mid-1980s. Canadian music quotas and francophone music quotas were just starting to be imposed. I can say that it really got on my nerves, because it was not very cool, even though there was some great music there. There were some excellent artists, but the choice was still pretty limited at the time. There was not a huge pool of music for the different styles of radio, for example. The radio station I worked for was much more youth oriented. We definitely had a little less to choose from in those days.

I can admit quite honestly now that I used to find it annoying to have to comply with francophone music quotas. However, over time, I began noticing the positive impacts of that regulation, that push to promote francophone content on Quebec radio stations.

As time passed, more and more new bands and new musical genres came along and were discovered because of the regulations that were put in place to showcase our music and our artists. There were extraordinary positive impacts.

Today, there could be radio stations with 100% French-language programming and listeners would never get bored. They would not necessarily hear the same thing all the time, even if some radio programmers believe that the same songs should be replayed just about every hour. That is another matter and another debate.

The positive effects of implementing such regulations are tangible. If it worked for radio, if it works for traditional media, it is also going to work for digital media. We must do it for digital media for the same reasons that I mentioned earlier. We show the entire world who we truly are through our media, our art, our culture, our programs, our movies and our talent. We are more than just beer and coffee drinkers, more than just lovers of poutine wearing arrowhead sashes and gathering around a fire. Culture dispels clichés.

The need to quickly bring in new broadcasting regulations, to refresh the ones that have been in place since 1991, is even more urgent given the current crisis in the cultural industry, which has certainly been aggravated by the omnipresent digital media and digital corporations like GAFAM. These giants are gobbling up our news media's profits and their share of the advertising pie. It is time to regulate this.

I have some figures to share. Since the beginning of the pandemic, out of the 180,000 jobs lost, whether temporarily or permanently, more than 50,000 cultural sector workers, artists and content creators decided to throw in the towel and do something else. They went off to get another job. They have families to feed, and they cannot stay in a situation where they do not know when the next crisis will crop up or what impact it will have on them.

These people no longer want to go through that kind of stress. More than 50,000 people in Canada have decided to do something other than the work they loved above all else. One of these days, we will have to come back to this and think about how much importance we give to our artists and content creators. We might want to consider reviewing the Status of the Artist Act. I want that to happen soon. It will be important to do that, because these self-employed cultural workers lack even a modicum of financial security, as they are excluded from government programs by virtue of their status. That means we lose them in times of crisis, which is what we are seeing right now.

The Union des artistes, a Quebec-based artists' union, polled its members earlier this year, and the numbers are alarming: 61% reported having lost interest in their artistic trade, 35% had sought help for mental distress, and 15% had suicidal thoughts during this period. The Union des artistes has 13,000 members, so 15% is a lot of people to be having those thoughts.

Culture is important, but we also need to talk about broadcasters. Up until a few years ago, companies across Canada were operating in a system that they helped to build and that afforded them some protection from the invasion of powerful foreign consortia and major media outlets. This was, in large part, thanks to the legal requirement that this system be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.

For decades, these companies helped develop Canadian and Quebec content, highlighting and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity. These companies spent and are still spending a lot of money to be able to operate and meet the licensing requirements. Many of these companies are key parts of our economy, in Quebec and across Canada. These companies still bear a massive burden just to be able to operate as broadcasters.

What message are we sending these builders, these major employers, these broadcasters that have been required to contribute to helping artists and niche broadcasters thrive?

Niche broadcasters, which may have less influence, have had the opportunity to thrive and offer programming for cultural communities. ICI Télévision in Montreal is a wonderful little TV station that I think everyone should check out.

There is also APTN, which does such a good job of promoting the culture of our first nations and serves as an example for the entire world. People come here to learn from APTN's expertise and apply it in other countries. I think we can be proud of that, and it is thanks to our broadcasting system that we can have success stories like this one.

The message we are sending our broadcasters right now is that it is okay for the big sharks to swim in our little fishbowl, siphoning off the bulk of the advertising revenue without having to contribute significantly to the system. However, it is our broadcasters who must comply with burdensome, increasingly costly, counterproductive and decidedly unfair regulations as the industry transforms.

These days, there is a lot of talk about politicizing issues. It is true that a lot of politics is done on just about everything, and I think that is normal. We are in politics, so it is normal to politicize issues. Otherwise, I do not think we would be in the right place. However, I think there are issues that require us to rise above and look beyond ideology or filibustering. We need to be open and aware of the issues we are debating here.

Bill C‑11 may not be perfect yet, but we will have the opportunity to work on it. I think this is a bill with a very good foundation, and it certainly does not deserve to be blocked the way Bill C‑10 was last year.

I sincerely hope that all members and political parties in the House will see this bill as a necessity for our Canadian and Quebec broadcasters, but also for the entire cultural industry, for our artists, our content creators, our artisans and our self‑employed workers in the cultural sector.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-11 and to continue this discussion that has been going on for quite a while. It has been at least a year since a bill similar to this one was introduced in the last session of Parliament. That bill, unfortunately, did not make it past the finish line, but what we have here is an improved version of the bill we saw before, a bill that tackled some of the challenges and obstacles, rightly or wrongly, that were put forward in particular by the opposition.

I want to go back to one of the comments that was made just a few minutes ago by the Conservative member who was responding to questions. He said something very important. I think it is important because it represents a lot of the narrative that we are going to hear over the next few days.

I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

We will hear a lot of the language that is being used. We just heard the previous member say that we do not want to allow the government to control what people watch. If anybody is going to be following this debate, I want them to pay close attention to the fact that as the debate goes on over the next few days or weeks, we will hear that language quite a bit from the Conservatives, because this is the exact language they used last time. It is language that tries to suggest to Canadians that the Government of Canada sits behind a desk and decides what people can watch and what they cannot watch. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the original bill did and what this bill is proposing to do now is not to regulate what people watch but to broaden the pool of what is available to them.

If someone has the perspective that we should be homogeneous in terms of everything that is in front of us since we live in North America, that there is no problem with being just like the United States, that we do not need our own individual identity and individual culture, then that is one thing. If that is somebody's position, although I disagree with it wholeheartedly, at least that would be the position of someone who still understands the facts. However, in fact this bill does not suggest that. What this bill does, and what I prefer, is that we provide Canadians with the opportunity to watch programming that is produced by Canadians and for Canadians as an option that someone can watch.

It is very similar to the CanCon rules that apply to radio stations. Right now, if someone in Canada has a radio station that broadcasts over FM and AM bands, they are subject to a rule that a certain amount of the content that is played during the day has to be Canadian content. I live in a border city that is not that far from Watertown, New York, and quite often we find radio stations trying to circumvent those rules. They would set up their transmission tower in Watertown, even though all of the broadcasting was happening in Kingston. It was being sent over to Watertown, New York, where it was then being broadcast from towers, and I am sure over 90% of the listenership was Canadian people because the broadcast audience was a Canadian audience in Kingston.

As the technologies develop and as we see new technologies come online and as the Internet becomes a dominant force in the consumption of content, it goes without saying that if we believe in making sure that Canadian content is in that pool of availability for those who are consuming it, we have to ensure that the Canadian content is there. That is the difference.

This is not about controlling what people see. I trust that we will have a more thorough debate on it this time around, but the rhetoric last time with Bill C-10 came down to suggesting that the federal government was trying to regulate all social media in order to determine what was put in front of people on the Internet, and that could not be further from the truth. This has always been about making sure that content is available.

What does this bill do specifically? Let me just highlight some of the important points. It brings those online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act because, as I previously mentioned, they are not. It will require online streaming services that serve Canadian markets to contribute to the production of Canadian content. This is what I was talking about. When Netflix or these other agencies are selling to Canadians, they have to invest in Canadian culture and Canadian-produced content.

Again, we might not agree with that. We might think that we are so globalized now that we can just get everything from wherever we want, and that should not matter. That of course is a position to take on this matter, but it is not the position that I take. It is not the position that the bill seeks to improve upon, because we recognize that it is extremely important that a portion of that content remains Canadian.

This also prioritizes support for content for francophone, indigenous, LGBTQ2+, racialized and other equity-seeking creators. It ensures online broadcasters will showcase more Canadian content, as I previously mentioned, and it modernizes outdated legislation to bring it into the 21st century.

It is also important to talk about what the bill will not do, despite the fact that I do not think that even my saying this now will change what we will hear. We are going to hear people in the chamber over the course of this debate say that it will do these things, but it will not impose regulations on content everyday Canadians post to social media. If someone uploads something to YouTube, they would not be subject to it even if they have a lot of followers, unless they are making money off it, in which case they would be similar to other businesses making money off it. There is an important point there that I will get back to in a second, because even those who do upload will not necessarily be subject to this.

It also does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users, as I said, and it will not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. I have already touched on this point, but it is important to mention it again because this is what we will hear over the course of this debate. We will hear that the Prime Minister is personally sitting behind a computer somewhere trying to set an algorithm so that people see more content that he likes.

I know we are going to hear that, because that is the rhetoric that happened with Bill C-10. I have no doubt that we will hear it again with Bill C-11, although I really hope that we do not, but if history is an indication of anything in the House, when these issues come up, Conservatives know exactly which ones are going to be the ones that they can push that will engage public reaction whether or not they are true.

I want to go back to the first comment I made when I was talking about the things it will not do, which was to impose regulations on everyday Canadians. This is important, because the member who spoke previous to me brought up the fact that if someone uploads a video or content and they are making money off it, they are subject to legislation. That is actually not true. There are three criteria, and these are “and” criteria, not “or” criteria, that need to be met in order for something to be considered commercial content. In determining whether the content is commercial content, the regulator will need to evaluate three elements. One is whether the content is monetized, which goes to the member's comment a few minutes ago. However, two other things also have to be present. One is whether the content exists on another non-social media platform, such as Spotify, the radio or TV. The other is whether the content, such as a song uploaded to YouTube, has a unique international standard music number. Those are the three items that need to happen for this legislation to apply.

The previous statement that somebody would be subject to it as long as they are making money off it is actually not the case. There are three criteria that need to be met.

I know that my time is coming to a close, but I wanted to say what this really is about. I hope that everyone will at the very least support the fundamentals of ensuring that the Canadian pool of content remains robust and available to Canadians, because if we look back at the decades that have gone by, the last 70 years or so, the Broadcasting Act, even though it did not apply to the Internet, is what made sure that the content remained available for Canadians to see.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In general, I'm quite supportive of this amendment. I circulated, or attempted to circulate, what I hope is going to be a friendly amendment, and I'll speak to what that is.

As NDP-2 and NDP-3 are close, I think I referred to Bill C-10 in my subamendment, but I will read this in and hopefully it will be considered a friendly—

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if there is some technical reason that makes French-language content appear more frequently or whether we need to use algorithms. I am not an expert in that area. In any case, the issue remains the same.

Bill C‑11 gives us a sort of guarantee that the major platforms will be asked to work on discoverability. It is not perfect. For the time being, we are not going to get involved in that. We will rework the bill. If there is reason to get involved in that area, the CRTC will decide in the end.

I do believe that the message is fairly clear in the bill: We want French-language content to be visible everywhere for anyone who wants to consume it.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and humbled to rise today to debate and get down to the brass tacks of a bill that is extremely important to the creators and people of Quebec and Canada. Allow me to digress a little and talk about some conceptual aspects before I offer some more practical recommendations.

It is time for Canada to get out of the stone age and catch up to the rest of the world. Most of us agree that this is essential. We also agree that, in doing so, we must absolutely protect the artists who are the living embodiment of our culture. We must not rush into things. We must take the time to think things through.

When the current Broadcasting Act was drafted in the last century, the world was a very different place. The war had reshaped borders. Radio and television were the only ways to get information.

Certain ancient or classical philosophies postulated that space and time were the only two things without which nothing was possible. An event must take place somewhere and at a given moment. It cannot occur anywhere or at any time because it would not be an event. Nothing can be imagined outside space and time.

In those days, many passed the time wondering how long would it take for a bird flying in the sky to fall to the ground if time did not exist. The answer is that it would take no time at all because it would not fall without time. That is the idea, but that was before the Internet.

The Internet did away with the notions of time and space. It is both nowhere and everywhere and it will be there always. Those of us who are used to the Cartesian way of thinking are sometimes destabilized by the Internet because it has no centre. It is all very well to call it the web, but it has no centre.

It is difficult to frame legislation when we cannot contextualize the subject matter. I will come back to that a little later. If we want to talk about the Internet, which is nowhere and everywhere, we need to change our paradigms and bring in regulations, which are found somewhere by their very nature.

To do that I will propose another philosophical reference, Heraclitus, who gave us the quote, “From all things one and from one all things”. The Internet is bit like that, from all things one. Geography and temporality have no meaning, it is nowhere and everywhere, always and never. How do we regulate that?

In Bill C‑11, we are talking about expanding the CRTC's powers. I wonder if that is the solution. Should we not instead, like other governments, consider creating a separate dedicated agency made up of digital experts?

The Canadian government often needs to be reminded that it is the government that defines the rules, not businesses. The past gives us reasons to doubt. In the case of the digital world, it is time for the state to do more than just survey the damage.

When will we have a new digital agency? Obviously, we would expect transparency, which would instill trust. We must also keep in mind that trust does not exclude control. We should be able to verify what is going on and we must make the businesses in question accountable.

Bill C‑11 will give the government the herculean task of convincing and compelling web giants to agree to a balance between their commercial interests and the public interest. That is no small task. Bill C‑11 covers it in 14 lines, but the actual work remains to be done.

It surprises me that these same web giants keep telling us it is important to innovate and keep up. Innovation does not justify everything. Some innovations should never see the light of day. Innovation does not justify wiping out a language or hiding it behind a skewed algorithm that automatically gives selective results for certain populations. Nobody can do that in the name of innovation. Innovation does not mean it is okay to collect individuals' data without giving them anything in return. That is not okay. Innovation is not an excuse for allowing surveillance capitalism to take root.

Many of the amendments the Bloc Québécois wanted to make to the old Bill C‑10 are in Bill C‑11, and we are very happy about that, but we cannot let our guard down or forget to think critically.

In some cases, the two versions differ by just a few words, yet the fate of the world can hang on a word. A word is a construct of sound and meaning. We need to be careful because sometimes words are stripped of their meaning and become nothing but sound, and then we have a language devoid of meaning.

As Orwell said a long time ago, the fewer the words, the smaller the temptation to think.

As an aside, when the first English-language version of the Bible was drafted, the King James Bible, there were about 6,000 words in that language universe. Shakespeare had 150,000 in his language universe.

These days, we have about 750,000 words with which to compose sentences, poetry, literature and music. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's lexicon was limited to 200 words. Only very crude ideas can be expressed in 200 words or less.

Words are a tool for preserving language, linguistic expression and culture. They also serve to create nuance, give life, and nurture culture. Words must not disappear. They are the tools with which culture and history can be told.

Let us come back down to earth. I realize my thoughts were a bit in the clouds just now. As the world becomes more and more digitized every day, it is unthinkable that the big media players, the web giants, have so few obligations to the citizens and states that make them rich.

In the past, the Government of Canada gave in to web giants. I would like to remind the government that it has the authority to be firm and a duty to ensure that the web giants pay their fair share.

Many people have spoken about that fair share today. However, the fair share is not what the web giants agree to pay. It is not that at all. They must pay their fair share of taxes. They must contribute their fair share to the production of Canadian content. They must pay their fair share in order to compensate content creators. That fair share is not an equal share. It is the amount that each one fairly owes.

It will not be easy. We will have to be careful because web giants became giants for a reason. They are used to deciding for themselves what their fair share is. We will have to be vigilant.

In this world where we have to rethink our references to time and space, the Government of Canada must not think of Bill C-11 in isolation. It will have to harmonize its regulatory instruments with those of our neighbours, the nations around the world. Several jurisdictions, including the European community, have already thought about these elements, as have certain English-speaking countries. I urge the government to at least look at these two sources, because Anglo-Saxon sources are very similar.

I will conclude with this point: We must never give in without a fight. I believe that Bill C‑11 is a good bill, that we must amend it to increase its scope a little and see how we can give it some teeth, and that creating a dedicated agency would be appropriate.

An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to change my vote in the vote that took place after question period. I had technical difficulties that prevented me from changing my vote to yea and from joining Zoom, so I would ask for the indulgence of the House to have my vote recorded as having voted in favour of Bill C-10 in that vote.

Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

Pursuant to the order made on Monday, February 14, 2022, Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, is deemed considered in the committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, February 14, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-10.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Government Business No. 7--Proceedings on Bill C-12

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address a few points that the member across the way has raised and, at the same time, share some thoughts that not only I have, but all members of the House have, in regard to seniors in general. This is a very important and hot topic among my Liberal colleagues as we continue to strive and improve the lifestyle of our seniors and be there for them in a very real and tangible way. I am going to highlight a number of things we have been able to do for seniors over the last six years.

First, I will address the issue of how the Conservative Party wants to twist this issue of process and why the government is where we are today with what is a very important piece of legislation.

The legislation we have before us today is here because of the pandemic. During the pandemic, the Government of Canada, with support and encouragement from different levels of government, from Canadians in general and from MPs who were advocating, came up with a series of brand new programs that virtually started from nothing. They were a direct response to the pandemic. When we brought in programs virtually from nothing, there were, no doubt, issues that would arise. This is one of those issues, and it is an issue that today the government is addressing through legislation because of the impact it has had on our seniors. Some are trying to give the impression that the government is trying to fix a problem it created and that somehow the government has been negligent. However, this is unfortunate given the consistent supports and actions of the government for seniors since 2015 when we were first elected, let alone during the pandemic.

Yes, there have been some issues to deal with, but I suspect, after hearing comments from the opposition, that they will be supporting the legislation. I am encouraged to hear that. However, on the other hand, they are critical of the manner in which this is being processed and of not only the government but also the New Democratic Party. It is interesting that when the New Democrats do something the Conservatives do not like, they say there is a coalition between the New Democrats and the government. I think Canadians would rather see a coalition between the New Democrats and the Liberals than a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc. At the end of the day, the Conservatives have this default position: For anything the government wants, just say no. They know full well that they need their coalition to continue to frustrate the government's agenda. They know they can often count on the Bloc, but they get all upset if the NDP does not follow their recommendations. They get upset with the NDP because the NDP will not listen to the Conservative agenda, and then they say it is a coalition.

I can tell colleagues that the government has operated with all three opposition parties, collectively together. At times we have operated with the New Democrats separately, like today, and at times we have operated with the Bloc separately. We appreciate the mandate that we have been given by Canadians, and it is a very clear message: Canadians want us to work together.

We saw a very good example of that back in December with conversion therapy. Members will recall that the entire House recognized the importance of conversion therapy and the legislation before the House. The Conservative Party members were the ones who recommended that we do not have second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading, the whole process. They wanted to go right to royal assent, and the bill was passed unanimously. This shows that when it is convenient for the Conservatives and they feel it is important, it is okay and debate and committees are not necessary.

It is not the first time they have done that. They even attempted to get unanimous consent when there was no unanimous consent for getting what they believe is priority legislation through the House of Commons. If they disagree, it is anti-democratic, and the government is wrong because they we want to see something. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied. On the one hand, the Conservative Party now says this is important legislation and recognizes it is important legislation. After all, its members are going to be voting for the legislation. I understand the Bloc is going to be voting for the legislation too. However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition does not like the manner in which we are trying to get it through. The NDP supports the legislation and has been advocating for significant changes to take place regarding the compensation issue. It also recognizes that it is important to get this legislation through as quickly as possible.

The Conservatives say that the Senate is not sitting this week. As I pointed out yesterday, let us take a look at the legislative agenda. In the number of weeks we sat, we brought in legislation dealing with the coronavirus. The number one issue of Canadians for the last two years has been taking on the coronavirus. We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and now Bill C-12, which are all legislative measures that deal directly with supporting Canadians and that deal specifically with the coronavirus, whether it is through programs that have been brought in, programs we are trying to extend to continue supports or the bulk-buying of things like rapid tests, which we debated yesterday. All of this stuff is important legislation.

We all know there is a finite amount of time to deal with legislation. It is not like we can debate a bill for 10 days and have it go to committee for two weeks. If it were up to the Conservatives, for anything they disagreed with, and even for things they agreed with, they would try to speak things out in order to frustrate the government. They would want to bring bills to committee for indefinite periods of time, with no commitment to get them through.

We are still in the pandemic. There is still a sense of urgency, even this week alone. Yesterday, we debated $2 billion-plus for rapid tests to ensure the provinces, territories and businesses in our communities have the necessary tests. Today is about seniors and making sure we are there to support them by putting money in their pockets. We still have other important pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with this week, if at all possible. I am thinking of the Emergencies Act. We also still have the opposition day motion from the Bloc party that has to be dealt with, and we have two short days this week.

Are the Conservatives saying that debate on our seniors, the rapid tests or the Emergencies Act should all just be postponed by 10 days or a couple of weeks because it is convenient for the Conservative opposition party? Ten days from now they can come back and ask why it has taken the government so long.

On the issue of the Standing Orders, I approach them not just as a member of government. I spent many years in opposition. I understand the importance of accountability, transparency and the process inside the House. I hope to engage with members in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize them. We have plans and processes in place to accommodate debates, committees and votes. We see that. As I cited yesterday, whether it is on emergency debates in the chamber, opposition day motions, private members' bills or private members' motions, there are all sorts of limits.

What we have seen in the past 10 years, because we have to factor in the era of former prime minister Stephen Harper, is that we need tools to ensure that government bills can also get through in a timely fashion. That is why we are debating this motion today. If members believe it is important to support our seniors by getting money in their pockets, this is a piece of legislation members urgently need to support. The timing is very important.

The Minister of Seniors has met with opposition members and has been before committee. At committee, members can ask whatever questions they want of the minister. She is not shy to answer questions. We saw that earlier today, when the motion was brought forward. The department has provided information for members. Yes, we are making modifications today in order to get the money out more quickly to support our seniors. The department is working overtime to make sure we are there for our seniors in a real and tangible way.

The process we are going into today would have been preventable if, in fact, we could have had support from all opposition parties in saying that we could pass this legislation. In an ideal situation, it would be something that would be negotiated. However, the government is not in a position in which it can hold back on getting this legislation passed. With the support of one opposition party, we were able to ensure that our seniors would get the legislation they needed through the House of Commons. For that, I am grateful.

After 30 years of being a parliamentarian, there are some issues I hold near and dear to my heart, as I know many of us do. Our seniors, and the needs of our seniors, are of utmost importance. We often talk about the fact that where we are today as a society is all due to the seniors who were there before us, and we recognize there are needs that seniors have. I have made reference to the fact that I used to be a health critic in the province of Manitoba. I understand what those needs often require.

That is why it was so important for me personally, when I came to Ottawa, to be a strong advocate for our seniors. I remember one day when I was sitting in opposition. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in Europe, and there was an announcement that the government was going to increase the age of eligibility for collecting OAS from 65 to 67. We opposed it, and we indicated we would get rid of it.

I remember advocating for the needs of the poorest seniors in Canada and for the importance of our social programs. I use those two examples because in 2015, when we were elected to government, two of the very first initiatives we took were, first, to reduce the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. That was one of the very first initiatives taken. The second was to increase the guaranteed income supplement.

For those who understand the issue of poverty in Canada and want to help put more money in the pockets of our seniors, just as this bill does, in 2016 we talked about increasing, and then implemented a substantial increase to, the guaranteed income supplement. That one initiative lifted hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North alone out of poverty, and tens of thousands across the country.

We will all become seniors, if we are not already. We ensured that the contributions to CPP would be enhanced with an agreement between provinces and the federal government, something that Stephen Harper was unable to do, to ensure that there would be more retirement money for our seniors.

In terms of the pandemic itself, and how the government stepped up to provide, that is why we have the legislation today. In our urgency to support people of Canada through developing programs such as CERB, there were some mistakes. It was not perfect, but it was important to get those programs out as quickly as possible. Now we are making a modification that is necessary to ensure that our seniors would in fact be getting money that they would have normally been receiving, but other benefit programs during the pandemic ultimately caused a problem. This would fix it. That is why it is good legislation for us to support.

During the pandemic, we brought in direct support for seniors, with a special focus on the GIS, again, and the OAS. We did it directly and we did it through other programs, such as the CERB, which is more of an indirect way. Another indirect way we did it was through supporting non-profit organizations that provide support for our seniors. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.

The Government of Canada has been there to support our seniors because it is the right thing to do. From virtually day one, in 2015, until today, we continue to bring in budgetary and legislative measures to facilitate and support our seniors, whether with long-term care, direct money into pockets, mental health or so many other areas.

Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

First I would like to say that the coronavirus is in charge, and we cannot dictate to it when it ends. Could the hon. member please tell us how Bill C-10 would help?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise late this evening to speak to Bill C‑10.

I am pleased to stand today. I know the hour is late, but it still is Valentine's Day here in Ottawa. I think my husband at home is watching. I have never before stood in this place and been able to reference a husband. We have been married for less than three years, so I do want to say happy Valentine's Day to my sweetheart. I really love him a lot and I hope he will stick with me. It has not been long enough that I am really sure. No, I am sure.

I want to reflect on a very serious topic. As other members have mentioned tonight, it is hard to switch from love and romance to killer viruses, but I will. My middle name is Evans, for my great-grandmother, who died in the Spanish influenza outbreak about a hundred years ago. It left a mark on our family to this day. I was raised by a mother who was raised by a mother who lost her mother when she was three. It has an impact on a family, and I look at the Spanish flu outbreak and I think, it lasted two years and it killed somewhere between 25 million and 50 million on a planet which, at that time, had fewer than two billion people.

The planet has changed a lot. That outbreak managed to make its way around the world without the benefit, like right now, of the things modern society has done to increase the lethality and the longevity of viruses. We are now seven billion people and we have jet travel.

I want to look at this issue from the point of view of humanity separate from political parties, even separate from national identity. I want to look at it as humanity and an invisible parasite, and I want to say to my fellow human beings, be they Conservative, or Liberal, or Bloc, or NDP, Canadians, or New Zealanders, or Brits, there is an unhealthy degree of hubris at the moment on the part of humanity, whether someone is pro-vax or anti-mask or sure of themself in some way or another. We are too sure of ourselves. Humanity seems to think we are in charge, that we can debate in this place at what point we decree the pandemic is over. “No more masks; they are so annoying; we are so sick of it,” we say, worrying about the vaccines, saying they are not working so well anymore. Well, we can guess why they do not work so well anymore: the pandemic is operating with humanity as its petri dish.

I want to read something into the record. I do not usually do this, but this has educated me a lot about COVID. I read through the scientific papers, but this Canadian author and scientific writer, Andrew Nikiforuk, wrote a book in 2008 called Pandemonium, subtitled Bird Flu, Mad Cow Disease, and Other Biological Plagues of the 21st Century. He wrote it in 2008. I want to quote from his most recent articles that appear in an online newspaper called The Tyee, starting with one from about a year ago, January 2021.

Andrew Nikiforuk titled his article “It's Me Again, COVID. Meet the Variant”. This is first-person writing from the point of view of the virus:

I explained then that I am the fire, and you are the fuel.

Many of your species believed that my presence couldn’t change everything....

Meantime, I’ve been evolving rapidly, as only the undead can do in a sea of endless hosts.

And your white coats are now expressing—what’s that splendid phrase?—“widespread concern” about my variants.

You didn’t notice the first one, D614G, which took off last March.

It became the dominant strain in the world because it did a better job, as your white coats put it, “infecting upper-airway epithelial cells, and [replicating] in greater numbers” than the Wuhan strain.

Natural selection just favours the bold.

And then came B117 in England in October.

Next arrived 501.V2 in South Africa in November.

Not to mention the mink variants in Denmark and the Netherlands. And that Brazilian variant, B1128, which just flew into Japan

There are others I daren’t even tell you about. So many opportunities. So much change.

This is nothing personal, of course. Mutating is what the undead do. The more human cells we hijack, the more opportunities we have to replicate. And every replication is a chance to mutate and play with the genome (my genetic bits) at a rate of one or two a month.

But when 10 or 20 mutations arise, well, it can transform my character and ambitions altogether, making it easier for my kind to kill, spread faster or better evade your immune defences. And right now, I am lethal enough to spread far. So, I am concentrating on spreading faster.

The scale of this you can’t comprehend. The more hosts we conquer and infect, the more mutations that occur.

And let me boast for a minute. Every thousandth of a litre of contagious fluid in a host’s nose harbours something like one hundred million to one billion viral replicators.

...The me that embarked from Wuhan on our great global journey is no longer the me riding ambulances in Ireland, Denmark and France.

Learn this: You will never meet the same virus twice.

...So let me give you hosts some humble advice. Party on. Don’t wash your hands. Gather in poorly ventilated places, and let me flourish and spread. Throw away those silly masks. Forget about public health and focus instead on the economy and the viral glories of global travel.

Praise politicians who go on holidays, debunk the exponential function, and design lockdowns with more holes than Swiss cheese.

Let your contact tracing systems fail. Let your leaders pretend that vaccines will solve all your problems.

Don't test. Or test badly.

Support a vaccine conspiracy.

Storm a capitol.

Or just don’t believe in me.

I know that’s not too much to ask. You have been a most generous and obliging host. Now just let my variants go.

Aren’t we all in this together?

Remember: I am the fire, and you are the fuel.

That is what Andrew Nikiforuk wrote in The Tyee a year ago, so I want to know if he is feeling a bit more relaxed now about where we are with omicron.

This article appeared in December 2021. It reads:

Omicron’s Here. We Invited It In

With good policy this massive fifth wave could have been avoided. Instead our leaders embraced four big myths.

The four big myths we chose to embrace, according to him, were these:

We find ourselves in this bad place because of the easy currency of bad ideas in a technological society.

These dangerous ideas—and I’m only going to deal with four—are worth reviewing again because if we don’t challenge and abandon them, we will be fighting COVID for years.

He goes on to discuss the work of a U.S. virus expert called Dr. William Haseltine, a renowned expert who had this article in Forbes on December 17, 2021, which I recommend my colleagues look up and read, “How Omicron Evades Natural Immunity, Vaccination, And Monoclonal Antibody Treatments”. He notes that Dr. Haseltine has made the point that the coronavirus has been around for a million years at least and can infect various animals, “The next variant might well come from an infected population of mink or deer.”

This is what I think we really need to think about when we think omicron is almost over and that it was really mild. Dr. Haseltine says this, and Andrew Nikiforuk quotes him:

...the seventh coronavirus to plague humans [which is COVID] “is capable of far more changes and far more variation than most ever thought possible and it will keep coming back to haunt us again and again.”

Dr. Haseltine points out that there is no assurance at all, not scientifically, that omicron is mild because we are in the direction of inevitably going to milder viruses.

I will quote the article by Andrew Nikiforuk, which states:

Hasletine adds that a variant more transmissible and [more] deadly than Omicron is entirely possible given the dismal global response to the pandemic so far.

Know that when I am talking about the global response I am not politicizing this at all. We need to take care of Bill C-10. For sure we need to look at testing, but we need to pay attention to what the human petri dish globally is doing.

Here are Andrew Nikiforuk's four myths:

Myth 1: Vaccines will get us out of this.

...A vaccine-only policy will prolong the pandemic and exhaust our health-care systems. Only nuanced policies that focus on eliminating transmission with the strategic use of testing, improved ventilation and restraints on international travel [are all needed].

Myth 2: Pandemics are unpredictable and have nothing to do with policy or human behaviour.

Not true. Our global technosphere has provided a perfect environment for COVID to flourish. Two human behaviours in a technological society have fed and accelerated this pandemic. The first is unrestricted global travel, which guarantees the circulation of variants. The second is poor ventilation in our artificial living and working spaces....

I heard myth three today in the House in debate, so I really want to underscore that this is dangerous talk. I go back to Andrew Nikiforuk's article:

Myth 3: We can live with this virus, and it will become milder over time.

Really? How’s that working for you?

...[Getting rid of the virus] matters for several key reasons. For starters there is no guarantee any new virus will evolve toward a milder state. It is a complete scientific myth.

Let me repeat Haseltine’s pointed warning that we have not seen the [worst] COVID can deliver yet.

At the same time the cost of “living with the virus” is growing exponentially. The variants keep adding to those political, economic and psychological costs by increasing transmission, severity and lethality of COVID-19.

More variants equals more mutations which equals more risk for all of us. And the variants are now clearly outracing the vaccines....

Myth 4 is a really dangerous one. The article continues:

Myth 4: COVID is just a flu-like virus.

Just because a novel coronavirus may provoke flu-like symptoms doesn’t make it a flu. Or even a close relative....

As many physicians have argued, it is best to think of this novel virus as an evolving thrombotic fever.

It attacks the vascular system and can destroy brain cells.

It inflames the heart and can destabilize immune systems.

It can even lower sperm counts and motility.

Even people with mild symptoms can suffer from chronic disabilities (fatigue and brain fog) a year after infection. To date we have no clear idea how an infection might undo a person’s health a decade from now.

Please take this final line to heart, my friends:

Any politician who still dismisses or compares COVID to a flu should be forced to clean and bathe the dead.

We have choices as Canadians. We have choices as elected people. We have choices as governments and as opposition. We can focus on what needs to be done to keep us all safe. We can decide that the hubris that tells a virus it is time for it to go is laughable. In fact, sometimes I think the virus is laughing at us.

We have to be careful with each other. That includes not demonizing others, whether they are anti-mask or anti-vaccine or pro-mask or pro-vaccine. We are all in this together. It is an example of how humanity and wealthy industrialized countries can be brought to their knees from something invisible that comes out of nature and decides we are the host or, as Nikiforuk says, it is the fire and we are the fuel.

We have to do some things rapidly. We need to do a much better job. Thank goodness we are getting rapid testing through Bill C-10, but we have to use those tests. We have to use them well. We have to recognize that vaccines are not the whole answer; they are part of the answer. Testing is not the whole answer; it is part of the answer. Being sure we keep to social distancing, being sure we keep to our masks and being sure we listen to public health advice are all things we must do.

Again, this is a tough one because everyone wants the restrictions on global travel to be lifted. However, when I read what a knowledgeable person like Andrew Nikiforuk says about the difference that air and jet travel have made in the spread of this virus, we have to be careful. We have to listen to public health advice and make sure we do not give COVID any more free rides.

This is the enemy. The enemy is not another political party. The enemy is not a provincial leader who does not get it right. As Canadians and, let us face it, as earthlings, we have two big enemies right now, two big threats. We have the climate crisis, which is getting pushed to the side during this debate over viruses, over convoys and over protests. The climate crisis is a bigger threat to humanity than the virus, but the longer the virus is allowed to live among us, the scary idea that we can live with it is a dreadful fallacy.

We need to work together and we need to protect each other. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. There is no one in this place that I would not trust with my life. If push came to shove, there is not another MP here who would deny me help if I went to them and said I needed help. We are here for each other at a very human level.

Right now, humanity is not in the driver's seat. This virus is in the driver's seat. I wish we could say, “Here is the timetable and here is the date.” The only reason I could not vote for the Conservative motion earlier today was that it said there was a certain date when everything would have to be lifted, and here I am thinking that we are not in the driver's seat. We do not know when the next variant might come, but the more we learn about this and the more we know about it, the more we know we have to be careful and protect each other, and make sure we do not encourage the virus to spread.

It now represents a serious threat to the world and to us as human beings. We are all in the same boat. That reality is quite clear.

We have to take care of each other, and I think that means we have to recognize that we have only one enemy stalking us and its name is COVID-19. It is not the Conservatives, it is not the Liberals, it is not the New Democrats, it is not the Bloc Québécois and it is not the Greens. We are in this together.

I beg of you to let us pass Bill C-10 and get the tests out so we can use that tool. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that will be enough, as we do not know how long this may last. Please God, let us make better choices than we have made so far, and I include all of us in that, in order to protect ourselves, our families and the developing world, which desperately needs the vaccines. We desperately need to ensure vaccine equity and for Canada to side with South Africa and India. Let us get rid of the patent protections under the TRIPS agreement of the WTO. These are things we can do to make sure this virus, which is circling the globe and treating humanity as its petri dish, is stopped. Let us put humans together, saving each other, and stop fighting among ourselves.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, because Bill C-10 is about funding rapid tests and we have been talking a lot in the House today about the pandemic, the nature of public health measures and how long they should or should not last, I want to start by recognizing how tired everybody is of the pandemic. Whether people support lifting all public health measures right now or not, we are all feeling pretty fatigued and we would like to see our way out of this. However, it is not something we can just declare an end to by fiat. If we could do that, we would have done it a long time ago.

I do not really believe anyone is happy about the restricted lives we have all had to live over the last two years. It is something we did out of necessity before the vaccine in order to protect ourselves from infection, the consequences of being infected with COVID and the severity of it from a health point of view without vaccination. Since vaccination, we have continued to live a restricted lifestyle because transmission continues and we know we are up against a virus that is adapting even as it spreads. It is one of the reasons it is so important that we get vaccines distributed to the rest of the world. Vaccinating those in Canada or in one particular country will not be enough. These variants multiply, and given how small a planet we now inhabit with the technology of travel and everything else, variants eventually come here to roost. That is why we are not out of the woods yet.

As much as the political debate has intensified in light of recent events and some provincial governments have decided to change course, we may well end up getting different advice from federal public health officials in respect of federal mandates. However, all that Dr. Tam has said so far is that it might make sense to re-evaluate them. She has not called for lifting them. I am firmly in the camp of those who believe that this debate has to be led by public health officials, who have our best interests at heart. I know they are trying to keep up to date with the emerging science of the pandemic and are giving their best recommendations for how to reduce suffering and death as a result of COVID-19. It is our job to focus on how we support people through the economic challenges that we have to face, while the health challenges are addressed by public health officials and frontline health workers who treat those who have been infected.

COVID-19 tests are going to be an important part of that and, indeed, it was not that long ago that it was the preferred solution by the Conservatives, who now seem to be of the view that we can lift all public health measures and be done with them. However, governments have tried that before, and we do not have to go outside the country to see that. We just have to look at Alberta as one example. In the summer, it decided to lift all public health measures, and it very quickly found itself in distress with high rates of hospitalization. It is pretty clear that when we take that approach, it does not work out in the way that we would all hope and wish for. We have an obligation as decision-makers to be sober-minded about these things, listen to what public health officials are saying and look at the evidence. That does not mean there is no room for debate, and the country is currently having a very lively debate. However, it does mean that we still have to let public health officials lead that discussion based on the best available evidence.

One of the important tools for public health officials, to the extent that they want to collect data about what is happening with COVID, is a testing regime, and rapid tests are important in that regard. It is difficult in Canada right now to access rapid tests. Even if we do not take the macro point of view of a public health official, there are a lot of Canadians out there who maybe want to go visit their mom and dad or granny and grandpa or a vulnerable family member who is immunocompromised. They want to take a rapid test before they head over there because they know that COVID is around and is easy to catch.

Someone may have it and not be symptomatic, so folks would like to be able to have access to tests as a best practice or an added layer of protection or reassurance in order to be able to make those visits and have some confidence that, when they visit their loved ones or their friends, they are not taking COVID-19 into their home and into their life. That is another reason, beyond the public health arguments and beyond the economic arguments in terms of testing, if we are going into a workplace, why it is important to have access to rapid tests and why this money is important.

There are some real issues around accountability with money in the Liberal government. I will spare members the list, because I certainly do not have enough time to give it all, but as the member for Vancouver Kingsway, my colleague and NDP House critic, was just highlighting, that was why when we were negotiating with the government around the swift passage of this bill, which is just a two-paragraph bill that authorizes spending for rapid tests and their distribution to the provinces, we were keen to include some better financial reporting requirements in there. That is why we got a commitment from the government to table information every six months in the House on how this money is being spent, such as how many tests and where they go. That is important. It is important, because we are talking about large sums of money. It is important, because there have been legitimate questions raised about the way the government has spent some COVID-19 funds, including around sole-source contracts. I think Canadians should get information on how this money is being spent and they should get it in a timely way.

One of the most recent reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlighted the fact that the government was late in tabling its public accounts. It didn't table them until December. Normally, in the countries of most of our allies and trading partners, that happens on a six-month timetable after the end of the fiscal year, so tabling them in December was very late. I think it is true, especially when the government is spending large sums of money, that accountability and transparency become that much more important. They do not become less important because we are spending more money; they become more important as we spend more money.

That is why I am proud that the NDP has been able to negotiate some reporting requirements around this. I look forward to trying to secure a similar reporting requirement for Bill C-8, which includes another $1.72 billion in spending authority for rapid tests.

That was not the only thing negotiated around the passage of this bill. We in the House all know and Canadians listening may well know that the government made a choice to claw back the CERB benefits from working seniors who were on the guaranteed income supplement.

We were talking about it as New Democrats before the last election. We talked about it during the election. We have talked about is since the election. The government finally, just as a result of public pressure, felt an obligation to say something about it in the fall economic statement. They said money would be coming, but then it seemed it would not come until May. Then we heard maybe June. Then we heard maybe July. As part of the negotiations around swift passage of this bill, earlier today we were able to secure a commitment from the government that those seniors who have had their GIS clawed back would be paid no later than April 19, and for some of those in the most desperate need, that help may flow as early as mid-March.

That is a real concrete benefit for Canadians who were hurting. I have talked to seniors who have already been evicted from their homes. We have heard reports of seniors who have taken their lives because they had no sense of hope when they heard it would be so long until the GIS clawback was rectified. We have heard stories of seniors who have had to pass up on medication or are going hungry. This demanded swift action. It was something we were hoping to see the government do around Bill C-2, and we finally got it done.

To get Canadians access to more rapid tests and to get some of our most financially vulnerable seniors the help they need in order to stay in their homes or to be rehoused after being evicted all in one go I would say is a good day's work for a parliamentarian, and I am proud of that work.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑10 establishes a one-time payment of $2.5 billion to Quebec and the Canadian provinces for expenses incurred since January 1, 2022, in relation to testing.

We agree with that, but the main problem, and my colleague spoke at length about this before me, is that cuts to federal health transfers are compromising the health care system in Quebec and in the Canadian provinces. From our Quebec taxes that we send to the federal government, the money transferred to Quebec for health care formerly represented 50% of the funding for that sector in the 1970s. We cannot say it enough. Despite being increased a few times, like when the Bloc Québécois obtained a $3.3‑billion increase in transfers in 2007, Ottawa's share of the cost of health keeps going down. Today, the transfers represent only 22% of health spending.

Just before the election in 2011, the Bloc convinced Ottawa to catch up and to keep increasing the transfers by 6% over five years. Unfortunately, the Conservatives decided that starting in 2016, the transfers would stop keeping pace with the increasing costs and capped them at 3%. However, health care costs have been increasing by roughly 5% a year, due in part to population aging. In Quebec, where the population is aging faster than the Canadian average, we are being hit hard. That is what we call the fiscal imbalance. We are paying nearly half our taxes to Ottawa, but most of the public services are being provided by Quebec or the Canadian provinces, while the federal government does whatever it wants.

At the end of the day, Ottawa is undermining Quebec's finances, and Quebec taxpayers are paying the price and receiving fewer and fewer services. According to a study by the Conference Board of Canada, with the current transfer method, in 20 years, the federal government should rake in a $110‑billion surplus, based on this calculation method, but the provinces will run a combined deficit of $172 billion. That is how the federal government can afford to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

If the trend continues, federal health transfers will drop from 22% of health care expenses to 18% within a few years. It is no wonder that Quebec and the Canadian provinces are calling for the federal government to increase health transfers to cover 35% of health care spending, which would be more than $6.5 billion for Quebec. The government's position of putting off discussing the funding issue until after the pandemic is completely out of touch with reality.

I have been a member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois since 2016. The one thing that struck me when I came to the House of Commons was that the Canadian government is always quick to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, but it does not step up when it needs to take care of its own business, in its own jurisdiction.

The federal government must not continue to use these payments as an excuse to increase its funding and interference in areas under provincial jurisdiction and put off discussing health transfers. The Bloc Québécois will continue to make the point that increased health transfers are a necessary part of getting us through this pandemic, and it will be even more difficult to rebuild and stabilize our health care systems.

The needs are urgent in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île. The proportion of people aged 65 and over is higher than in the rest of Montreal. Life expectancy is lower than the average. Approximately two in three people aged 65 and older in La Pointe-de-l'Île have at least one chronic illness. Lung diseases and respiratory illnesses are more common in La Pointe-de-l'Île. Quebec's health care challenges are not strictly a management issue. The refusal by the Liberals and the other federal parties to increase health transfers to 35% is a prime example of predatory federalism.

Quebec is the one providing health care services, and we are in the middle of a pandemic. Quebec pays close to half our taxes to Ottawa, yet provides the lion's share of the services.

The Bloc Québécois succeeded in passing a motion to increase health transfers even though the Liberals voted against it. We know more money will not fix everything overnight, but without higher health transfers on an ongoing basis, we cannot start building the health system we want. That includes services available to everyone when they need them, good working conditions for nurses so we can retain them, training to hire more nurses and doctors, and support services for people dealing with addictions.

We cannot make these decisions and achieve this vision unless the federal government agrees to give back the money it takes from our taxes to fund the health care system. Health transfers must be restored urgently so we can breathe life back into our system.

I would also like to emphasize a key point here. While it is up to Quebec to choose the specific health services it wants to provide, respect for jurisdiction is quite simply an essential condition for respecting democracy. There are provincial jurisdictions and federal jurisdictions. If that is not respected, when people vote for a government in Quebec, that means they are voting for any old thing because we do not have the power to fulfill our commitments.

Quebeckers need to be given the right to determine their specific preferences with regard to health. The Bloc Québécois is against the federal government's centralist tendency. Ottawa is using the pandemic as an excuse to interfere in all sorts of domains, including long-term care institutions, mental health services and pharmacare. These elements are provincial responsibilities. Since Quebec and the provinces know what their people need, they should be the ones to determine how this money is allocated.

As we have pointed out, the government is completely isolated on this issue. My colleague said so earlier. All the opposition parties are calling for an increase in health transfers. All the provinces are calling for an increase in health transfers. All the premiers of the provinces and Quebec are calling on the federal government to increase health transfers. A 2020 survey found that 81% of Quebeckers want the federal government to increase its health transfers. That should be clear enough, but it is never clear enough.

We ask questions all the time and remind the Liberal members of this, and we are told again and again that funding has increased during the pandemic and so on. An increase in health funding during a pandemic is not a recurring increase. If health transfers are not increased, the federal share of health care spending will steadily decline, and our health care systems will be under enormous pressure. The provinces cannot make cuts to hospitals. We are asking once again, and we will continue asking, that the federal government increase health transfers. It is urgent.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spent her 10 minutes talking about some very important subjects, but I did not hear her position on Bill C‑10, so I would like to know if she will support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this Valentine's Day evening, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. I would also like to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to my partner, Yanick Thibault. We have been together for 26 years, and I thank him for sharing me with all the people of Laurentides—Labelle.

We have spent several hours today talking about Bill C‑10, which provides for a one-time payment of up to $2.5 billion to the provinces and territories for expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022, for tests. The money is to help the provinces and Quebec absorb additional pandemic-related costs.

The government upped health transfers by $5 billion in the previous Parliament. That included $4 billion for urgent health care system needs and $1 billion for the vaccination campaign. We all agree that was necessary, but that money is completely separate from requests to increase the federal government's share of health care costs to 35%.

It has to be said. The Liberals will try to make themselves look good by saying that the billions of dollars they spent went directly to fixing the problems in health care. However, the Bloc Québécois is duty bound to point out that, despite the $60 billion or so that has been injected, the Liberals have not exactly done anything out of the ordinary. This spending was necessary to deal with this pandemic, which is an exceptional situation.

I am sorry to see the government using these sums as an excuse not to increase funding and to put it off until later, possibly 2027. This does not make sense because the problems will remain after the pandemic.

I want to be very clear that our voice will be heard over and over again, speaking for the Quebec government. I will continue to illustrate that this issue is crucial to getting through the pandemic.

The federal government stands alone on this matter. We cannot forget that the Quebec government and the Bloc Québécois have called for an increase in health transfers to cover 35% of health care costs. The federal government wants to postpone the issue of funding until after the pandemic, possibly until 2027. Not only is this completely out of touch with reality, but the federal government is also the only one to think that way.

The Bloc Québécois wants a society that has a universal, public health care system worthy of a G7 country. Without that, we cannot properly deal with health care problems.

In fact, that money could bring in alternative measures for the entire nation. For those watching us at this late hour, on Valentine's Day, remember that the federal contribution went from 50% of health care costs in the 1950s and 1960s to 22% today.

The division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces in 1867, which was quite a while ago, is quite simple. In 19th-century terms, if the issue directly affected people and how they organize their society, it fell under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This included civil laws that codify interpersonal relations, the organization of society through social, health and education programs, and also cultural issues. If an issue did not directly affect people or the internal organization of their society, it could fall under federal jurisdiction. This could be monetary policy, international trade, and general trade and industry regulations.

To compensate for the withdrawal of the federal government's investment, Quebec and the provinces had no choice but to scale back services and run the system at full capacity.

The system broke down. Our young people, seniors, parents, business people and health care staff will not agree to lockdown indefinitely to protect the health care system. That is exactly why we need to start rebuilding our health care system immediately.

It is unacceptable. We know more money will not fix everything overnight. However, without funding we cannot start building our ideal health care system. That includes mental health services available to everyone when they need them; good working conditions for nurses and all other health care workers; training to hire staff, who are so invaluable; and support services for people dealing with addictions. This list goes on.

Once again, the government is completely alone on this issue. All of the opposition parties and the premiers of the provinces and Quebec—and that is big—are calling for an increase in health transfers, as are the health care unions, Canada's public health authorities, the majority of medical and patient associations, and even one of the government's own MPs. That is not to mention the fact that, on February 2, a poll showed that 87% of Quebeckers and Canadians were also calling for an increase in health transfers.

I urge the Prime Minister to acknowledge this consensus and to immediately meet with his counterparts, as he did today on another matter, to negotiate an increase in health transfers and get things moving. The federal government needs to stop arguing over jurisdictions. It is time to rebuild.

Since I have a little time remaining, I would also like to talk about vaccination in developing countries, because this pandemic will not end until that happens. Until all countries have adequate vaccine coverage, there will always be a risk of new, more contagious, dangerous or resistant variants.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to take four actions to contribute to global vaccination coverage. Canada must provide logistical assistance to transport and administer doses; provide its surplus doses to developing countries on a predictable basis; support the waiving of vaccine patents; and participate in global vaccine outreach efforts to ensure that the vaccination campaign is a success around the world. It is important that people learn about the benefits of the vaccine, which is a challenge that both Quebec and the rest of Canada are facing.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a number of people who have contacted me recently about the Conservative motion we voted on today. The motion called on the government to table a plan by the end of the month, by February 28, that includes reopening steps. That is what the Bloc Québécois supported.

It is important to make that clear because some of the people who contacted me were misinformed. What the Bloc Québécois supported was calling on the government to govern and plan. Asking for a plan is the same as asking the government to govern, which is the least it can do. Nobody is asking the government to get rid of all public health measures by the end of the month. We are not even asking it to make an announcement on February 28 about a precise date when all public health measures will be lifted. All we want is a plan and some predictability.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. Specifically, what Bill C-10 does is allocate $2.5 billion toward rapid testing.

Since the outset of the COVID‑19 pandemic, Conservatives have consistently and repeatedly called on the government to make rapid testing a priority. It has now been more than two years since COVID arrived and throughout that time the government's record when it comes to rapid testing has been precisely the opposite of that. For more than two years, the government has repeatedly and consistently dropped the ball when it comes to rapid testing.

The numbers speak for themselves with respect to the government's failure when it comes to rapid testing. The government very recently made a commitment to deliver tens of millions of rapid tests to the provinces in January. It has failed regarding the promises it made to the provinces.

Take the province of Ontario, for example. The government promised the Province of Ontario 53.3 million rapid tests. It has delivered 17.6 million rapid tests. In other words, it has delivered less than a third of the commitment it made to the Province of Ontario for January.

In my home province of Alberta, the government promised 16 million rapid tests for January. It turns out it has delivered less than five million rapid tests, barely 30% of what it committed to for January.

Similarly, the Province of Manitoba has stated it has received only 2.5 million rapid tests, less than half of what the government committed to for January.

Those are the numbers. Talk about a failure.

Early on in the pandemic, business, small business owners and leaders of key sectors of the Canadian economy, including tourism and hospitality, urged the government to come forward with a comprehensive, robust rapid testing strategy to acquire and distribute rapid tests so their doors could remain open safely and they could avoid the kinds of lockdowns and restrictions that have shut down businesses and cost Canadians hundreds of thousands of jobs. What was the government's response to those calls? Very simply, the government ignored them.

Not only that, the government attacked the very people, including members on this side of the House, who were calling on it to prioritize rapid testing. In answer to a question posed by my former Conservative colleague, the then member for Cloverdale—Langley City, I can recall the Deputy Prime Minister, in this House in November 2020, saying that those who were promoting the use of rapid tests were selling snake oil. The Deputy Prime Minister and future leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was equating rapid tests to snake oil.

While the government was attacking those who were calling on it to come up with a plan to get rapid tests out, other countries took the opposite approach. They were procuring and distributing rapid tests. Many jurisdictions, such as Germany and such as London, England, were getting rapid testing kits out to their populations at little or no cost so that businesses could stay open. There is a long list of jurisdictions that did so successfully, but not Canada.

After more than two years of failure, now all of a sudden rapid testing is a priority for the government. All of a sudden, it has seen the light. All of a sudden, it is saying we have to ram through Bill C-10 with limited scrutiny and debate. I say, when it comes to Bill C-10, it is too little, too late. If anything, what Bill C-10 demonstrates is the complete and utter incompetence of the government and complete failure to come up with a plan with respect to rapid testing.

Speaking of incompetence and a failure to come up with a plan on the part of the government, today the Liberals, along with their NDP coalition partner, voted against a very reasonable Conservative motion simply calling on the government to come up with a plan to lift federal restrictions and mandates.

In fairness, the best that could be said of the Liberals is that they did something that they have not done in a long time, and that was to be honest. They admitted that they do not like plans, that they cannot plan, and that they have not had a plan throughout COVID. If the government did have a plan, we would not be debating Bill C-10 tonight. There would not be tens of millions of shortages with respect to rapid testing, and the $2.5 billion that the government is requesting would have been out the door a long time ago.

This is not about a government saving the day. This is about a government that is in a state of panic and scrambling to cover up its record of failure. After more than two long years, Canadians deserve a plan from the government when it comes to lifting restrictions and mandates.

With more than 90% of Canadians vaccinated, what is it going to take the government? What is the government's exit strategy? How much longer are Canadians supposed to wait? Canadians deserve to know when it is that they can expect to take back control of their lives. They deserve an answer from the government now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will name more than one for the members opposite. Today is an excellent example. Our provinces, territories, small businesses and big businesses alike are dependent on the federal government getting these rapid tests. We are supporting the people of Canada and our business community in Canada, and we are showing how we can work with provinces to make a difference.

The Conservatives and the Bloc seem to be fixated on not wanting to support the bill's speedy passage. In terms of the GIS, we can talk about the importance to seniors across this land in getting payments and the legislation coming up this week. It needs to pass too. Remember, there is a break week the following week.

We have an emergency in our nation. Hundreds of millions of dollars in trade is being threatened at our international border. That is another issue that needs to be brought to the floor of the House of Commons. We have a Bloc opposition day coming up this week. We have two short days also. The urgency is there. It is very real and it is important. It is time that we pass the legislation.

In listening to the debate today, I am a bit confused as I am sure anyone listening to the debate would be. The member for Cumberland—Colchester is a medical doctor and sits on the health committee. He talks about questioning the science and whether it is even necessary at this stage, suggesting that it is a waste. He is not alone. The member for Peterborough—Kawartha is also implying that it is a waste, calling into question the need for the rapid tests.

In fairness, they did have a member who was very clear. The opposition House leader said he recognizes the importance and he is going to be voting in favour of the legislation. I suspect the Conservatives will rethink their position and their speeches today. I would hope it would be unanimous in this House. Even the Bloc recognizes the importance of this legislation being passed. I would like to think that the Conservatives would also be supporting it.

People need to read some of the speeches and listen to what members of the Conservative Party are saying about rapid testing. We wonder why there is confusion and misinformation out there in our communities. It is there because of the mixed messaging coming from the official opposition here in Canada.

We have consistently, in the last couple of months, brought forward legislation to deal with rapid tests. First, it was Bill C-8 with $1.7 billion and today with Bill C-10 it is $2.5 billion. If we do not spend that money or if we do not make the commitment to get those rapid tests, we are telling provinces and territories they are going to have to do it. They will not be able to get the same bulk-buying power we can get as a national government. We already have the contacts and the network. Then we will work with provinces and territories to ensure we are able to meet those demands.

That is why this legislation is important. That is why I would recommend that all Conservative members join the rest of the House in supporting Bill C-10.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by acknowledging our fine work. We often make reference to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Procurement and the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister. However, it goes without saying and is important to state that the civil servants working for those respective ministers have done an outstanding job of ensuring that Canada stays on top of what has been an incredibly important file.

There are two aspects of it I want to highlight, one of which I am going to focus my attention on. One is the vaccines and the manner in which Canada was able to get them. They are the most important tool in combatting the pandemic, and we are arguably second to no other country in the world in terms of performance. I want to thank those individuals who ultimately made that happen, whether within departments or in the distribution once the vaccines arrived in Canada. They were getting them out to our provinces, territories, indigenous communities and so forth.

The second aspect is what this bill is all about. This bill, Bill C-10, as the minister has so well explained to members, is about the importance of this particular tool, rapid testing. I thought what I would do is provide some thoughts in regard to the comments I heard earlier today in debate, in particular coming from the Conservative opposition party.

One of the concerns the Conservatives constantly raised was the issue of why it took the government so long. They said they have been hammering for the government to have these rapid tests for years now, so I think we should recognize the uptake and usage of the rapid tests. If we take a look back to November of last year, for example, through the Government of Canada, we were able to build up stockpiles of rapid tests that were distributed in our provinces and territories. In some provinces very few were actually used. From a federal government's perspective, we were able to meet the demand. We did not have the provinces and territories saying they wanted to get more to add to their stockpiles.

Then something unique happened. One of my colleagues talked about it earlier, and I know this sentiment is shared among my caucus colleagues: We became tired of the pandemic. Unfortunately, we are not the ones who determine when the pandemic goes away. We need to continue to have faith in science and faith in our health care experts. As much as I want to see it go away, I cannot wish it away.

What we saw was the omicron variant come in like a storm. When it came in, the uptake of and demand for rapid tests quadrupled and, in some cases, went up tenfold. However, through the efforts of civil servants and others, we were able to acquire, as the Minister of Health has said, close to 140 million additional rapid tests for the month of January alone. Taking into consideration the population of our country, I believe as a government we were prepared for a variation of the coronavirus.

If we think about what Bill C-10 is all about, it is about rapid tests. That is why this is so urgent. However, it is only the New Democrats who have recognized the importance of the timing. Opposition members, whether from the Bloc or the Conservatives, have said the Senate does not meet until next week. They do not necessarily realize that there are a lot of things on the agenda that are of absolute critical importance to Canadians from coast to coast.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

Testing, as we all know, plays a key role in our efforts to contain and mitigate the pandemic. Identifying infected individuals helps to prevent further person-to-person transmission of the virus.

As everyone knows, health care services are struggling to meet the demand for polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, tests, because the omicron variant has a very high infection rate. Provinces and territories across the country are now relying on rapid tests to help fill this significant gap.

Rapid tests are a screening method that can more easily and quickly detect COVID-19 in a variety of settings such as schools, workplaces and other high-risk environments including long-term care facilities and hospitals, to name a few.

Using rapid tests in new settings can help detect the spread of COVID-19 and support measures to break the chain of transmission.

Not everyone who has COVID-19 will show symptoms. In fact, the prevalence of asymptomatic infection is probably a significant factor in the high rate of transmission of omicron. Rapid testing allows a person to detect the virus in as little as 15 minutes, which makes it a powerful tool that Canadians can use to help curb the spread of the omicron variant.

Since the introduction of Bill C-8, which provided additional funding for the purchase and distribution of rapid tests, Canada experienced an exponential increase in the number of cases and hospitalizations. The spread of omicron also led to an abrupt increase in demand for rapid tests. This is putting pressure on global supply, where supply chains are very tight, so clearly we need to get more of these tests, and we need to do it now.

Bill C-10 will allow Health Canada to purchase and distribute hundreds of millions of rapid tests across the country and help ensure equitable access in all jurisdictions. It also builds on commitments made in last December's economic and fiscal update, which included an additional $1.7 billion in funding for the procurement and distribution of rapid tests across the country.

Bill C-10 would also allow Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to continue supporting provinces and territories by securing the rapid tests that they need to keep Canadians safe and healthy, including through expanded schoolplace and workplace testing programs.

Finally, Bill C-10 would allow us to continue supporting businesses of all sizes by providing rapid tests for workplace screening programs through direct delivery and partners such as chambers of commerce and pharmacies.

Throughout the pandemic, the Canadian government has worked closely with its provincial and territorial partners to ensure they have the tools they need to manage outbreaks and ensure the safety and health of everyone.

The federal government starting buying and providing rapid tests free of charge to the provinces and territories in October 2020. The Government of Canada delivered more than 35 million rapid tests to provinces and territories in December 2021, and 140 million additional tests were delivered to Canada in January alone.

The Government of Canada also supports the Canadian Red Cross in its delivery efforts.

Companies with 200 employees or more, including federally regulated companies, can receive rapid tests free of charge directly from the Government of Canada. Small and medium-sized businesses and other organizations can also receive and have access to rapid tests through one of the Canadian government's delivery partners.

The Canadian government has spent the past two years enhancing its ability to respond quickly and efficiently to the many challenges associated with the pandemic.

Working with the provinces, territories and other partners, we are delivering the tools we need to protect Canadians in our health care system from the most serious outcomes of COVID-19.

As my colleagues know, this year started out with a marked increase in the number of COVID-19 cases when there was a surge in the omicron variant in Canada and around the world.

Recent modelling has shown that the increase in omicron infections has probably peaked. However, the number of daily admissions to hospitals and intensive care units is still high and many hospitals in Canada are under intense pressure.

Therefore, we must continue to do everything we can to limit the spread of COVID-19 and its variants.

In the short term, that means vaccines, boosters and strong adherence to public health guidelines.

Because nearly three million eligible Canadians have yet to get a first or second dose of the primary series and many other Canadians are also eligible for a booster, we want to improve our individual and collective protection with the COVID‑19 vaccines. This will help us keep fighting the omicron wave and any potential new waves and variants.

Looking ahead, Canada will need to continue to tackle future waves, which may or may not be smaller than the omicron surge depending on how the virus evolves.

Screening tests, combined with individual public health measures and vaccination, play an important role in protecting Canadians and reducing the risk of outbreaks, swiftly identifying and isolating cases, and limiting the spread of COVID‑19 and its variants of concern.

We are all tired after living with the COVID‑19 pandemic for the past two years and the most recent omicron wave. We all want to know when the pandemic will be over, but we cannot simply snap our fingers and decide that COVID‑19 is over.

We are at a critical juncture in the pandemic. We must do the right thing and act responsibly, and we need to do it now. We know that rapid tests will help us slow the spread of omicron. They will also help manage outbreaks and, ultimately, they will help keep Canadians safe and healthy.

That is why I urge all members of the House to support Bill C‑10.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, and how the federal government is working to ensure that Canada continues to have a sufficient supply of COVID‑19 rapid tests.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for London North Centre, for his previous comments. I have heard colleagues throughout the House speak tonight about many other issues. However, I would like to focus my comments this evening on the bill itself, which is known as Bill C-10.

Unfortunately, COVID continues to have a significant impact on the lives of Canadians and remains an unparalleled threat to the health, social and economic well-being of Canadians. As public health restrictions ease in some jurisdictions, testing and the availability of rapid tests will take on an even higher level of importance in our fight against COVID‑19.

Ensuring that all Canadians have what they need to be safe during this critical time is a responsibility that our government takes very seriously. Since the outset of the pandemic, the Government of Canada has worked closely with provinces and territories, taking a team Canada approach to responding to the pandemic. I would like to begin my remarks today by briefly highlighting some of the key initiatives our government has taken thus far to protect Canadians and to help our country recover.

From the very beginning of the pandemic, the Government of Canada was committed to working closely with all levels of government to put the health and safety of Canadians first. The safe restart agreement was a significant element of this team Canada approach. It led to the direct transfer of $3 billion to provinces and territories to enhance testing, contact tracing and data management, with additional monies made available by the Government of Canada to procure COVID‑19 PCR tests. Thanks to the funding from the safe restart agreement, health units across Canada have been able to better identify who was infected, where that person was infected and how much the virus was circulating in communities.

As the pandemic has changed, so has the need for testing. Today, rapid tests are a more important tool in the government's arsenal than ever before. Our government has worked tirelessly, as we have throughout the past two years, in collaboration with provinces and territories to expedite the delivery of rapid tests from coast to coast to coast.

Rapid tests are safe. They are effective. They are easy to administer, and they provide quick results. Their availability empowers Canadians to make informed decisions to protect their health and the health of their loved ones and to avoid spreading the virus further. Since the onset of the COVID‑19 pandemic, all levels of government have collaborated with experts to ensure they have the best evidence, and the best science, to make informed decisions on COVID‑19 testing and screening.

In November, 2020, the Minister of Health formally established the COVID-19 testing and screening expert advisory panel. The panel provided science and policy advice to help inform decisions on innovative approaches to COVID‑19 testing and screening, including advice on the best use of tests, strategies for different settings, and emerging technologies, again following the science.

The panel consisted of highly respected professionals with a broad range of expertise in areas such as health policy, infectious diseases and the implementation of public health measures. Over the course of nine months, the expert panel published five reports, including, “Priority strategies to optimize self-testing in Canada”, which was published in August, 2021. This report provided the foundation by which provinces and territories expanded their testing programs.

Combatting COVID‑19 is about collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada, complemented by the work of an expert advisory panel. This collaboration includes the release of updated pan-Canadian COVID‑19 testing and screening guidance, and a white paper on testing for COVID‑19 in vaccinated populations. These references underscore the importance of continued testing, especially to protect vulnerable populations, and the need for all jurisdictions to sustain COVID‑19 rapid test stockpiles for surge testing to minimize and respond quickly to outbreaks.

Getting Canadians through this pandemic did not only require collaboration among all levels of government, but also required innovative partnerships with the private sector. That is why the government also established innovative partnerships with the establishment of an industry advisory round table on COVID‑19 testing, screening, tracing and data management with members from large, critical industries.

This collaboration led to the launch of the Creative Destruction Lab Rapid Screening Consortium: a non-profit organization located at the University of Toronto, initially comprising 12 companies with national operations. The consortium aimed to develop a system capable of conducting COVID‑19 screening that could produce results within 15 minutes. Let us think about that: in only 15 minutes, we could have an answer to protect our loved ones.

In April, 2021, through the safe restart agreement, Health Canada funded the consortium to expand its program to support the rollout of rapid screening pilots for asymptomatic employees across Canada. As of January 26, 2022, Creative Destruction Lab Rapid Screening Consortium had already onboarded over 2,000 organizations from coast to coast to coast, including school boards, child care centres, long-term care facilities and an array of businesses such as airlines, couriers, banks, mines and retail settings. It was essentially every part of Canada that it could get to.

Additionally, the Canadian Red Cross has been an important partner, providing surge support to provinces and territories for direct patient care. Complementing the work of the consortium, the government partnered with the Canadian Red Cross to support testing and screening in the non-profit sector. In 2021, approximately 300,000 tests were provided to the Canadian Red Cross for this initiative. Through this innovative partnership, 234 non-profit organizations across the country have launched testing programs, receiving support, guidance and test kits directly from the Red Cross. Over 1.6 million tests have been distributed so far through this initiative.

I would like to talk about our northern, remote and isolated communities program. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the spirit of truth and reconciliation, the northern, remote and isolated communities initiative was established in early 2020 to ensure equitable access to health care for people living in northern, remote and isolated, NRI, communities across Canada. This initiative prioritizes distribution of point-of-care diagnostic testing supplies, including molecular tests, to communities and to the homes of many first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. Led by the Public Health Agency of Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory, and in collaboration with Indigenous Services Canada, the program has included training for the installation and use of COVID-19 tests.

To date, the National Microbiology Laboratory has provided more than 230 training sessions for non-health-care professionals to implement point-of-care testing in NRI communities. As of January 16, 2022, over and above the supply provided to provinces and territories, a total of 651 testing instruments and 1,196,039 tests had been deployed to support testing in more than 300 NRI communities.

In conclusion, we have done much as a country to fight this pandemic, and Canadians should feel encouraged by the progress we have made, but it is without question that the months ahead of us will continue to be full of challenges and that we need to do even more to support our country. I ask all of my colleagues to join me and those of us on this side of the floor in supporting the adoption of this bill, so that we can continue to provide critical and timely support to provinces, territories, workplaces and Canadians through this ongoing procurement process and timely distribution of COVID-19 rapid tests that will help keep us all safe.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

I am very proud tonight to rise and speak on behalf of our side to Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. I am thankful for giving the bill the attention and priority that is required.

As members are aware, we have committed through this bill to continue our support of provinces and territories, workplace and not-for-profit organizations in managing the pandemic. In particular, the bill seeks to make rapid tests readily available for the purposes of early detection of COVID-19 positive cases and mitigating the transmission of the virus. I will first speak about regulatory approval of tests.

Since the start of the pandemic, Health Canada has put in place rapid, innovative and agile measures through interim orders to ensure prompt access to medical devices and to respond to the needs of Canadians. Canada has one of the most highly regarded regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the world. Health Canada's consistent approach throughout the pandemic has ensured that testing devices available in Canada have been high performing and reliable.

Health Canada has made it a priority to review applications for COVID-19 devices that meet an urgent public health need in Canada. Manufacturers of these devices must provide sufficient data to support the intended use, including the sensitivity established for the specific test. Tests that do not meet high standards of sensitivity values are not authorized for use, and Canada is one of the few countries with minimal post-market issues, including recalls.

As of the beginning of February, in fact, Health Canada has authorized 107 testing devices, including 10 self-tests and 27 tests that can be used in a point-of-care setting. Working with our public health partners, we have identified testing technologies that are the highest priority for evaluation at this time. Additionally, based on the information available to date, the authorized tests continue to be effective in detecting variants. Canada is also taking a proactive role by contacting manufacturers of self-tests that have been authorized in other jurisdictions and inviting them to submit applications for approval in Canada, and more self-testing applications are currently under evaluation by Health Canada.

To advance regulatory approval of new COVID-19 tests, the regulator has approved over 100 clinical trials for COVID-19 products, many of which benefited from flexible approaches, ultimately helping to identify promising COVID-19 therapies sooner. In addition, it has leveraged its rapport with international regulators to share information on emerging technologies in the context of the rapid evolution of the virus while aligning and collaborating on regulatory and policy approaches. As new tests become available and approved for use in Canada, Health Canada works with provincial and territorial officials to acquire and distribute them.

There is also something to be said about biomanufacturing in this country. In order to secure a better supply of testing devices, it is essential that Canada increase its domestic biomanufacturing capacity. Investments in biomanufacturing capacity will reduce our reliance on imported products, strengthen our domestic industrial capacity and increase the resilience of our nation for years to come.

Budget 2021 made the government's commitment to the biomanufacturing sector clear with a $2.2-billion investment over the next seven years. The regulator is doing its part to support this as it recognizes that the strength of our regulatory system is an important consideration for companies looking to establish a Canadian presence. In fact, as of January 14 of this year, the Government of Canada purchased 30 million rapid tests from Artron Laboratories in Burnaby, British Columbia. These tests have been procured to fulfill immediate, emerging and long-term requirements.

Rapid test delivery is also very important. Rapid tests are proving to be another useful tool in our current response to the omicron variant. Thanks to a $3-billion investment through the safe restart agreement, public health units have extensive access to PCR tests and contact tracing resources, but rapid tests provide a further layer of protection by expanding testing into a broader range of environments, making testing even more accessible to Canadians and curtailing more quickly the spread of COVID-19.

I want to share the latest news on our pledge to deliver rapid tests free of charge to provinces and territories. The Government of Canada has negotiated with eight manufacturers to secure rapid antigen tests for the provinces and territories for the coming months. The Government of Canada has been buying and providing COVID-19 rapid tests free of charge to provinces and territories since October 2020 in line with its authorization of the first COVID-19 rapid test.

While the demand for COVID-19 rapid tests has increased significantly, the government has kept pace, being a reliable partner to provinces and territories, and that will continue. Since the start of the pandemic, we have procured 490 million tests, in fact.

In conclusion, testing is a critical part of Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and how we adjust to everyday life. It allows us to identify outbreaks more quickly, isolate those who are sick, initiate contact tracing and support public health decisions at all levels of government. Equitable access to tests by all Canadians would help to limit the ongoing transmission of the omicron variant. It would help us to rebuild our economy and our lives. It would enable Canadians to know more quickly whether they are infected and to make choices that protect them and our communities.

As potential future waves of this pandemic come and go, we need to be able to weather the storm by using all the resources at our disposal. I trust that all hon. members of this House will agree that equitable access to testing would further protect all Canadians and help us through this pandemic. As a country we need the additional funding of $2.5 billion that Bill C-10 would provide to procure additional tests, and with members' support, we could make sure that every Canadian is in fact supported. We could unite on this point and unite in our common goal of being able to protect our health and to be able to rebuild our nation.

I will conclude by thanking health workers in my home community of London. I do not think that can be said enough. There will be disagreements in this House, and there are disagreements in this House, but one thing I hope we can unite on is recognizing the incredible contributions that they have made. Doctors, nurses and health workers of all kinds since the beginning of this pandemic have stood by members of our communities. London is a health care community and our identity in so many ways is based on that. We have world-class hospitals in our city.

Those constituents who continue to serve in hospitals, who continue to stand by my constituents, I cannot thank them enough. They know that this bill is very important, because while rapid tests are not a panacea as some think, they are a very important tool in combatting the virus. We know that from the health experts who have advised the government on the necessity of precisely this bill. That is why it is so important that we pass this. I hope we can pass it unanimously.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I definitely would agree with my hon. colleague that Bill C-10 and, of course, the motion that is shepherding it through the House in a fairly rapid fashion do show evidence of how quickly the federal government can move, when required, to bring in basic health policy.

I would agree with him. Now is the time if we are to learn any lessons from the COVID experience. We have to think about the legacy we will leave for future generations in Canada's health care system. Maybe if my hon. colleague could talk about the legacy system and about how this is really our opportunity to show that leadership and to show people right across the country and in communities everywhere that we need to leave them the health care system they are very much deserving of.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. This large riding is home to many communities. It is also a very beautiful riding that I have been able to visit a few times.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that this is the evening of February 14 and I would like to say hello to my girlfriend. I want to let her know that I am here for a good reason today, which is to participate in this important debate.

Why is this debate important?

We are debating Bill C-10, which is not to be confused with the government’s defunct broadcasting bill. In fact, this Bill C-10 seeks to allow the government to spend $2.5 billion to buy and distribute rapid tests to the various Canadian provinces, and obviously to Quebec, which we wish were not a province.

We might be tempted to say that this seems fairly uncontroversial and few people people would object to having access to tests. Such a position would be irresponsible.

However, this goes far beyond simply being for or against spending $2.5 billion on rapid tests. I think that debate would be a short one, or at least it would be for us. That may be why the government did not want us to study the bill in depth and chose to issue a gag order. That may be why it did not want us to dig deeper. If we were to dig deeper and look closer, we might start questioning why the federal government needs to pump extra money into the provinces and Quebec, which need it to deal with the pandemic.

We are talking about an additional $2.5 billion, which seems to have come out of nowhere, and the federal government is swooping in with this money like Santa Claus or a superhero. They want to show just how wonderful, generous and excellent they are. We all know, however, that that money is our tax money. It did come from somewhere, namely our own pockets. We are all paying.

Quebec's health care system is short on money, and the same is probably true for the health care systems in the other Canadian provinces. That is why this bill calls for deeper consideration. Even though the federal government keeps bragging about how amazing it is, every time we ask if there is going to be more money for the health care system, it tells us it spent money like never before during the pandemic.

First, I do not know if that is something to brag about. I think spending like never before is not something to boast about. What the government should be boasting about is fixing problems. Unfortunately, they are still not fixed. The pandemic is still here. I do not blame the government entirely. I think this is a global issue.

That does not change the fact that underlying problems resurfaced with the pandemic, are still not fixed and will have to be addressed someday. For example, we could talk about vaccination capacity, which is nearly non‑existent. We used to have a thriving pharmaceutical industry in Quebec a few years ago. It has all but disappeared. Traces of it remain in my riding and on the north shore in Montreal, but it is nothing compared to what it used to be.

The irony is that, recently at least, the federal government keeps trying to tell us how Quebec should run its health care system. When there is a disaster and everything is going wrong, it is easy for it to say that it could have done better. However, when we look at things properly, we might wonder if it really would have done better.

Consider one of the things the federal government is supposed to look after in case of a pandemic or catastrophe: the national equipment stockpile. It is not as though the pandemic was something that nobody could have ever predicted, and yet when the government opened up the stockpile, it turned out all the equipment was expired. Imagine if Quebec hospitals managed things like that. It would be a bad situation.

We really cannot count on the federal government, nor can we count on it to fund our health care system adequately. Quebec's health care system was really put to the test. A lot of people say the system is struggling. It is in trouble. Things are bad.

If we want to get to the root of the problem, we need to talk about the federal government's financial contribution. In 1958, the federal government covered 50% of health care costs. In 2022, it covers about 22%. There is a big difference between 50% and 22%. They are not even close. Even so, the federal government will not stop talking about how great it is. When we ask the government when it will give us money for health care, it says it has spent more money than ever during the pandemic. When we look at the actual numbers, the federal government's share of health care funding has been shrinking steadily. That is a fact. Let us look at the real numbers. The government says it is putting more money into health care. Sure, it has increased funding annually in constant dollars, but if we look at the proportion of health care costs, the answer is no. It has not kept up. The government did this knowingly.

Members will recall the budgets of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien from a time not all that long ago. I had not yet been elected, of course, but that did not stop me from taking an interest in politics. At least I was born already. It is not such a distant memory for many people. Members will recall both Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, rubbing their hands together, practically giddy, when they realized they could balance their budgets by reducing transfers. As a result, on the receiving end of that plan, the provincial and Quebec governments have been struggling ever since. They have had to bring in their own austerity measures, because the federal government is starving them of funds.

Jean Chrétien liked to brag about it. In interviews not so long ago, he said that making budget cuts made him look good, and that the world was angry with Quebec. Unbelievable. That is when people began seeing the problem.

When people go to the hospital and have a hard time getting good care, they get angry and upset. The Quebec government manages health care, but people forget that a large part of it was funded by Ottawa. I say “was” because that “large part” keeps shrinking, and this is causing more and more problems.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for an increase in health care funding to 35%. We are not even asking for 50%, but 35%. It is not huge, but it would make a huge difference in the care people receive. It would make quite a difference.

Instead of patting itself on the back every time it spends $5, the government should sit down at the table and tell us what it can do to really change things and address existing problems. That is where the government should be heading, rather than looking for every possible way to starve and drain the provinces and the Quebec government, all of which need help. The feds brag about working miracles, when all they are doing is sticking band-aids on a wound that is not healing.

Naturally, with all these cuts to the federal government's contribution year after year, our health care system suffered during the pandemic. Every time that a slightly stronger wave arrives, or every time that case counts rise, the health care system becomes overloaded and can take no more. We could talk about this to all health care workers, who have had enough. They would like to be heard a little and helped. That is why we are speaking out today. We are telling the federal government that it is time to come to the table.

I was elected in 2015, and I believe that the Bloc Québécois has talked about health transfers constantly since then. It is a big problem, and it will only get bigger, because health care costs continue to grow, yet the federal government's contribution continues to shrink. That is not right, and that is why the Bloc Québécois has been joined by Quebec and all the provinces of Canada in asking the government to increase health care funding. Sometimes Ottawa is hard of hearing when Quebec speaks, and even more so when the Bloc Québécois speaks, but once in a while, the message does get through.

All that is to say that we are not giving up. For that reason, we have proposed a summit on health care, so that the federal government comes to the table and we finally solve the problem.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-10.

COVID-19 continues to be part of our lives, which we all know, and testing and screening remain important tools. They allow us to rapidly detect and isolate new cases. They support contact tracing and they help prevent community outbreaks by breaking the chain of transmission. As we have been, we continue to be committed to supporting the provinces and territories' testing strategies. These are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but our job is to support.

A critical part of finishing the fight against COVID-19 is making sure that we continue to prevent outbreaks at schools and workplaces. The $2.5-billion investment to purchase and distribute rapid tests across the country that is contained in this bill would ensure the delivery of millions of rapid tests to provinces and territories and indigenous communities free of charge and continue to support screening programs through our various distribution channels. Rapid tests are safe, they are effective and they are easy to administer. They provide quick results and they will empower Canadians to make more-informed decisions to protect their health and the health of their loved ones.

As all members know, rapid tests represent only one element in the tool kit to fight this pandemic. This bill therefore represents a continuation of the kinds of measures that we have implemented and will continue to implement, measures that are based on the best public health advice and scientific evidence.

Since the start of this pandemic, Health Canada has put in place rapid, innovative and agile measures to ensure prompt access to medical devices to respond to the needs of Canadians. The department has worked closely with public health partners to ensure that applications for COVID-19 testing devices are prioritized to meet urgent public health needs. These measures have allowed Health Canada to authorize over 100 testing devices, including 10 self-tests and 27 tests that can be used in a point-of-care setting.

Health Canada is also expediting the review of all treatments for COVID-19. The department has rapidly authorized several clinical trials in Canada, including for some vaccines being developed right here in Canada, without compromising on strict standards for the safety of clinical trial participants. Clinical trial regulations allow the investigation of new drugs or new uses of drugs while affording protection to participants and requiring the proper collection and retention of outcomes.

As of February 9, 115 clinical trials for COVID-19 drugs and vaccines have been authorized in Canada. Health Canada has authorized five drugs to treat COVID-19, including Remdesivir for hospitalized people, as well Paxlovid and three biologic treatments for non-hospitalized folks who have mild or moderate COVID symptoms and are at risk of developing severe disease. The Government of Canada has procured many of these treatments and continues to engage proactively with domestic and international companies to negotiate advance purchase agreements and ensure timely access in the procurement of treatments.

As we know, vaccination is one of the most effective tools that we have to combat the pandemic, and along with the availability of rapid testing, it will play an important role in protecting our supply chains and helping us to get to a point where the pandemic is behind us. Governments have an important responsibility to protect the health and safety of their citizens. That is what we have done since day one. This responsibility becomes especially critical in the face of a public health emergency such as the one we are in right now.

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the government has committed to making decisions that are based on science and based on the advice of public health officials. The government has implemented many critical measures to protect the health and safety of Canadians, including federal public servants. As the employer of the federal public service, it is the government's role to set the conditions for those employees to be safe when they are called upon to provide those services. Last October, we implemented a policy requiring that all employees of the core public service, including the RCMP, be vaccinated. This requirement applies to all employees, whether they are working remotely or working on site. It also applies to contractors who require access to federal government work sites.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce means that not only are work sites safer, but so are the communities in which these public servants live and work. It also means better protection for Canadians who are accessing government services in person, including, in particular, the more vulnerable members of our communities.

The vaccination requirements within the transportation sector have helped to protect our transport system from the impacts of omicron by reducing the frequency and severity of the COVID-19 illness among transportation workers. As we have done throughout the pandemic, we have worked closely with our partners in the transportation sector, including industry, to implement the vaccine requirements and to ensure the overall safety of the transportation system. These partners have played an invaluable, critical role in ensuring that people, goods and services continue to move in a safe and secure manner. Transportation workers have done their part by getting vaccinated and helping us all get through this pandemic.

I want to reiterate that the Government of Canada's top priority is the health and safety of all Canadians. To protect Canadians, the government has taken every measure at its disposal to protect citizens. I know that it has not been easy. The pandemic has had an undeniable impact on Canadian businesses, large and small. Canadians have been patient. They rolled up their sleeves. They did their part to protect themselves, to protect others, and they got vaccinated.

We recognize that this pandemic has created anxiety and additional stress for many Canadians. While we are all fatigued, we are also hopeful for what is to come. We are not where we were at the beginning and we can look forward to a brighter future. The measures that we have put in place, opportunities to be able to access rapid tests like the ones we are making available through this bill, will make it possible for us to look toward a bright future.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I disagree with her. I think that the federal machinery of government is very slow. Often, the government is very slow in applying certain measures.

With Bill C‑10, the government is realizing that it can move quickly with the rapid tests and we are pleased, but there are other pressing issues, namely, the health transfers. I think it is high time the government started negotiating with the provinces to transfer the money.

Does my colleague agree with me on that?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-10. I will begin my remarks by reminding the House why this important legislation is necessary.

It was introduced because it responds to an urgent need. This bill is critical, as it would provide Health Canada with $2.5 billion to purchase and distribute rapid tests across the country. This legislation would also create the necessary authorities to allow the Government of Canada to transfer inventory directly to the provinces and territories, speeding up the shipping process for rapid tests.

Also, I will be sharing my time with member for Vancouver Granville.

COVID-19 continues to threaten the health, social and economic well-being of all Canadians. It is crucial for us to implement all the tools we have available to get our country back on track. These tools include widespread vaccination efforts, the wearing of masks, targeted measures at borders and the facilitation of COVID-19 testing and screening. I will focus my remarks on the role the federal government has played in supporting our provincial and territorial counterparts through testing and screening.

In combination with other essential public health measures, testing and screening will remain critical to continuing to control the spread of COVID-19. On July 27, 2020, the Government of Canada announced it would provide $4.2 billion, part of the over $19 billion announced by the Prime Minister on July 16, 2020, as part of the safe restart agreement to further expand testing, contact tracing capacity and the associated data-management and information-sharing systems. The objective of the safe restart agreement is to ensure that Canada has the resources and information it needs to reopen the economy safely. The $4.2 billion included $906.2 million for the Public Health Agency of Canada to procure 92 million tests between October and November 2021, which were distributed mostly to the provinces and territories. With this objective in mind, we have built on the solid foundation of the diagnostic laboratory PCR testing capacity built up by the provinces and territories. Rapid point-of-care tests enable health care professionals to target and respond to new outbreaks by isolating those who are sick and initiating contact tracing.

Health Canada has prioritized the review of all types of COVID-19 tests, including rapid and new innovative testing options and technologies. Our government put in place processes to allow Health Canada to carry out expedited reviews of testing devices through the interim order respecting the importation and sale of medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19. A second order was enacted on March 1, 2021. As of the end of January, Health Canada has authorized 107 testing devices, including 10 self-tests that can be used at home and 27 tests that can be used in a point-of-care setting, as well as rapid tests. Through this expedited regulatory review process, Health Canada's consistent approach to regulatory review and approval throughout the pandemic has ensured that testing devices available for sale in Canada have been accurate and reliable. As a result, we have avoided some of the problems that other countries have experienced, including recalling lower-quality tests. We have also been able to increase testing capacity across the country.

All of the measures outlined above demonstrate that significant gains have been made in shaping a robust testing and screening landscape. However, we continue to adjust and accelerate our actions to ensure Canada gets the right tests to the right people at the right times to break the chain of transmission. The importance of testing to our recovery efforts is why this bill was introduced, and I think all members can agree on its importance. The statutory authority of the Minister of Health to purchase and distribute up to 2.5 billion dollars' worth of COVID-19 rapid tests across the country that it provides will complement and build on the $1.72 billion in funding provided in the December 2021 economic and fiscal update.

Efforts such as these to procure and distribute rapid tests underline the understanding that the delivery of health care falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, and the Government of Canada will continue to actively support the provinces and territories to meet both their current and future demands. In total, since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has purchased over 490 million rapid tests, at a total cost of $3.3 billion. In January alone, 140 million rapid tests arrived in Canada, over 40 million of which have been shipped to Ontarians, with more than 19 million scheduled in the short term. The provinces and territories decide how to deploy these technologies and are informed by advice, including from the pan-Canadian testing and screening guidance released in October 2020 and the updated guidance on antigen testing released in February 2021.

As rapid testing expands into the private sector, the federal government will continue to ensure that the provinces and territories have access to an adequate supply of rapid tests. We are moving aggressively to bring testing and screening right to where Canadians are. We are working quickly to ensure that rapid testing, in combination with other public health measures, continues to support our country during this pandemic and to help our country reopen.

As members of the House are aware, the health and safety of Canadians is the government's main priority. I can assure everyone that our government will continue to do everything within our power and jurisdiction to protect Canadians during this difficult and unprecedented time. We must continue to remain committed to keeping each other safe, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting the adoption of the bill.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying to everyone, my family, friends and constituents, happy Valentine's Day.

Today I am standing in the House of Commons to discuss and defend the position of my party in regard to Bill C-10. For people watching who may or may not know what Bill C-10 is, I am going to read it. It is an act allowing the Minister of Health to make payments totalling $2.5 billion for rapid tests to the provinces. I am just going to read the two paragraphs.

Under the heading “Payments out of C.‍R.‍F. ”, it states:

The Minister of Health may make payments, the total of which may not exceed $2.‍5 billion, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for any expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022 in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests.

Under the heading “Transfers”, it states:

The Minister of Health may transfer to any province or territory, or to any body or person in Canada, any coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests or instruments used in relation to those tests acquired by Her Majesty in right of Canada on or after April 1, 2021.

I am not an economist, but I do know that spending money we do not have for tests that we needed two years ago is not an investment; it is a waste. How can the government ask taxpayers to spend $2.5 billion with only two paragraphs to back it up? When my tween daughter was 12 years old and wanted her first iPhone, we asked her to write a three-page essay on why she wanted it and needed it and what she would be contributing as a result of it. We asked for three pages. This bill is two paragraphs long and the government wants to expedite this motion without any debate to spend $2.5 billion.

We are almost at a trillion dollars in debt. People with good jobs cannot afford houses. We have a homeless crisis. I paid $1.58 at the pump for gas. This is not a small amount of money. We cannot just expedite this. To reiterate, we are not spending the government's money. We are spending the taxpayers' money, so we need to make sure we are having an adequate debate to spend such an astronomical amount of money that should have been invested two years ago. We are not in the same space we were in two years ago.

The chief public health officer, Dr. Tam, has stated that we need a more sustainable way to deal with the pandemic. How is spending money on tests that we needed two years ago sustainable? I think we can agree as a House that the response to COVID-19 is fluid. I think there is an agreed motion here in the House that we are doing the best we can to keep Canadians safe. Where we differ is in the execution.

In order to take control of something that is ever changing, one must be tactful and thoughtful in their approach. There are outdated travel advisories, punitive restrictions and quarantines, federal vaccine mandates and now 2.5 billion taxpayer dollars being spent on tests that might be obsolete by the time they arrive.

If COVID-19 reminded our country of anything, it is that we have a very stressed and delicate health care system. Our front-line workers, health care workers, are exhausted. They are burnt out. I witnessed first-hand the extreme negligence of patient care in the hospital.

My mother was rushed to the hospital in July 2021 only to wait hours in a hall to be seen. She was not offered any pain medication. She was not offered any water. No one even came to see her. Why are we talking about spending money on tests when we need to be talking about solving the problem? She waited in the hall as nurses and staff tended to patients who had overdosed. Just last week we talked about the opioid crisis in this country. Where is the money for that?

Do members know how excruciating it is to know that their family member needs their help? They could give it to them. I could get my mom a glass of water and fluff her pillow, but I was not allowed in because of the restrictions, so I had to harass the charge nurse by calling repeatedly and asking for help.

I have had so many health care workers reach out to me in their own state of mental health crisis. They go to bed at night and cannot sleep, because they know they do not have the resources to take care of their patients. When are we going to have an honest dialogue about where the money needs to go and where we need to invest it? The reality of this whole situation of these traumatic lockdowns and these traumatic restrictions is that we did not have a health care system capable of managing COVID patients.

Why are we not having that discussion? Why are we not investing $2.5 billion in that? If our hospitals could manage these patients, we would not be here. We need to recruit more health care workers. We need to offer recovery centres to help those struggling with addiction and mental health. We need to offload the hospitals from the opioid crisis.

The Liberals want to expedite this bill, meaning it would not go to committee. Why is that? My constituents and Canadians deserve to know who would be profiting from these tests. Where would the money be going? We need to hear from more experts before expediting such a gross amount of taxpayers' money.

I recently spoke with a small business owner. She told me a story of one of her employees who decided to do a test on her break, because she had been around somebody who thought they had COVID. She did the test and it came back positive. She was asymptomatic and she had to be sent home for five days. That small business owner is already struggling to recover and now she has to make up for that.

Was that testing necessary? We need more experts in to talk about this. We need to have honest discussions about when to test and why to test. Absolutely we need to have testing, but we need to have a lot more discussion before we decide to spend $2.5 billion on testing that may or may not be effective in helping this crisis.

I spoke with a constituent who had to stay home with his toddler, because someone at the day care centre tested positive. He does not get paid when he stays at home. Who is going to make up that money?

We need so much more research. We need to invest in research to prevent COVID and any other virus that is going to happen again. There is so much opportunity for prevention. We are always reacting and never looking at prevention or a long-term vision for solutions. There are amazing people doing amazing research. Why are we not investing in that? Why are we not learning from that?

My question rests. Where is the scientific evidence to support the need for rapid testing for fully vaccinated Canadians? Would this funding not be better spent on our health care system and our mental health care system? Why is this not being prioritized? It took two months for the government to come back to Parliament. Everything it has done has been late. Timing is everything when we are trying to solve a problem. Timing matters, and the government is offering the wrong solution at the wrong time.

Let us look bigger. Let us help people. Where is the research on the long-term mental health, social and economic impacts of these lockdowns? How do we know that? We do not. Where is the research on masking kids and speech development? Why are we not investing in that? It is time for the Liberal government to be transparent and honest with Canadians.

We are a democracy. Let us act like it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my colleague from Manitoba, who asked a clear question in perfect French.

I will answer the question in French.

That is exactly the type of debate we should be having in the parliamentary committees. The NDP member from Manitoba raised the issue of Bill C‑8 and that is exactly it, because in committee we can propose amendments, make changes, gauge responses and understand why one decision was made over another.

We can question not only the minister, but also the experts who come to guide us in our study. That is why Canadians elected us four months ago and we have a job to do. We have to hold the government to account, and that can be done through rigorous and serious parliamentary work in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, the government is denying us that with a closure motion on Bill C‑10 today.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is our duty to be fiscally responsible in everything we do.

It was only by asking questions in my capacity as an MP that I found out the $1.7 billion for rapid tests in Bill C‑8 covered the period from December to February and that the $2.5 billion in Bill C‑10 is for February on.

In committee, I hope to amend Bill C‑8 to include accountability on the part of the government, and that could also apply to the money in Bill C‑10.

I would like the Conservatives' support at the Standing Committee on Finance so we can have adequate accountability for this money.

In the meantime, we do have a commitment from the federal government to fix the problem plaguing seniors who collect the guaranteed income supplement. This will enable seniors to get a payment much sooner than they would have otherwise. I think that is very important. It will save lives.

We are here to negotiate, so can we get the Conservatives' support for an amendment to Bill C‑8 that would ensure adequate accountability for this money?

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

Madam Speaker, let me pay my respects to my hon. colleague for the quality of his French. Because his question was in perfect French, I will answer in French.

First of all, I want to point out that any conversations held amongst the leaders about the timing of the debates are private conversations.

However, since my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, the House leader of the official opposition, talked about the conversations that took place, I would say that we could have very easily had a proper debate on Bill C-10 in the House. That is what is so disappointing. We could have done our job here in the House and at committee. We could have asked questions of expert witnesses and gotten to the bottom of things. We are talking about $2.5 billion after all.

Unfortunately, the government has decided to shut all this down, with the support and co-operation of the NDP.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate, although I would have preferred to speak about other matters that are impacting Canadians, such as the runaway inflation that is affecting all Canadian families.

However, as a result of this government's complacency, today we have to discuss a motion seeking to muzzle MPs on a matter that concerns us all.

Let us look at the elements one by one, starting with rapid tests, since that is what we are debating. The government wants to purchase rapid tests, which it will distribute to the provinces, and they in turn will distribute them to Canadians. On this side of the House, we have been asking the government to obtain an adequate supply of rapid tests for almost two years.

If I could make a joke, I recollect very well my colleague for Kingston and the Islands, who quotes a lot of members on this side, talking about rapid tests a few weeks ago. It is sad to me that he has not quoted me, because I have talked about rapid tests for the last 18 months. I would have welcomed a quote from 18 months ago talking about rapid tests, because everybody on this side supports rapid tests. We were the first to ask the government to procure rapid tests.

We must have these rapid tests because they are one of the tools that give Canadians a little more freedom and hope for a return to a more normal life, living with the effects of COVID-19 every day.

Dr. Tam recently said that it may be time to start re-evaluating the health guidelines imposed on us, 75% to 80% of which fall within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. I will come back to that later.

Rapid tests, along with vaccines, mask wearing, regular handwashing and physical distancing when in contact with someone for more than 15 minutes, are some of the measures that will help us get through the pandemic. For months now, almost two years, in fact, we on this side of the House have been in favour of the government purchasing rapid tests for Canadians.

We are talking here about buying 450 million rapid tests at a cost of $2.5 billion, which is a tad more than the parliamentary paper budget. This government has been in power since 2015, for six and a half years, and it promised to run just three small deficits before balancing the budget in 2019. It ultimately scrapped that plan for sound management of public funds.

We will not sign a blank cheque for this government to buy tests. We will not stand by as though all is well and we trust the government to spend $2.5 billion. We have a duty as parliamentarians to be thorough. We have a duty to ensure that the money that Canadian taxpayers send to the federal government is spent appropriately and correctly for the common good.

Over the past six and a half years that this government has been in power, it has proven itself to have no regard for controlling spending. We are in favour of buying rapid tests and supplying them to the provinces so that they can get to Canadians. We do, however, have a job to do.

That is why, although we agree with buying rapid tests and getting them to Canadians, we have some serious concerns that need to be considered. We cannot abide a gag order on a $2.5‑billion purchase. I remind members that the proposed measures apply to purchases dating back to January 1, yet the government is claiming that these measures need to be adopted urgently.

Let us also remember that this is our third week since the House came back. Why wait until week three to invoke closure when they could have done it some other time? As the House leader of the official opposition said, he spoke with his counterparts from the governing party and the other opposition parties in hopes of finding a way to debate this bill properly in the House, send it to committee to give experts their say, and then come back to the House and wrap it up by Friday, all by the book.

If Bill C‑10 is debated today, if the closure motion is adopted and we go through the usual steps, we will end up voting on the bill at third reading around 2 a.m., which will demonstrate the urgency of the situation. However, nothing will actually happen at two in the morning because, for this bill to become law, it has to be debated and passed in the Senate. Now, the Senate is not going to be sitting at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, nor is it sitting on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. It is not sitting until next Monday.

That being the case, why the big rush? They say we have to pass this bill immediately, today, in the middle of the night because it is urgent and necessary, but nothing will actually change for another six days because the Senate will not be able to go ahead right away. That is proof, should anyone need proof, of the government's incompetence. It is once again turning a situation that could have been handled by the book with a proper debate into a crisis.

Speaking of going by the book, I forgot to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, which I am sure will be fascinating.

In short, yes to rapid tests, and no to closure.

Unfortunately, the government has a history of being perpetually late, as we are currently seeing with the procurement of rapid tests. Almost two years ago, in March 2020, when COVID-19 hit the entire world, with everyone aghast, wondering what was going to happen, and the entire planet in turmoil, our globalist Prime Minister was debating whether to close the borders and wondering how dangerous the virus was. It took the government 10 days to do what it should have done long before, which was to close the borders. It is not that we do not like foreign countries—we actually love them. All immigrants are welcome; I am living proof, being the son of immigrants.

However, in a global health emergency, it is important to make the right decisions. Do I need to remind the House that the mayor of Montreal took it upon herself to send her own city’s police officers to Dorval’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport to do the job that the RCMP could not because this government did not want them to do it? That was totally irresponsible.

In addition to the delays at the border, there were also delays in vaccine procurement. Let us not forget the time when the government put all its eggs in the CanSino basket. Unfortunately, CanSino announced in July 2020 that it would not do business with Canada. It was too bad, because we ended up being four months late securing contracts with the Pfizers and Modernas of the world.

Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister put on a big dog-and-pony show when he wanted to suggest that everything was A-okay, even though the government had only a few tens of thousands of vaccine doses. Once again, in typical Liberal fashion, where everything is done for optics rather than substance, another problem arose. There was a 10-day gap in January and February 2021, when there were no vaccines available in Canada.

We have seen one delay after another, the most recent one involving rapid tests. We are disappointed, but should we be surprised that the government has unfortunately decided to put its own partisan political interests ahead of public health interests?

Let us not fool ourselves. I like political debate and good old partisan bickering, but not on matters of public health. The Prime Minister's primary, sacred duty is to unite Canadians on an issue as dangerous, perilous and fragile as this one. He did not do that.

Motivated by partisan politics, this Prime Minister decided to call an election on the public service mandate, which he did against the advice of the top public servant, who was responsible for hiring. It is not for nothing that we saw the member for Louis-Hébert, who was elected for saying certain things, now saying exactly the opposite, namely that he is sad to see his government engaging in polarization, demonization and partisan political attacks on an issue that should in fact unite us all.

That is why we want to say yes to accessing to rapid tests, but no to closure, which prevents us from holding a full debate on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were talking about rapid testing. My colleague may have slightly deviated from the main topic, so I will allow myself to do so as well.

My Conservative colleague just spoke about the member for Louis-Hébert, who joined the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois in calling on the government to present a clear plan, as the provinces have done, so that we can get an idea of what is coming.

The member for Louis-Hébert also asked his government to start negotiating health transfer payments with Quebec and the provinces, which is something that we would have liked to have seen in Bill C‑10. Sure, quickly giving the provinces more money so they can deliver rapid tests is a good thing, but we should also start negotiations around supporting our health care systems.

I would like to know my colleague's opinion on this. Is it not high time that the Prime Minister started to listen to his caucus members a little more closely?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute privilege to be here today to speak to Bill C-10, which is legislation that is being introduced to increase the number of rapid tests being sent to the provinces and territories by the Government of Canada. I cannot see this being a controversial piece of legislation. It is straightforward and it is needed, given we are still in the midst of COVID-19. Therefore, I will support it, but I would be remiss to not use this opportunity to explain my view on the broader front of what we are witnessing across the country vis-à-vis COVID-19.

I have spoken at length in this House on my perspective surrounding the protocols associated with COVID-19. I will let Hansard reflect my interventions to date, but let me say this: We collectively simply cannot wish away the pandemic. We all want to be able to move on. People are tired. There has been a significant impact on our lives for the past two years and I will readily admit to a differing degree on the basis of one's profession and circumstance.

When we look at the history of the outbreak of the Spanish flu, today known as influenza, the same debates we are having now on vaccine mandates, around health protocols and the pathway forward were taking place then. In fact, it took approximately three years for that pandemic to make its way through Canada at that given time. Let us be clear: The puck is moving on how jurisdictions around the world are evaluating their respective health measures.

Here in Canada, Dr. Tam has signalled that we, too, will be evaluating our existing protocol at the federal level, and other provincial and territorial governments that are largely responsible for the measures which have been cited in this House are also evaluating next steps. We should celebrate that. It is because Canadians have embraced vaccination and by and large followed the recommendations of public health that has allowed us to be in the position we are in to be able to move forward.

It is important to caution all of us as policy-makers that the decisions surrounding public health should not be made alone on public sentiment, but rather on science, on data and what is a reasonable balance between collective and individual freedoms. I trust and expect that governments at all levels will act accordingly and not on the instinct of what their supporters or partisan base may desire.

I want to go broader and discuss what we are seeing across the country, what I worry about for our democracy and our civil discourse in this country.

First, what we are seeing right here in Ottawa is not a protest. It has gone beyond that. It is a coordinated occupation. We would be naive to assume that what we are seeing in this country is simply and solely tied to COVID-19 and health protocols. The actions being undertaken are to cause direct disruption to Canadians. As is being reported, the organizers behind these actions are well funded, including from foreign sources. The last statistic I saw was that nearly 50% of the funds were from the United States.

The membership includes former law enforcement officers and ex-military members. The actions, particularly this last week, have gone beyond burdening the residents of Ottawa, which has been terrible, but it has also included a deliberate targeting of the Ottawa International Airport. These individuals have openly stated their goal is to overthrow the government. They have espoused ludicrous ideas of meeting with the Governor General and forming a “coalition” to establish a new government. This may seem crazy to some, but that is the stated goal of the individuals behind the protest here in Ottawa.

Elsewhere in the country, there are coordinated efforts to block critical public infrastructure. In Coutts, Alberta, in Emerson, Manitoba, in Sarnia, and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, which represents 25% of our trade relationship with the United States vis-à-vis vehicle traffic that crosses our border every day with our important partner. This, by all accounts, is an effort to destabilize our country and causing economic harm.

I have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We heard today from a number of witnesses, the impact that this is happening on our supply chains. There were industry leaders from the pork industry, for example, who said there have been hundreds of trucks that have been impacted and have not been able to travel back and forth. The economic harm is clear. The auto industry has been impacted. This is having adverse impacts on everyday Canadians.

This is a relationship with our most important trading partner and it is impacting our food security. I submit to the House that these actions being undertaken in a coordinated fashion with the open goal of overthrowing the government is akin to an insurrection and we as parliamentarians should see it as such.

Yes, as I have done before, I will not suggest everyone in the country who is protesting has this intent. I think that is very clear, but I truly believe that the principal organizers who are behind particularly what we are seeing in Ottawa have that intent that I have just laid out before us.

Last week, I was pleased to hear the leader of the official opposition call for protesters to go home. Unfortunately, this was the same member who a week ago actively encouraged these individuals to stay and make it “the Prime Minister's problem”. I truly hope that members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition understand the gravity of what the country is facing and do not fan the flames.

While I appreciate that policing is inherently within the jurisdiction of municipalities and the provincial governments, the actions we are seeing and where this is headed is of truly a national security risk and needs to be dealt with as such. We need to continue to coordinate with all levels of government and I ask our government to match our actions and our posture to the level of the threat that exists. Indeed as I stand here delivering my remarks, it is common knowledge that the government intends to introduce the Emergencies Act moving forward.

It is important that we also recognize the decline of civil discourse in the country. Over the past two weeks, we have seen how journalists have been harassed, intimidated and threatened simply for trying to do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, we have had members in the House who have been targeted, you being one of them, along with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, elected officials across Nova Scotia with packages, with hateful information and indeed chemical irritants. This is completely unacceptable. This is disgusting. We as members of the House have a responsibility to call it for what it is.

I want to talk about the use of “mainstream media”. It is an Americanized term and I have started to notice a number of members in the House start to use it. It concerns me and here is why. It is giving the suggestion that media outlets in this country are propagating false information.

I will readily admit that certain news agencies will have ideological bents. I read the National Post, for example. It has a more centre right conservative view on issues. The Globe and Mail may be in the centre, and CBC could be seen to be centre left, but when we as members start to use the term “mainstream media”, and I hear some of my colleagues across laughing, it starts to denigrate the integrity of media in our country. It leads, frankly, to tribalism, because if we cannot agree on a common element of fact in the House, and yes, we should debate different ideologies, different processes, but if we do not have some basic common element of truth, we see what is happening in the United States, the divide in the country. I ask all members of the House to be mindful of our civil discourse, of our behaviour and the words that can denigrate media outlets from reporting.

I lay these concerns before colleagues in good faith. I do not believe myself to be alarmist, but to be reflective of what we are seeing. I am confident that Canadians, our democracy and our institutions are resilient to what we are experiencing. I ask my colleagues to please be mindful of our role to maintain a healthy democracy, to maintain civil discourse and to ward off those who may want to undermine our beautiful country.

Given that I have about 20 or 30 seconds left, it being Valentine's Day, let me say happy Valentine's Day to all Canadians. To my sweetheart and my fiancée, Kimberly, and to our loyal Bernese mountain dog, Sullivan, I say happy Valentine's Day.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this wonderful House and speak on behalf of the residents I represent. I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Kings—Hants. I wish him well when his opportunity arises.

We are here speaking about the urgency of getting to Bill C-10 and ensuring Canadians, and the provincial and territorial governments, have the tools they need as we continue the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic but also as we continue to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. That is exactly what we are doing.

We procured vaccines. We procured personal protection equipment. We have now procured literally hundreds of millions of rapid tests. I wish to give a shout-out to my friend from Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, the minister responsible, for the Herculean efforts that the minister and her department officials have made on the file. I wish to thank them. Again, this is another tool in the fight against COVID-19. It is also another tool so that Canadians can gradually and safely return to normality in their lives. That is what we in the House all want, to again have normality in our lives, but we can only do it gradually and safely.

It is Valentine's Day and I do want to give a shout-out to my wife. I thank the hon. member on the opposite side who I am friends with for that applause. I wish his spouse the same greetings as well.

I am grateful for the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to the urgency of Bill C-10. As Canada emerges out of this omicron wave with vaccines widely available and promising therapeutics like Pfizer's Paxlovid starting to roll out, the focus of our planning will naturally shift towards recovery and a more sustainable approach to managing the ongoing presence of this virus.

We know the virus does not have an end date. My opposition colleagues may think that, but it does not. We need to be prudent and gradual, and do the right thing for Canadians while protecting our health care system. This is where the importance of testing comes into play. In spite of all the promising gains, in terms of vaccinations and therapeutics, COVID-19 is still with us. We need a strong system in place in order to manage the virus, now and in the future, to prevent increased caseloads and hospitalizations as we reopen our economy and to prepare for possible future waves and new variants of concern.

Testing complements and builds on the existing health response to COVID. Informed by science and the advice of public health officials, the Public Health Agency of Canada has developed guidance and tools regarding public health measures to help manage COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic. This public health guidance is developed jointly or in consultation with Health Canada or other federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, health authorities and public health experts.

As the evidence and understanding of COVID-19 has evolved, guidance has been adapted in turn. Provinces and territories also have guidance specific to their jurisdictions. This may include legislative regulatory policy and practice requirements, as well as professional guidelines. Their recommendations may differ, reflecting their local realities. Guidance developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada complements these provincial and territorial efforts.

As COVID-19 continues to circulate in Canada, we have seen epidemic waves crest and fall, and numerous public health measures, testing strategies and personal protective practices deployed in response. It has been a multi-layered approach. This multi-layered approach taken on by our government in conjunction and working with all the provincial and territorial governments is to protect our health care system and make sure we can emerge safely from the pandemic.

The Public Health Agency is working with provincial and territorial partners to plan for a sustainable approach, an approach that includes using testing to identify and isolate even more quickly cases of COVID-19. Canadians have become accustomed to terms and practices, such as using a layered approach to protecting themselves, which may include physical distancing, masking and avoiding poorly ventilated spaces.

Testing will become a crucial component of this layered approach, especially as testing spreads more and more into workplaces. Canadians have been doing what it takes to collectively get us all through the various waves and have pulled together when it matters most. Through our ongoing sacrifices and efforts, many infections and severe outcomes have been averted.

PHAC scientists have analyzed data and completed modelling from Canada that shows that, in most jurisdictions, implementation of public health measures was associated with reduced transmission of COVID-19. Studies have also shown that the public health measures that some jurisdictions have implemented, such as school closures, social distancing, stay-at-home rules, quarantine and masking, have reduced the severity of the pandemic. These measures, alongside our high rates of vaccination, have resulted in decreases in daily case rates, rates of infection, hospitalization, daily ICU admission rates and deaths.

I would be remiss if I did not give a shout-out to the wonderful residents of my riding and the region that I represent, York Region, where 90% of individuals have received their vaccine and the third dose rate is continuing to increase. That is great to see. Thanks to Canadians' willingness to follow these effective public health measures and to roll up their sleeves to get vaccinated, our outlook for the next several months continues to improve.

Public health guidance will remain a critical tool to address how we respond to the virus in the months ahead and, as the guidance shifts to include testing, the Public Health Agency of Canada will continue to work with partners across the country and around the world to learn more as well as to evaluate the emerging science to inform public health advice and guidance for Canadians. In order to support Canadians to make the best decisions for their personal protection, the Public Health Agency of Canada has developed web-based tools, such as My COVID-19 Visit Risk, that enables Canadians to better understand the factors that affect the risk of getting COVID-19 when visiting or gathering with others.

If Canadians are also able to use rapid tests to determine whether they are infected they will be able to make better, more-informed decisions to determine their risk of spreading COVID-19 and will be able to trust more that others are doing the same so that all Canadians can better protect their communities from further transmission. This is incredibly important when we go to visit our loved ones in long-term care facilities or seniors' residences or other vulnerable populations.

Rapid tests will be critical and crucial as we move forward and finish the fight against COVID-19, but we know COVID-19 will continue to be with us and we need to be prudent. Testing and general public health measures all fit together to stop the spread of COVID-19. Wearing the best-quality and best-fitting mask or respirator available, having access to rapid tests to determine infection and following the various other measures are important in the context of variants of concern, particularly for vulnerable populations who have the highest risk of severe outcomes or experiencing the broader negative impacts of the pandemic.

Recognizing that further waves will occur, longer-term sustained approaches and capacity building are required. As restrictions are gradually lifted in response to local epidemiology, approaches will concentrate on preventing severe cases of COVID through vaccination, supporting Canadians to use personal protective measures and making testing readily accessible. The longer-term, more sustained approach as we fight this virus will leverage all tools to balance the need to manage COVID-19 while minimizing societal disruption and enabling recovery.

We all want to go to our favourite restaurants and gather with a large group of friends. I know we want to baptize my four-month-old and we want to invite all our family and friends there. We want a gradual reopening as well. We know that, and rapid tests will be a critical piece of that. As restrictions ease, ongoing updates to guidance and web tools posted on government websites continue to support Canadians in making decisions for their protection based on personal risk assessments.

I would like to finish by reaffirming that this pandemic has demonstrated that we need a range of measures in our public health tool box, including vaccines, PPE and social distancing, to continue to fend off highly infectious diseases. That includes testing. To fight this pandemic, we have already made vaccinations readily available. Again, 90% of individuals in York Region are vaccinated. That is wonderful. We still have more work to do, but we are getting there. Now is the time to make testing readily available. With members' support of Bill C-10, we can give Canadians a better chance to manage their own health, to remain vigilant and to support each other throughout the remainder of this pandemic.

I wish to say that we all need to work collectively, collaboratively and in the best interests of all Canadians to get through this pandemic. That should be the focus, that should be our end game, and we should not lose sight of that goal.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible of me not to look at what happened in the House earlier today with this motion for closure the Liberals put forward. For two years, Canadians have been living with COVID-19 restrictions. There have been two years of lockdowns, of not being able to visit loved ones and of not being able to travel. There have been two years of isolation that has inflamed a mental health crisis and hurt Canada's vulnerable populations.

When it comes to lockdowns and mandates, we are seeing the evidence and public health advice for change. Last week, Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Teresa Tam, said that all existing public health measures needed to be re-evaluated so we could get back to some normalcy. Just last week, we saw two Liberal MPs challenge their government for being so political about how it was treating the pandemic, and the response the government was taking to dealing with COVID-19 across our country.

Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Israel, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Spain and Denmark are all moving to end restrictions and mandates. Many provinces in Canada are doing the same thing. Today, we come to the House and the government does not want to debate Bill C-10: It wants to debate stopping debate on Bill C-10. That is very problematic.

It was on December 14, if I recall correctly, that the government tabled Bill C-8. One of the key provisions of Bill C-8 was $1.72 billion for COVID-19 tests. We just debated that bill last week and the week prior. Canadians were looking for a plan in that bill. Liberals stood up time and again and said that they had a plan and were moving forward. For us to be here today, talking about Bill C-10 in the same context, which would see another $2.5 billion for rapid tests, I wonder what the House leader for the Liberals is doing.

Why do we have two bills that were tabled within four parliamentary sitting days of each other on the urgency of rapid tests when, in my province, the public health officer is telling us that, for the majority of the population, they are not needed anymore?

Dr. Bonnie Henry said that, in most cases, if someone is triple vaccinated, as I am, they can skip getting a test. If someone has COVID, they need to stay home and self-isolate. We are treating it like the regular flu. She is only recommending testing now for people who are currently hospitalized, pregnant, at risk of severe diseases or who live or work in a setting with others who are at an elevated risk of a severe illness.

Already, British Columbia is saying that we do not need to go to the Ag-Rec Centre in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon anymore and take a morning off work with one's two-year-old to get a swab up their nose. No. We just need to isolate them at home and move forward with our lives.

Now we are here in the House of Commons, having a debate about not having a debate on rapid tests. My big question is, where was the government a year ago? Where was it when parents had to take time off work? It costs parents an average of $250 for a week of day care, and then they had to take more time off work because of that. I know for a fact that if we had had rapid tests, parents would not have lost so much money. That is shameful.

Canadians were asking for rapid tests so long ago. Other countries, such as the U.K., the Netherlands and other European Union countries with similar GDPs to Canada's per capita, were able to navigate the virus in a much more efficient way because their governments were more responsive. All we get from the Liberal government is Bill C-8 on December 14, and then Bill C-10 on January 31, saying that we need to pay for rapid tests now.

I cannot help but be cynical knowing that the Prime Minister called an election that was really divisive for all of us. Liberals called an election because of the urgency to deal with COVID-19 and various approaches to doing so.

Here we are, so many months later, debating a bill not to have a debate on something that should have been done two years ago, or at least a year and a half ago. My constituents are upset. They are upset that they have to continue living with these lockdowns, but they are also upset with the incompetence of the government to move strategically on rapid tests, which is something that everyone agreed on, much earlier. That is shameful. It has impacted so many families and so many businesses.

Last week, I met with one of the largest sound companies in North America. It is based in my riding. It was ranked the number one sound company in North America in 2013, and the number one in Canada for many years. It is the only outfit in the province of B.C. that is capable of equipping BC Place stadium for major concerts. Company representatives came to my office, and were pleading with me for some type of path back to normalcy: some type of path to get their business going again. What they said to me was that they had taken advantage of the high-risk loans and they had taken advantage of the business loans. They were thankful for them, but they had come to a point where the Government of Canada was driving independent, private-sector small businesses into oblivion.

Yesterday, I received an email from Mr. Howes at Traveland RV. I went to school with his kids. The company is a major employer in Langley, throughout the Fraser Valley. The tourism sector does not know what to do this year, again. The supply chains are so impacted that the tourism industry does not know how to plan yet another year. It does not know where its revenue is going to come from. The tourism sector is asking for a plan. It is asking for some way out of this.

All we got from the government on December 14 and January 31 were two bills, both related to rapid tests. Frankly, they could have been the same bill. I do not know why they were done differently. Maybe someone could answer that in debate. All the tourism industry is looking for is a plan to get people back to work. All it wants to do is hire more people again. All it wants to see is a plan to end the mandates and to get people their lives back. It is not too much to ask.

Everyone has been vaccinated. We have a super high vaccination rate in Canada, but everyone has also gotten COVID. A lot of people who are triple vaxxed are getting COVID, and that is why some of our public health officials have changed their tune recently.

Omicron has evolved, and the government needs to evolve in the way it is approaching this new endemic stage of the disease.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, which he tells me is the number one riding in all of Canada. I happen to think Barrie—Innisfil is.

Let me begin by noting how profoundly disappointed I am with the results of what I thought was a reasonable request on the part of the opposition, through our opposition day motion, to ask for a plan from the government, by February 28, for coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic and limiting or cancelling all of the restrictions and mandates. We are seeing a cascading effect across the country in the provinces, with premiers coming out and telling their people that by a certain date, this is going to happen. This is causing any cynic to be concerned that perhaps the Liberal government does not want to end the federal restrictions and mandates, does not want to unite Canadians and does not want to provide hope to Canadians. After two years of lives and livelihoods being lost and businesses being decimated, somehow they cannot support this, and it only speaks to the fact that the Prime Minister and Liberal Party want this to continue, for whatever reason. I am profoundly disappointed that we are at this point in this country.

I rise today to speak to the Liberals' latest attempt to run roughshod over Parliament. Today the House is considering government Motion No. 8, which sets out draconian terms by which the House would dispose of Bill C-10. The bill is laudable in that it would give the Minister of Health the ability to purchase 2.5 billion dollars' worth of COVID-19 tests, the majority of which would be rapid tests. It would also grant the minister the power to start distributing those tests on April 1 of this year.

Throughout the pandemic, the Conservative Party has consistently and persistently called for greater access to rapid tests for all Canadians. In fact, in April 2020, I was approached by a rapid test distributor and he told me that he was being bogged down at Health Canada and that the approvals process for these rapid tests was not moving as quickly as it should, despite the fact that they were approved by the U.S. FDA on an emergency-use basis and also by CE bodies in the European Union. Arguably, these blue-chip regulators are the best regulatory agencies in the world. That is not to discredit Health Canada, but it was a problem in April 2020 that I was highlighting, and I know that my colleagues were as well.

In the election, we promised to break down the bureaucratic delays that were preventing the approval of rapid tests in Canada, and at that time, tests approved for use in the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union were not approved in Canada. Why was this so, when these blue-chip regulators were already approving them? We promised to make at-home test kits readily available to all Canadians, to deploy rapid tests to the border and other points of entry and to provide provincial governments with enough tests to keep schools open. Our support for the widespread use of rapid tests has been unwavering, and our support stands today.

Despite the fact the Liberals did drag their feet in getting these essential tools into the hands of Canadians, they can count on our support for this legislation. We are not trying to stop the legislation. We are just trying to get some oversight, because we believe this bill could be strengthened and we would like to propose three common-sense amendments.

For starters, if the minister has the ability to deploy the tests sooner, we would support an amendment that would allow him to do so. That is reasonable.

Second, we would propose an amendment to require the contracts for these tests to be tabled in the House. That is another reasonable request. Let us remember why we are asking for this. These are the same Liberals who found time, at the height of a pandemic, to hand $900 million in a contract to their friends at WE charity and another $237-million sole-sourced contract to former Liberal member of Parliament Frank Baylis. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect there would be some oversight and scrutiny on these contracts. The government, and indeed these Liberals, should not enjoy the blind trust of the House. They have proven in the past that this trust needs to be questioned. As such, we should require the highest level of transparency, especially when it comes to urgent spending related to COVID-19.

Third, the Conservatives would propose an amendment that would require the minister to report on the deployment of these tests to ensure they are being used as part of a plan to ease COVID restrictions. In short, we want to ensure that this investment of taxpayer money is used to help Canadians get back to their normal lives.

I would love nothing more than to debate the merits of these amendments, but the Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP are teaming up to ram this bill through the House. Government Motion No. 8 provides for a shortened debate at second reading and a single vote that would be applied to the remaining stages of the legislative process. If the Liberals get their way, there will be no further debate, no ministerial accountability at committee, no testimony from stakeholders and no opportunity for the opposition parties to make amendments.

The government House leader is offering the House a binary choice, and under this motion, we can either take the bill as it is or leave Canadians with fewer available COVID tests. The government House leader is trying to deny the House a third option: to support a strengthened bill by incorporating amendments from the opposition. Instead, without as much as one word of debate on the bill, the House leader has moved to pre-emptively shut down debate. This motion is a flagrant abuse of power, and the Liberals are being aided and abetted by a hapless coalition partner.

That said, I recognize the need to pass this legislation quickly through the House, and on Friday, I sent a letter to all House leaders proposing a plan to dispose of Bill C-10 by Wednesday of this week. The proposal would have provided for a debate at second reading today, an abbreviated committee study tomorrow and final passage on Wednesday. It also included an order for the Minister of Health to appear at committee and for the amendments to be proposed during the usual clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. My proposal would allow the opposition to apply appropriate scrutiny and to propose improvements to the legislation without sacrificing the government's overall timetable to turn the bill into law.

The House should also be made aware that the Senate agreed to a government motion to adjourn the other place for the entirety of this week. As a result, whether the bill passes in the House today or Wednesday, it will not be considered in the other place until next week. Any due diligence that we apply to this legislation in the House this week will do nothing to delay it from receiving royal assent.

I will now take a couple of moments to address our colleagues in the NDP.

I am calling on them to remember that they are the party of Jack Layton and Tommy Douglas. Back in the day, theirs was a party that stood for workers, for low-income Canadians and for the democratic rights of members of the House of Commons. It is not so anymore. The NDP have abandoned their first principles. Perhaps it is because they have a leader who is more interested in his own social media than he is in social policies and how they impact Canadians.

For example, the NDP openly fights against jobs for unionized pipefitters and steelworkers every time they oppose new environmentally safe pipelines. They applaud the Prime Minister every time he talks about phasing out the jobs of hard-working Canadians in the oil and gas sector. In recent days, they have refused to defend the minority rights of workers who lost their jobs to discriminatory government mandates. They support the Liberal carbon tax that disproportionately hurts the poorest in our society. They support hikes in payroll taxes that make it harder for low-wage earners to make ends meet. The list goes on.

Inside the House of Commons, they have allowed themselves to be the moderate wing of the Liberal Party, and they should be ashamed for that. The Liberals can count on the loyal support of the NDP whenever they move to ram their agenda through the House. Since 2019, when the Liberals were reduced to a minority government, the NDP has supported the shutting down of debate on 14 different occasions. It is high time that the NDP distances itself from the tired Liberal government that is demonstrably anti-working class and increasingly anti-democratic. Perhaps its members can start by standing against this undemocratic motion in the House today. In June 2019, the NDP House leader argued against the Liberal majority government when it moved to curtail debate. Back then, he said the Liberals “promised to work with the opposition parties and all members. Instead, they are imposing gag orders”.

At a time when tensions are rising in this country, let us take the opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that their elected officials can collaborate in the national interest. We can and should stand together to get the best results for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the vote that we just had prior to getting under way with this particular motion is something I am more than happy to discuss offline with the member.

What we are talking about today, the motion that I am debating, is a motion that would see closure put in for Bill C-10, which deals with the rapid tests, in the hope that the Bloc party would not only support the need for rapid tests but would support the urgency in getting the legislation passed. That is going to be the vote that we are going to have later today.

Does the Bloc actually support the sense of urgency in getting Bill C-10 passed? I think the people of Quebec and the people of Canada are watching and want to see how the Bloc is going to respond.

I will answer the second part of his question in a follow-up.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the parliamentary secretary just asked us how we will vote on this motion, referring to the vote that occurred after oral question period when we indicated that the government must present a plan to lift restrictions.

I would just like to point out to my colleague opposite that asking for a plan to lift restrictions does not mean that we are against health measures. On the contrary, we believe that appropriate health measures must be applied, but the government must also tell people where we are headed.

Right now, we are debating Bill C-10. I would like to know how is it that the federal government has the means to provide money for health right now, but every time Quebec has asked for it in the past, the federal level was not there for Quebec.

Resuming Debate on Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C‑10

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know we are here today to debate Bill C-10, which is meant to accelerate funding for rapid tests in support of the current health measures, but at the same time, we need to have a real talk about the health of our democracy.

Our democracy is currently under threat by extremist alt-right movements that have hijacked frustration regarding the pandemic and public health measures to boost the alt-right and recruit new people into the movement. Over the last few weeks, we have witnessed illegal occupations in cities and border crossings across this country. Fuelled and funded by many extremist organizations in Canada and the U.S.A., including leaders with ties to such groups as the Soldiers of Odin and the yellow vests, which are hate groups, we are witnessing the rapid rise of white supremacy and the growing threat of fascism.

Across this country and around the world, people are struggling. About 200,000 jobs were lost in this country in January alone and people are losing their homes. Meanwhile, the price of all essential needs is going up, including groceries. This is making it even more difficult for individuals and families to make ends meet. In fact, we are living in a time of despair and struggle, and as we have witnessed in history, times of despair create fertile grounds for the far right to spread its hate. A clear example is the Great Depression that led into the Second World War, when we witnessed the rise of fascism, resulting in the loss of life and a genocide.

As we enter the second year of the pandemic, with the frustrations and well-being of people in Canada in great flux, we are witnessing our democracy, although inherently flawed, come under threat. We must work together across party lines to protect our democracy against the rise of fascism. Now is not the time for petty politics. Our democracy is under real threat.

I do not believe that the roots of this occupation are about vaccine mandates, including passports. As shared by a brilliant colleague, El Jones, during the rabble.ca panel, “Where is the outrage? Where has the outrage been with the carding of police of Black and indigenous peoples? There was no illegal occupations popping up around Canada or, in fact, indigenous people who fall under the Indian Act who are forced to carry Indian Act identification cards to prove their Indian status.” There was no revolution and no protest for freedom.

The fact is, we have seen Confederate flags, a symbol of slavery, and swastikas, and both symbols are linked to fascism and genocide. This is not about freedom.

I also do not believe the illegal occupation is about workers. What kind of working-class uprising puts 1,500 retail workers at the Rideau Centre mall in Ottawa out of work for weeks, forcing them to lose income? What kind of working-class uprising forces auto plants to close for days on end, forcing temporary layoffs of workers?

In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, an iron foundry was unable to ship any orders because of blockades at the Emerson border crossing. What kind of working-class uprising, claiming to be led by truckers, is silent about the endemic wage theft in the trucking industry? Truckers, 90% of whom are vaccinated, have filed 4,800 complaints about unpaid wages to ESDC in the last three years. This occupation does not represent them or their interests.

I also do not believe it is about indigenous rights or solidarity with nations that have discovered unmarked graves and residential school survivors. Nor does the Orange Shirt Society, which has denounced the hijacking of Orange Shirt Day and the “every child matters” campaign to fuel a movement of hate and white supremacy.

It is about the far-right movement taking advantage of people's despair without offering any real solutions.

I was horrified to hear former President Trump give a thumbs up to this illegal occupation as he is currently being accused of fuelling and supporting the insurrection in the United States. Democracy is fragile and must be honoured. Our democracy is in danger, and this is not the time for petty politics or name-calling. All party leaders need to come together against the rise of the far right.

We should just look at what can happen, and look at the counter-protests we witnessed this weekend. People were fighting against fascism and standing up for their communities in places such as Ottawa and Winnipeg this weekend. They know and they get what is at stake, and they came together to protect each other and our fragile democracy. I am so very grateful for their efforts.

We also need to crack down on foreign anonymous funding that is helping to sustain the occupation. We need to tackle the spread of online hate and misinformation that is contributing to people's radicalization. We need to ban symbols of hate, which we have shamefully seen displayed in recent days.

We also need to address the root causes of people's insecurity and fear for their future. We need to maintain and expand pandemic income supports, and ensure that wage subsidies are used for the protection of jobs and not the provision of executive bonuses. We need to move toward a GLBI that lifts people out of poverty and creates a social floor below which no one can fall.

There is a lot of anger right now, and people have a right to be angry. I am angry that kids in Winnipeg Centre are going to school on an empty stomach because we have the highest child poverty rate of any urban riding in this country. I am angry that public money, which was supposed to help keep workers on the payroll during the pandemic, was used by CEOs to reward themselves with bonuses so they could buy another yacht or another Rolex.

I am angry that people in downtown Winnipeg are sleeping in bus shelters because we have a housing crisis that successive governments have failed to take seriously with adequate investment. We need to ensure that the anger is directed toward the powerful, not the powerless, and channelled in a way that strengthens our democracy, not undermines it.

When people are looked after and when they are not worried about how they are going to pay credit card bills or rent, or put food on the table, they are less likely to believe false narratives that scapegoat marginalized people, indigenous peoples, immigrants, refugees, Muslims, racialized people or LGBTQ+ individuals for their troubles.

There is hope. We can tackle the far right while at the same time raising the living standards of millions of people. We just need that political will and the sense of urgency that this moment is demanding of us. We need to do it so we can rapidly shift our focus toward looking after people, which is what we are trying to do today in our debate of Bill C-10.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, and I am particularly delighted to be splitting my time with my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre.

This legislation is very straightforward. In fact, in my time in the House of Commons over the last 14 years, I have rarely seen a bill that is shorter. It is two sections long and would, first, authorize the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund for any expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022, in relation to COVID-19 tests. Second, it would transfer to any province or territory, or to any body or person in Canada, any COVID-19 tests or instruments used in relation to those tests acquired on or after April 1, 2021. In other words, it would authorize, on an emergency basis, the purchase and delivery of rapid tests to Canadians.

New Democrats strongly believe that we must expand access to COVID-19 testing for Canadians as quickly as possible. Therefore, we will be supporting this legislation and we are supporting its rapid passage through the House, unlike my colleagues in the Conservative Party and in the Bloc Québécois. However, I must underline our profound disappointment that Canada is still playing catch-up on COVID-19 testing as we enter the third year of this pandemic.

The Liberal government's refusal to learn from its past mistakes is, with respect, inexcusable. COVID-19 has long underscored the crucial role of testing. I might remind everybody in the House that one of the first things Canadians learned about this pandemic was the profound need for testing and tracing. This, we were told, was one of the core strategies to get us out of this pandemic. It also underscored the need for surveillance in controlling infectious disease outbreaks and guiding sound public health decisions. We cannot manage what we do not measure.

However, notwithstanding this, Canada has suffered from severe limitations on testing capacity through wave after wave of this pandemic due to the federal government's repeated failure to stockpile or procure sufficient supplies or to accelerate domestic production capacity. I will stop and say that, in my view, the federal Liberal government has taken an extraordinarily narrow view of its role in this pandemic. It seems to me that it might be rectified today, but up until now it has really only reserved itself the obligation to procure supplies.

This falls squarely within that. It is the government's job to procure testing, yet here we are in February, 2022, and Canadians in every province and territory across this land cannot get access to the tests they need in a timely manner. Health care workers cannot get access to the tests they need. Educators cannot get access to the tests they need. People have to pay out of pocket exorbitant amounts of money, if they can find tests. That underscores the failure of the Liberal government's prime responsibility to procure the kind of equipment that we need to get through this pandemic.

With the emergence of the highly transmissible omicron variant, an exponential surge of COVID-19 cases has once again overwhelmed Canada's testing capacity while the federal government scrambles to secure supplies in a highly competitive global marketplace. As a result, COVID-19 testing has become inaccessible for many Canadians. Reported case numbers underestimate the true number of infections, and contact tracing efforts have been largely abandoned. This has led to extreme frustration among Canadians who want to do the right thing and protect our loved ones from exposure to the virus.

In response to shortages throughout the omicron surge, many provinces have restricted access to polymerase chain reaction, PCR, testing to individuals who are at higher risk of severe illness and those in settings where the virus could spread quickly. PCR testing, as we know now, is more precise than rapid antigen testing, and positive results from rapid test kits are not reported in official COVID-19 case counts.

However, rapid antigen tests are considered an important screening tool. Research shows that they are instrumental in preventing asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 because they provide quick and reliable results. Unfortunately, these rapid tests, as I have mentioned, have also been very difficult for Canadians to access, particularly during the recent holiday season. To date, most of the provinces' limited rapid antigen test supplies have been earmarked for schools, businesses, long-term care homes, health care facilities and other high-risk settings.

At the end of 2021, the federal government had only delivered 120 million rapid test in total, or about three per person, to the provinces and territories. To put this in context, Dr. David Juncker, department chair of biomedical engineering at McGill University, estimates that with the highly transmissible omicron variant, Canada could require 600 million to 700 million tests a month and then two tests per person every week once this wave subsides.

In early January 2022, the Liberal health minister confirmed that Canada's PCR testing capacity is “in crisis” and announced that the federal government would distribute 140 million additional rapid tests to the provinces and territories by the end of the month. However, unfortunately, the government failed to deliver millions of the promised tests. By January 28, 2022, the federal government had only delivered an additional 75 million rapid tests to the provinces and territories. Ontario confirmed it only received 17 million of the 54 million tests that were promised. Alberta received fewer than five million of its allocation of 16 million rapid tests. Manitoba was shipped a little less than half of the federal commitment. British Columbia, my province, received a little over six million rapid tests, with 18 million per capita share. Quebec was shortchanged by 5.8 million tests.

The New Democrats believe that accountability and transparency have been essential for maintaining the public's confidence throughout this pandemic. Clear communication is critical for allowing the provinces and territories to make effective plans in their respective jurisdictions. Although the federal government has contracts in place for the procurement of rapid tests totalling some $3.5 billion, details are not publicly available on when suppliers will actually deliver the rapid tests outlined in those agreements. For these reasons, the New Democrats have demanded measures to provide transparency on how the $2.5 billion outlined in this legislation will be present. We believe that Canadians deserve full details with respect to how many tests have been purchased, when and to whom they will be delivered, when they are delivered and how much of the funding has been expended.

I am pleased to state to the House today that our negotiations with the government have resulted in an agreement by the government to produce that information to the House every six months. I want to congratulate my colleagues in the Liberal government for doing that. I think it is a sign of how effective opposition can make legislation stronger and better instead of holding up something that is urgently needed in a time of pandemic in this country, as the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois joined together to do today.

Furthermore, the New Democrats are reiterating our long-standing call for the federal government to expand domestic manufacturing capacity for all essential medical equipment in this country, including COVID-19 tests and other critical COVID-19-related tools, such as personal protective equipment, treatments and vaccines. Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, has been clear that the virus will continue to evolve and that further waves will occur. These surges could be quite severe and we need to be ready for them. COVID-19 testing will allow us to move forward with greater freedom and confidence, but we need to secure a resilient supply. To do so, Canada must break our dependence on fragile global markets. The federal government must take immediate action to mobilize Canadian industry with support for research, accelerated market approvals and manufacturing and supply chain development. We need to bring back domestic manufacturing to this country, especially for essential medicines, vaccines, equipment and supplies.

All Canadians have been horrified to see throughout this pandemic that Canada has faced a shortage of essential equipment like ventilators, personal protective equipment, vaccines, which we are still not producing in this country, and life-saving medicine. That is why the NDP has proposed constructive proposals like establishing a Crown corporation for a better chain for Canadian suppliers and domestic production.

I want to read a quote from Barry Hunt, president of the Canadian Association of Personal Protective Equipment Manufacturers. He said:

The prime minister himself and the federal government made a commitment to our industry to buy products. What we've seen is the exact opposite: buying only from multinationals, buying only commodity products, locking health-care workers out of new and innovative products, and essentially, decimating the new PPE industry.

That is the exact opposite of what we need to do, so today, I call on all parliamentarians to recognize the urgent situation we are in, pass this legislation quickly and get rapid tests into the hands of Canadians to help them get through this pandemic as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing all of our colleagues a happy Valentine's Day, and I hope they will be able to celebrate it even though many of them are in Parliament, far away from their partners. Nonetheless, I wish them a very happy Valentines Day.

Today, I am pleased to be speaking about Bill C-10, which authorizes a one-time payment of up to $2.5 billion to be made to the provinces and territories for any expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022, in relation to COVID-19 tests. The bill also allows the Minister of Health to transfer tests and instruments used in relation to those tests acquired on or after April 1, 2021, to any province or territory, or to any body or person in Canada.

This spending is obviously necessary, since health care costs are skyrocketing nationwide. Health care spending grew by 12.8% in 2020, approximately three times the average growth rate from previous years, and 2021 saw record spending.

The government played a role in this increase, of course, by increasing health transfers by $5 billion during the pandemic. Of this amount, $4 billion went to meeting urgent needs in the health care system, and $1 billion was invested in the vaccination rollout. This may seem like a lot of money, and it is. It undoubtedly covers some of the additional expenses generated by the health crisis, but only a fraction, considering that more than $30 billion was needed to finance pandemic-related activities in 2020 alone. These one-time payments are simply a band-aid solution. They do not address the real problem, which is the lack of structural health care funding. This underfunding is one of the major reasons that health care workers in Quebec and across Canada are in distress. They lack the resources to fight the waves that have been hitting us for the past two years.

I would like to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's demand, which has united Quebec and the provinces in a manner rarely seen. Even the National Assembly is unanimous. The federal government must increase its contribution to overall health care costs from 22% to 35%, or from $42 billion to $70 billion. If the federal government is to maintain its 35% contribution, which is far lower than the 50% it used to pay up until the 1980s, the transfers will have to be indexed at 6%. This annual indexation will be necessary to offset the costs associated with population aging, drug costs and technological advances.

Our request that the federal government increase its contribution to health care to 35% of overall costs is reasonable and realistic. The Conference Board of Canada proved that this increase will be economically viable for both the federal and provincial governments. Until the health care systems of Quebec and the provinces are adequately funded, the government will have the Bloc Québécois to deal with. We will not stop pressing this demand, since it is the key condition for ending the COVID-19 crisis once and for all.

We need to face the truth and think about the future. It will take many years and a lot of resources to catch up with the backlog that was already a problem in our health care system before the first outbreaks and that will only get worse with the delays currently caused by the pandemic.

My colleagues and I call on the government to start negotiations on health transfers immediately in order to “strengthen our universal public health system,” as the Minister of Health’s mandate letter clearly states.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of something I have mentioned before in the House in previous speeches. The fight against COVID-19 will continue as long as Canada does not provide support for the global vaccination effort, especially in developing countries. All of the experts we had the opportunity to talk to are unanimous: As long as the pandemic is not over everywhere, it will continue to threaten us here.

Of course, Canada contributes to the various global vaccination initiatives of the World Health Organization. However, it can and must do more. It must provide logistical support for developing countries so that the vaccines can be efficiently distributed to the population. It must donate its surplus doses in a predictable manner in order to allow the receiving countries to administer them within a reasonable time frame.

The federal government must also stop saying that it is open to lifting the patents on the vaccines and treatments while voting against the proposal when it comes time to take an official stand. The Bloc is asking the government to play a leadership role by openly taking a stand in favour of lifting the patents at the next meeting of the World Trade Organization on the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS.

These past two years have also unequivocally shown the importance and urgency of improving the independence and reliability of our supply chains. This pandemic will not be our last, especially in this era of climate change.

An analysis of the challenges we have faced since the initial outbreaks makes it clear that we must rebuild Quebec’s pharmaceutical sector. We need targeted tax incentives to promote the establishment of biopharmaceutical research and production centres. Partnerships between our university research centres and industry must be encouraged through support for issue tables focused on these goals, and we must continue increasing research budgets.

The consolidation of our supply chains will ensure, among other things, that our national emergency reserve is supplied by Canadian providers. Shortages of rapid tests like we saw last December are unacceptable when the pandemic has been going on for almost two years. Local production would allow us a certain independence from foreign suppliers, who are driven solely by the laws of supply and demand, and help manage our reserves so as to ensure that we have sufficient supplies for our needs and can prevent loss by channelling our surplus doses to NGOs that will make good use of them.

The investments provided for in Bill C-10 are essential, but we expect the government to immediately start tackling the numerous other challenges we face. We have an opportunity here to develop a strategic economic sector while taking drastic and appropriate action to strengthen our health care systems, the institutions that are the very foundation of our social contract and that have been hit hard. I urge the federal government not to miss the boat.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will continue.

Bill C‑10's main purpose is to authorize the Minister of Health to pay up to $2.5 billion for expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022, in relation to coronavirus disease tests.

Second, it authorizes the Minister of Health to transfer to any province or territory, or to any body or person in Canada, any coronavirus disease tests or instruments used in relation to those tests acquired by Her Majesty in right of Canada on or after April 1, 2021.

Basically, Bill C‑10 provides a one-time sum of up to $2.5 billion to the provinces and territories for testing-related expenses as of January 1, 2022.

It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑10. As our leader once put it so eloquently, “You can't be against apple pie”.

After all, that money is to help the provinces and Quebec absorb extra pandemic-related costs. The government itself has already boosted health transfers by $5 billion in this Parliament alone: $4 billion for urgent health care system needs and another billion for the vaccination campaign.

These amounts are significant; we acknowledge that. However, they are still not nearly enough to meet the Bloc Québécois's calls to increase health transfers to 35%, rather than the current 22%. It is clear that this government is using the pandemic to postpone the heavy lifting that will be needed to negotiate health transfers.

We in the Bloc Québécois see this increase as urgent. It has been called for by the Quebec National Assembly, the Council of the Federation, health care workers through their union, and 85% of Quebeckers and Canadians, according to a recent Leger poll. Even the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert considers his own party's position on this matter untenable.

What will it take for the government to at least sit down with the premiers to negotiate?

Personally I think this shows a lack of respect. It feels as though we are being taken for fools. The Liberal government is the only one that does not see that the Quebec and other provincial governments must be able to depend on stable, predictable and adequate funding to fight this pandemic effectively. I repeat, “stable, predictable and adequate”.

The Liberal government's obsession with centralizing powers and its tendency to interfere are offensive. Quebec delivers all health care services, and this pandemic has obviously weighed heavily on Quebec's health care system.

Quebeckers pay taxes to Ottawa. Unfortunately, the Liberals are turning a deaf ear to our demands, but it is still our money. The federal machine would not work, would not exist, if it were not for the taxes from the provinces.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to acknowledge that fact and treat Quebec and the provinces with the respect and deference they deserve. The Bloc is calling on the federal government to plan ahead and give the provinces their fair share, instead of lagging behind and watching from the sidelines.

As we know, pandemics are here for good. There will be more. The Director-General of the World Health Organization said that the pandemic will not end until the rich countries stop monopolizing all the vaccines. Canada, like several wealthy countries, emptied the shelves of the global vaccine market. It acted urgently to protect the public, and far be it from me to criticize it for that.

However, now that there are enough vaccines available for Quebeckers and Canadians, we have a duty of solidarity to those who are not lucky enough to have our collective wealth.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to ramp up its efforts so that less fortunate countries can benefit from vaccines.

As I was saying, unfortunately, it is probable that this pandemic will last for some time and that more will emerge in the future. The federal government must therefore plan ahead—an important phrase—and provide Quebec and the provinces with the financial means to manage this crisis and all those that will follow.

The Bloc Québécois knows how to improve this situation. It is not complicated: The government must increase provincial health transfers. Why does the federal government always wait for things to become a crisis before doing what needs to be done? Why on earth is it not doing what is required when we are in the midst of the crisis? This government does not know how to plan ahead, and the Prime Minister does not know how to lead. In my opinion, the protests that have been paralyzing Ottawa for almost three weeks provide yet more proof of these two serious flaws.

Quebec is fortunate to have one of the best health care systems in the world. The next step is to improve what we have. The increase in health transfers that we are calling for will not solve all our problems instantaneously, but it is nevertheless a crucial step in the process of building a universal, public and high-quality health care system worthy of a G7 nation.

Simply put, I think that the Liberal government's stubbornness during this crisis has only highlighted the urgent need for Quebec to take its economic future into its own hands. Jacques Parizeau, may he rest in peace, said that he believed that the main reason Quebec should become independent was so that it could take responsibility for itself in a democracy in which the government is fully accountable to its citizens. In an ideal world, the Quebec government would be the only one responsible for collecting taxes from Quebeckers, and it would not need the the approval of a foreign parliament to govern itself as it sees fit. It also goes without saying that the Quebec government would be fully and completely accountable to its citizens.

Today, the fact that the Liberals will not listen to the call for health transfers reminds everyone why the Bloc Québécois is so necessary and why independence is so desirable.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. This bill was introduced by the member for Québec and is currently at second reading.

What is the purpose of this bill?

First, this bill would authorize the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion for any expenses incurred in relation to coronavirus disease tests.

[Cameron MacDonald]

The funding referred to under Bill C‑8 is scheduled for January and February

The funding referred to in Bill C‑10 is planned for the coming months.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Could you tell us how funding for the purchase of rapid diagnostic tests referred to in Bill C‑10 is factored into the funding provided?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, of course we hope that rapid tests will be available. The member for Burnaby South has been a strong advocate for increasing distribution to everyone and, as I mentioned earlier, the member for Vancouver Kingsway really pushed for greater transparency in Bill C-10.

Can the minister officially confirm whether a full report will be provided to the House every six months on how much money was spent, how many tests were purchased and how the tests were distributed?

Government Business No. 8 — Proceedings on Bill C‑10

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about the motion before us today.

Some parts of the country are starting to relax public health restrictions within their jurisdictions, but we have to assess the current situation carefully to determine what to do next.

As all members of the House of Commons know, protecting Canadians from COVID‑19 continues to be this government's number-one priority.

We are very lucky to have a number of tools at our disposal, including screening and testing, to help us determine when and how we can lift restrictions as safely as possible. Rapid tests have proven themselves to be a powerful tool over the last few months. Let me start by outlining the impact of COVID-19 testing and reducing the transmission of the virus, which in turn helps us move past some restrictions and return to certain forms of normalcy.

COVID-19 will continue to be part of our lives, and testing and screening will remain important tools to rapidly detect and isolate new cases, to support follow-up with close contacts and to prevent outbreaks in the community by breaking the chain of transmission. While those who have symptoms of COVID-19 should isolate, the fact of the matter is that someone can have COVID-19 and not know it. Testing is the only way we can confirm if someone has COVID-19. Someone knowing they are infected is a really important aspect of protecting their family and the people they are going to encounter.

Over the past two years, right up until Omicron hit, public health units across Canada relied heavily on PCR tests and contact tracing to confirm the presence of COVID‑19. That was funded by $3 billion from the Government of Canada under the safe restart agreement.

The data has been really useful in understanding who has an infection, where in our communities the virus was spreading and how much the virus might be circulating in our communities. As an additional layer of protection, rapid tests have allowed us to expand testing to a broader range of situations. Rapid tests have proven to be safe, effective and very easy to administer. They produce results in as little as 15 minutes, allowing for immediate self-isolation and breaking the chain of transmission right away.

Regardless of the type of test, we have seen from our international partners that testing matters, whether we look south or to Europe, where testing has been used throughout the pandemic. Rapid tests, including self-tests, have helped and will help individuals reduce the risk of spreading the virus to their families, co-workers and communities. They also empower Canadians by providing them with additional information about their own health and can help inform their choices and personal risk management. This will be even truer as other public health measures begin to get lifted. With the availability of new types of tests, the use of PCR tests is also shifting. As we transition out of omicron, there are a variety of testing options available.

Recognizing the importance of widespread testing across Canada, the government has taken a number of measures to procure, fund and distribute COVID-19 tests, and intends to continue to do so in the near future. The Government of Canada has been buying and providing rapid tests free of charge to the provinces and territories since October 2020 when the first rapid test was approved by Health Canada. These rapid tests have supported the broader testing strategy that the provinces and territories have implemented in response to the highly transmissible omicron variant, including expanded school-based testing, community testing and workplace screening.

We have been behind the provinces and territories from the very beginning, working in conjunction with public health authorities in the provinces and territories, and we will continue to support them throughout this pandemic. This is why, since the beginning of the pandemic, we have purchased more than 490 million rapid tests at a total cost of almost $3.4 billion. About 140 million tests were purchased for the month of January alone, and those are on their way to communities today. These tests have been provided free of charge to the provinces and territories and distributed to workplaces and community organizations to reach those most at risk. More rapid tests are being secured as we speak, to be delivered on an ongoing basis.

Because our government wants to support the safe reopening of our economy, we have also been supporting businesses, not-for-profit organizations and indigenous communities to get access to free tests. The Government of Canada has provided $6.6 million to the Canadian Red Cross to distribute tests to charities, not-for-profits and indigenous organizations. The federal government also provides rapid tests to first nations and northern, remote and isolated communities.

We have provided $8.1 million to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to support distribution to small and medium-sized businesses throughout local chambers in an attempt to support the reopening of the economy and a safe return to the workplace. Indeed, I can say this is true, because my local chamber of commerce in Milton contacted my office just the other day to ask if we would like some of those tests, as I am a member of the chamber in Milton. I thank the chamber for its ongoing work.

Organizations of 200 or more employees, including federally regulated businesses, are also able to receive free COVID-19 rapid tests directly from the Government of Canada. Through the distribution of more than 8.5 million rapid tests, these screening programs have been a really effective tool in identifying individuals with COVID-19, helping to reduce transmission and community outbreaks.

In all of the above initiatives, the government is working closely with our partners, because a challenge that is national in scale requires a cohesive and unified national approach. However, as this pandemic evolves, so must our actions. With the omicron variant, we have seen a sharp increase in demand for rapid tests. Canadians realized that they had to have an additional tool to manage their own risks, and that is why the government introduced Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

If passed, Bill C-10 will allow the purchase and distribution across the country of an additional 2.5 billion dollars' worth of COVID-19 rapid tests for the upcoming months. If passed, this funding will allow the government to continue providing the provinces and territories with an adequate supply of rapid tests to allow the early detection of COVID-19 positive cases and mitigate the transmission of the virus by reaching out to a greater number of Canadians. It will allow us to continue to partner with the Canadian Red Cross to deliver rapid tests to community organizations, and will allow us to continue to support screening programs operated by private businesses and federal departments and agencies. It will also allow Canadians across the country to access rapid tests to better manage their risks as they go back to their activities and we all learn to live with COVID-19.

We all know that COVID-19 remains a global threat. We recognize that we will need to learn to live with it and find the right balance between a progressive return to normalcy and an ongoing surveillance of virus transmission in order to quickly identify and isolate cases. Rapid tests will help us toward that transition. The evidence bears out that testing is an integral component of the suite of public health measures to keep the economy open and Canadians safe.

To that end, the Government of Canada is committed to helping supply tests to the provinces and territories, business, non-profits and federal workplaces. These initiatives and other public health measures are integral to protecting Canadians from COVID‑19 and supporting the economy as we move into the next phase of the pandemic.

I welcome questions from my colleagues.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be moving a unanimous consent motion, but on the business of the day, let me say that I am extremely disappointed, as I mentioned yesterday in the Thursday question, that the government is effectively using a hammer to propose and fast-track two pieces of legislation that are important but that come at a significant cost in the multi-billions of dollars. Effectively, the Liberals are not allowing for any parliamentary scrutiny, not allowing for committees to have a look at this and not allowing for any ministerial accountability or transparency.

We understand that these are important bills. We want to move them through the process quickly. However, there is no reason for this type of tactic to be used by the government, a tactic that has shown its pattern, over the course of this pandemic, of ramming pieces of legislation through. The Senate is not sitting next week, so even if this tactic is successful, the challenge is that the two pieces of legislation will sit there and will not be able to go through the Senate.

There have been discussions among the parties, and the Conservatives are proposing this unanimous consent motion for a timely and thorough examination of these two pieces of legislation.

I move that, notwithstanding any order, special order or usual practice of of the House, Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, be disposed of as follows: (a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage on Monday, February 14, 2022; (b) at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders on Monday, February 14, 2022, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment provided that if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred; (c) if the bill is read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, consideration in committee shall take place on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, and the committee be instructed to report the bill to the House before 6:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 16, 2022, by depositing it with the Clerk of the House provided that the Minister of Health be ordered to appear as a witness before the committee during its consideration of the bill, and that if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved and the Chair shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate, every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; (d) no notice of motions in amendments shall be allowed at report stage; (e) the report stage and third reading stage of the bill be ordered for consideration on Wednesday, February 16, 2022; and (f) when the order is read for the consideration of the bill at report stage, the motion to concur in the bill at report stage be deemed carried on division and the House then proceed immediately to consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, provided that at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill be deemed read a third time and passed on division.

I hope this is considered by other parties. It is in the best interests of our democracy, scrutiny and parliamentary oversight to make sure that we have time, and it is a very reasonable request.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can see why my hon. colleague was anxious to get to the Thursday question. It was exceptionally well put.

Let me say to the hon. member across the way that I have very much enjoyed getting to know him over the last while as we begin this new working relationship together. It seems we share an affinity for the movie Uncle Buck, so maybe we will have a movie night together at some point in time.

My hon. colleague is correct that we have motions scheduled for rapid testing and critical funds for seniors. We must move as expeditiously as possible. That is why tomorrow morning we will take up debate on Government Business No. 8, which sets out the parameters of how to expedite Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19 and more specifically to rapid testing. In the afternoon, we will turn to Government Business No. 7, which is a motion to dispose of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement). When we return on Monday, we will continue debate on government Motion No. 8 so that we can pass the rapid testing legislation as soon as possible. Finally, next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Like my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, I kind of jumped the gun.

Let me begin by stating that I am really looking forward to working with you and the government House leader. Despite any preconceived or misplaced characterizations he may have about me or my leadership team colleagues, which he so willingly shared with his caucus and publicly, he should not mistake our passion, our pride and our desire for only the best outcomes for our country and Canadians as any other emotion. If he would like to apologize, I am sure my leadership colleagues would gladly accept.

I note the government House leader gave notice of government Motion No. 7 and Motion No. 8 to schedule a program for Bill C-10 on rapid tests and for Bill C-12 on old age security. Under the terms of these motions, the sponsoring minister will not have to defend their legislation in committee, no stakeholders will be able to testify and no amendments can be made to improve the legislation. I want the government House leader to understand that the official opposition supports both bills, but his proposed approach is not acceptable. I call on him to abide by the time-tested procedures of the House and make sure the government legislation holds up to parliamentary scrutiny.

With that, I ask the government House leader the Thursday question: What is the order of business we can expect?

Opposition Motion—Federal COVID-19 Mandates and Restrictions

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her passionate speech. She is very eloquent. Bravo.

However, I do have some nagging doubts about my Conservative colleagues' true intentions. On the one hand, they are proposing, indeed, demanding that the government present a plan to remove public health measures. On the other hand, they oppose Bill C‑10, whose purpose is to provide rapid tests to Quebec and the provinces, which is what will enable us to lift those restrictions.

I am trying to understand the connection between providing the tools to help us get out of this faster and demanding that restrictions be lifted.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has dominated our daily lives, both in Canada and around the world, for the past two years. It has overloaded our health care systems, disrupted our economy and transformed the way we communicate and live with one other every day.

As pandemic waves have come and gone, all levels of government have responded with various measures, from federal border measures to municipal, provincial and territorial mask mandates to protect Canadians and the health care workers who have been caring for us for 22 months now.

These measures, based on the latest evidence, have been constantly evolving throughout the pandemic as we learn more and more about COVID-19 and how we can ensure the safety of everyone in the country.

For many of us in Canada, this is the hardest event we have lived through. We are all tired. Health care workers are exhausted. Businesses have struggled and closed down. Our mental health has declined, and there is no doubt that the most vulnerable among us, children and the elderly in particular, have suffered disproportionately. There are real consequences. That is why the decision by provinces and territories to impose restrictions has always been considered carefully and responsibly, based on scientific evidence, and has constantly been re-evaluated.

Today, we are in a very different position than we were in March 2020. We know more about COVID-19, we have safe and effective vaccines, and vaccination rates are high across the country and around the world.

As everyone knows, the vaccines in Canada are now not only effective but widely distributed across the country. They protect us from serious illness and hospitalization caused by the omicron variant. We also have testing and monitoring tools to help us detect infected individuals and monitor the trajectory of the pandemic.

In addition, in recent weeks, new treatments have become available that can help prevent certain patients from becoming seriously ill.

After two years of following individual public health measures such as getting vaccinated, wearing a mask, physical distancing and staying home when sick, everyone knows what to do to protect themselves and those they love. That has been Canadians' contribution, and we have all learned a great deal. Our efforts have paid off.

As we know, the new year ushered in a spike in COVID-19 cases with the omicron outbreak in Canada and around the world. An unprecedented number of Canadians have been infected in recent weeks.

As Dr. Tam stated in her most recent update, although the omicron variant has peaked, it is still widespread throughout the country.

Many hospitals across Canada continue to be under intense strain, even though COVID-19 hospitalizations are slightly and slowly declining in some areas of the country. Looking forward, we need to build on the measures we have used to address the omicron wave to strengthen the approach to managing COVID-19, while ensuring that we are prepared when a challenging new variant emerges like omicron. Fortunately, we now have a number of tools at our disposal that we did not have in March, 2020, to help us with this transition and to do so as safely and responsibly as possible.

Testing is a key part of our efforts to contain the pandemic and is another essential tool in our tool box for mitigating the effects of the pandemic. These tests identify who is infected, which helps us stop the transmission of the virus.

Throughout the pandemic, the Government of Canada has worked closely with its provincial and territorial partners to ensure that all of these tools, including rapid tests, are available and used to manage and mitigate outbreaks, thereby protecting the health and safety of all Canadians.

The federal government started buying rapid tests in October 2020 and supplying them for free to the provinces and territories. So far, we have bought more than 490 million rapid tests, which cost a total of nearly $3.4 billion.

In December alone, the Government of Canada delivered more than 35 million rapid antigen tests to the provinces and territories, and 140 million additional tests arrived in Canada in January.

We have also introduced Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. This legislation would provide Health Canada with the statutory authority to purchase up to an additional $2.5-billion worth of rapid antigen tests to help significantly increase access to rapid testing across the country. This would allow schools to stay open and would protect our children, as well as their parents and grandparents in long-term care. With this funding, the Government of Canada would put in place critical contracts in a highly competitive global market to purchase efficient and sufficient quantities of rapid tests to meet the anticipated demand across the country.

On a positive note, we are also monitoring waste-water, which helps us and others understand how COVID‑19 is spreading in our communities. By sampling and testing a community's sewage, we can determine whether the virus is spreading or diminishing in that community. For example, COVID‑19 can be detected in waste-water before a large outbreak, which alerts public health authorities in advance to the presence of this virus and its variants.

Government of Canada scientists are collaborating on a community waste-water surveillance program that is operating in 65 locations across the country. Samples are sent to the Public Health Agency of Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg to be analyzed, so that any instances of the virus causing COVID‑19 and its variants of concern are detected as quickly as possible.

Waste-water testing is conducted in collaboration with communities and local health authorities to inform public health action and decision-making. Waste-water surveillance alerts public health officials regarding where and how COVID‑19 and new variants of concern may be spreading on a community-wide scale. Waste-water testing provides a real-time COVID‑19 community health picture, especially in situations where clinical testing resources may be limited.

These screening tests and monitoring tools help shape our public health measures, which, at the national level, include border measures.

The Government of Canada continues and will continue to evaluate the latest evidence. It is constantly monitoring the situation to determine how to relax and adjust border measures according to that data.

Like all other elements of the Government of Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, border measures are based on existing data, scientific observations, and the results of our monitoring of the epidemiological situation across the country.

In conclusion, vaccination is the best tool we have to protect us and our loved ones against the serious consequences of COVID-19. Vaccines are safe, effective and free for all Canadians who have stepped up to protect themselves by getting vaccinated.

More than 88% of eligible people in Canada have already received at least one dose of a COVID‑19 vaccine, and at least 83% are now fully vaccinated. More than 50% of eligible people have received an additional booster dose. Also, just over 55% of children aged five to 11 have now received at least one dose.

It is because of all those who have rolled up their sleeves and complied with public health measures that Canada has been able to manage the omicron variant wave and will be able to manage the next waves when they come.

While vaccination continues to be the best protection against severe outcomes, we also know that treatments that can help prevent a severe illness for those infected with COVID‑19 will be important.

For example, just last month Health Canada authorized Pfizer's antiviral treatment called Paxlovid, paving the way for the distribution of this potentially life-saving medication.

This treatment will help adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms at high risk of developing a serious form of the disease.

Now that Paxlovid has been authorized, we are making every effort to supply the provinces and territories as soon as possible. The first shipment of 30,000 treatment courses went out a few weeks ago and was allocated based on the number of inhabitants of each province and territory. These treatment courses are now being administered across the country.

I will point out that each treatment course is designed for one person. More of the one million treatment courses we have procured will arrive this month.

Despite the high vaccination rates and robust and responsible monitoring of new, innovative treatments, the actions of every Canadian still count.

Vaccination, treatments and border measures are just a few layers of protection. Well-fitted masks, physical distancing, proper ventilation, rapid testing and staying home when sick are just as important. It is because of these responsible actions by Canadians and their governments that we are now moving forward on the transition to sustainable and responsible management of COVID-19.

We are at this point because of our collective actions, including the difficult decisions made by all provinces and territories, the federal government, communities, businesses and all Canadians. Most importantly, we have arrived at this point because of the tireless work of health care workers and the support and actions of individual Canadians.

I would like to be clear, however: We are still in the middle of a pandemic. As we have seen in the past two years, COVID-19 can still surprise us. There will be ups and downs, as well as new variants. We need to be prepared and responsible.

In the short term, that means getting our shots, including the booster. Around six million eligible Canadians still have not received their first or second dose of a primary series of vaccine, and many others are eligible for the booster, which considerably reduces the risk of contracting a severe form of COVID-19.

We must continue to increase our individual and collective protection against the variants and against COVID-19. Canada must be prepared to face future waves of infection that might be weaker or more severe than the current outbreak of the omicron variant.

COVID-19 will continue to be a threat to many of our family members, friends and neighbours. We must continue to act responsibly and to co-operate in order to protect the vulnerable, including children under the age of five who cannot receive the vaccine and people who are immunocompromised.

Over the past two years, people have shown their concern for the health of their loved ones and their community, as well as for the health and safety of their businesses and their society. These people know that it was not easy, but together we did what we had to do to protect ourselves during this difficult period.

The provinces and territories are making their own assessments of how and when they will lift their health restrictions. The Government of Canada is there and will continue to be there to support them in the coming weeks and months.

Our approach has been, and will continue to be, based on the best scientific evidence available and the lessons we have learned over the past two years. Everyone in Canada has sacrificed so much to protect each other during this exceptionally difficult time. They should expect nothing less from us than a thoughtful, responsible and evidence-based approach moving forward that continues to protect everyone as we prepare for the next phases of the pandemic, and we will deliver on those expectations.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C‑10—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 1, 2022, by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent concerning the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

During his intervention, the member argued that the Prime Minister had spoken about the bill in detail during a press conference held the day before. At that time, the bill was on notice and had not been introduced in the House. The member said that the bill is simply entitled “An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19”.

He added that the Prime Minister had provided details by indicating that the government was going to present a bill to continue to offer the greatest possible number of rapid tests to the provinces and territories. He also said that such a disclosure breached the convention that members must be the first to learn the details of legislative measures and thus constituted contempt.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader responded that the Prime Minister had only spoken about the bill in general terms and had not disclosed any specific details. He also said that sharing a draft of the bill with the opposition parties before its introduction satisfied the requirement that members must be the first to be informed of such measures.

The convention that members have a right to first access to legislation is a well-established practice. Looking at the relevant precedents, including those cited by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the Chair notes in particular that, when a premature disclosure was ruled to be a prima facie breach of privilege, precise details had been disclosed. These provided evidence that the contents of the bill had indeed been shared before they were disclosed in the House.

In the case before us, the Chair must determine whether the information provided by the Prime Minister at the press conference constitutes a disclosure of the contents of the bill, which would be, at first glance, a breach of the privileges of members or of the dignity of the House.

Bill C‑10 is relatively short and contains only two clauses. The purpose is simple. The first clause specifies the maximum amount that can be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purchase of rapid tests. The second concerns the distribution of these rapid tests to the provinces and territories. The second aspect of the bill has been part of public discourse for some time now.

It is the view of the Chair that the Prime Minister’s statement does not give way for the Chair to conclude that there was a breach of the privileges of the House nor to give the matter precedence over all other business of the House. Thus, I cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

In closing, I would like to point out that the disclosure of bills before they are presented in the House has recently been the subject of several questions of privilege. A new practice also seems to have been established in which the government shares certain bills with the opposition before they are introduced. As such, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may wish to review these elements and, if necessary, share its findings with the House.

I thank the members for their attention.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, through Bill C-8, we are continuing to provide much needed support to Canadian workers and businesses through the implementation of tax measures, including tax credits. Targeted tax measures can help make life more affordable. Through Bill C-8, we hope to create a number of tax credits that would benefit Canadians, such as a ventilation tax credit to improve air quality for small business owners and an expansion of tax deductions for travel expenses incurred by residents of northern Canada, and tax credits for teachers and early childhood educators who spend their income on school supplies, and for farmers by returning fuel charges and involuntary backstop jurisdictions.

Furthermore, in Scarborough—Agincourt, we have many schools that are older and could benefit from a top-up from the safe return to class fund, which the bill seeks to provide. It has taken a pandemic to highlight the fact that many of our schools rely on aging infrastructure and that there is a need to bring it up to current ventilation standards for safe indoor air. Although education is a provincial matter, this Liberal government has stepped in to ensure a safe learning environment is possible. The original funds provided $2 billion to provinces and territories, and this top-up of $100 million will help increase outdoor air intake and/or increase air cleaning in order to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19.

I could see a lot of schools benefiting from the repair or replacement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning units and increasing maintenance of the existing systems. In my riding's local school board, this fund has not only been used to address HVAC recommissioning deficiencies, but it also went toward purchasing over 10,000 additional HEPA filter units across 314 schools, many of the high schools in the riding who do not have full air conditioning or have poor circulation of air.

With older schools, installation of operable windows would be helpful. Some of the interior classrooms that do not have windows, such as a computer lab, would benefit from portable air filtration units. By providing this top-up, schools across Canada would be able to make those necessary renovations and repairs while also funding critical programs that would support student mental health and nutrition.

While we are on the subject of schools, the teacher and early childhood educator school supply tax credit would also greatly benefit students in Scarborough—Agincourt and beyond. It currently stands at 15%, but with the passing of this bill, it would be increased to a 25% refundable tax credit. What is new is that it will no longer require that the school supplies be used in a school or a regulated child care facility. This will enable students to bring home the supplies to do homework or even to use those supplies on field trips.

Using technology can further engage students and help those who are in special education classes. Some of these eligible goods, such as external data storage devices that increase a system data storage capacity or wireless pointer devices and printers, are practical, but other goods, such as electronic educational toys, puzzles, video streaming devices and multimedia projectors can take learning up to the next step, open up new worlds and be fun. This can make learning a much more interactive and engaging experience for students.

Housing is another area of focus our government is targeting to make life more affordable. Part 2 of Bill C-8 introduces the underused housing tax act, which will support the work of our national housing strategy, reduce homelessness and create affordable housing. We have all heard housing is becoming increasingly out of reach for many people, and this is one way to discourage vacant or underused homes while generating revenue. The underused housing tax act would only apply to foreign owners of residential property who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents to pay their fair share of Canadian tax by filing an annual return. Residential properties are exempt if they are rented out for at least 180 days, or about six months in a year, so there would be no short rentals like Airbnb.

While this alone would not solve our housing issues, this would help on the peripheral in that it would reduce foreign ownership and penalize those who use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing. Taxes on capital gains do not apply to principal residences. Part 3 of the bill touches upon the Canada emergency business account loan, which has provided over $49 billion in interest-free partially forgivable loans to nearly 900,000 small businesses affected by the pandemic.

Many of the small businesses in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt have been finding the roughly four lockdowns in Ontario difficult and have asked for an extension on their Canada emergency business account loans. This loan has helped a variety of businesses, from restaurants to manufacturing companies to fashion wholesalers. Our government listened. The time period would be extended from December 31, 2022, to December 31, 2023. If a business repays its loan by December 31, 2023, up to a third of the value of its loan, up to $20,000, would be forgiven. Loans not repaid by this date would convert to a two-year term loan starting January 1, 2024, with 5% interest per annum.

Part 3 of this bill would set a limitation period of six years for debts due under the CEBA program to ensure that CEBA loan holders are provided consistent treatment, no matter where they live. The proposed limitation period is also consistent with other COVID support programs, such as those covered by the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.

This past January, with the surge of the omicron variant, came a corresponding need to obtain rapid tests. The government had already purchased and shipped over 180 million rapid tests and has signed agreements to secure over 460 million tests in total.

Part 6 of this bill would allocate an additional $1.72 billion to the Minister of Health for the procurement and distribution of rapid antigen tests to provinces and territories. Many seniors have called my Scarborough—Agincourt constituency office worried about leaving their homes to get a rapid test, but still wanting one. This is why this bill is so important. It would give people the peace of mind that they can access rapid tests during difficult times where then could be a possibility of testing positive. Our recently introduced Bill C-10 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund to purchase COVID-19 tests. I know many seniors will be less anxious, knowing they have something at home that can easily be administered and distributed by local organizations they can trust.

Bill C-8 has many practical parts, whether it is helping small businesses and schools or bringing families peace of mind. I hope we can all agree and pass this bill to a second reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, how quickly time flies.

I can understand why the Conservative opposition is really concerned about the legislation. The Conservatives have this predetermined position that says, if the Liberals introduce legislation they have to vote against it. They are fairly good at filibustering and voting against government legislation. The problem is that this legislation is direct support for battling the coronavirus. Canadians need this type of legislation, just like they needed Bill C-2. There is this sense that the Conservatives should be voting for the legislation, so they are having a tough time with it.

Getting back to the legislation itself, it provides $1.7 billion with respect to rapid testing. That was enough money to provide for the demand for testing in workplaces and other places for the last months of December, going into January and possibly into February. We have more legislation that is coming up. Members could get a little advance on it in Bill C-10, where there is an additional $2 billion that would be invested so that the federal government could continue to support provinces, territories and indigenous communities, making sure they have things such as rapid testing.

As much as the Conservatives like to criticize the government, they find that when it comes to the issue of rapid testing it really is no issue for the federal government when it comes to criticism. We circulated all the rapid testing well in advance. The vast majority of the provinces had only used a small percentage before it became a much larger issue. When it became a larger issue, whether it was the Minister of Public Services and Procurement or the Minister of Health, supported by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal caucus, we ensured that the monies and resources would be there to support these ministers in acquiring the tests that were necessary.

That is what Bill C-8 does. It is there to support initiatives that are really making a difference. Yesterday we heard a great deal about seniors and, in particular, I was listening to the member for Elmwood—Transcona. The NDP have a focus on trying to give a false impression about seniors and the government's approach to seniors. I thought I would make it very clear, in terms of what it is and how it is this government has been supporting seniors, not only during the pandemic but prepandemic.

When I think of seniors and the six or seven years we have now been in government, one of the very first initiatives we did was that we rolled back the age for collecting OAS. The former prime minister set it at 67. We rolled it back to 65. That was one of the first initiatives. Another initiative was that we increased the guaranteed annual supplement. That had a really positive impact, not only in Winnipeg North where hundreds of seniors were lifted out of poverty by that one particular initiative, but thousands of seniors were lifted out of poverty because of a tangible increase back in the first couple of years of being in government through the guaranteed income supplement program.

In the 2019 campaign, we talked about giving seniors aged 75 and over a 10% increase in the OAS. Even though some inside this chamber criticized us about giving that increase, I rooted it back to the fact that we made a campaign promise. It was a part of our platform in the 2019 election, and we began the process of putting it into place before the last election took place just a number of months ago. We are a government that has materialized that substantial increase supporting seniors collecting OAS at age 75 and over.

We provided one-time payments to support our seniors during the pandemic, whether they were collecting OAS, GIS or both. We supported many organizations in our communities that focused attention on providing support services for our seniors. An example of that would be the New Horizons program. Members can canvass their own constituencies, and they will find that there were enhancements of services being provided through the non-profit organizations for our seniors in particular.

I remember a phone call I had with the United Way in Winnipeg a while back, and they were talking about the importance of the 211 line and the importance it could play for our seniors. Through a federal grant, the support of the United Way and its incredible organizing and organization, we now have what many other jurisdictions have: an active 211 phone number. Seven days a week and 24 hours a day, someone can call 211 and they will have access to a person who can assist them and a whole myriad of government resources and programs, not only from the national level but from other levels, whether they are provincial, municipal or non-profits.

This is a support program that will especially help our seniors. When I talk about the types of actions the government has taken during the pandemic, it is an excellent example when we hear of non-profit organizations, because we often hear about the direct payments, whether they are to seniors or people with disabilities through the CERB program or workers and employers. We often hear about that, but there are many other ways we indirectly supported seniors, and whether it is the New Horizons program or supporting organizations like United Way in Winnipeg, seniors were better served.

It does not mean we cannot do better. Within our caucus we continue to advocate for our seniors every day. I hope I can say this: We even have a strong active seniors caucus that is there to ensure that the interests of seniors are constantly being looked at. When the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for example, made reference to the fact that we are not there for long-term care and other issues such as those I just finished highlighting, I suggest to the member that he only take a look at the province of Manitoba. I would compare our record at the national level with the main years I was in opposition in the Manitoba legislature, where I saw the provincial NDP government reduce corporate income tax and do nothing, or very little, to support long-term care.

Today we have a very progressive and aggressive agenda for being there in a very real and tangible way for our seniors. That is why members of the Liberal caucus advocate continuously for long-term care facilities and how we can look at some sort of a standardization of care, what those expectations are and what kind of role the federal government can play.

We see many, including me, who continue to advocate for provinces and territories to take advantage of a federal government that has a very strong interest in a national pharmacare program. Close to two years ago, it was incorporated into a throne speech, looking for provinces and territories that would be interested. The point is that as a government we are very much interested and want to be there for our seniors.

In terms of other initiatives that we have been able to accomplish since the last election, some of the things did not get the type of attention they should have. I would like to draw attention to them, because they are indirectly tied to the legislation. These are things like the $15 minimum wage for federally regulated occupations. Hopefully, the provinces will see the leadership we are providing. It would be nice to see provincial jurisdictions take up that particular initiative.

The child care initiative shows the degree to which parliamentarians at the federal and provincial levels, working together, can produce tangible results. The pandemic demonstrated that, and so has the child care initiative. We are a government that has brought through a national child care program, albeit one province still needs to sign on.

Those are the types of issues that we have been able to deal with during a pandemic, while supporting Canadians in every region of the country, working with Canadians in different levels of government and dealing with issues of reconciliation, environment, housing, all the important issues for our constituents.

As I said in the past, and will say in future, my first priority is the constituents of Winnipeg North. Rest assured that the issues they raise in Winnipeg North are the issues I will be bringing to the floor of the House of Commons.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that may have something to do with the shouting, but I did say I was outraged and I suppose that has some technical consequences.

Here we are. We are two years into the pandemic. We have not made significant progress on long-term care. It is not like the experts that have been advising governments on how to handle the pandemic were caught off guard that there was another wave of the pandemic. Even early on, they were saying there would be probably at least four waves. We know that these are problems that need to get fixed, even if somehow magically the pandemic were to end tomorrow. We hear certain members in the House, even today, suggesting that somehow the pandemic is a function of public health restrictions or something. If we end the public health restrictions, we do not end the pandemic. I wish that were true, but we are fighting a virus. We are not fighting each other. We need to bear that in mind.

The way to get through this is with a lot of care and resources to be sure. As we were cutting those taxes for big corporations and telling people that we could not fund the health care that they needed, that was also being done by a lot of governments provincially. We are seeing it in Manitoba, Alberta and around the country because we have people in the government who do not believe in public health care in the first place and would rather see it privatized and would rather give tax cuts to big corporations instead of ponying up the funding that we know is necessary to have proper health care.

I am outraged at the Liberal Party, which promised as long ago as 1997, and the government has said again and again until their most recent Speech from the Throne, that they were going to make progress on pharmacare. Why am l mad about that? It is because I understand that people are really getting hit hard in the pocketbook with the inflation that is happening. I know there is no magic wand in the desk of government and some of the factors driving inflation right now are beyond their control. However, what is in their control? They could certainly help with the cost of prescription drugs because a national pharmacare program would do that. It would save money. It actually costs less to have such a program than Canadians are spending right now on prescription drugs.

We are going back a couple of years now to the PBO study, but the PBO was very clear. Right now Canadians are spending about $24 billion a year on prescription drugs with the many provincial systems that we have and the many private plans. One national system would cost about $20 billion a year. That is a way to save money and serve people better and help bring down some of those costs that are making things so hard for Canadians right now. It is something the government absolutely needs to do and would help.

The NDP has long proposed taking on telecom companies. Canadians are paying among the highest rates for cellphone and Internet. That is not a luxury anymore. It is not a “nice to have”. If people want to participate in the labour market, good luck finding a job and keeping a job if they do not have access to the Internet or to a cellphone. That is something that the government could do. It could take a regulatory approach to bringing down prices and making sure that, at the very least, there is a genuinely affordable plan for basic access to something as important as cellphone and Internet rates.

What is in Bill C-8? There is nothing particularly offensive, but not a lot of the things that we really need. I think that is the dilemma. Certainly there are many Canadians who are frustrated, in this time of real difficulty and real challenge with the pandemic but also with, for many of us, a real looming sense of challenge when we look at what is happening to the planet and all the extreme weather events and we look at the economic disruption and the displacement of people that it is going to cause, that we are just not rising to the occasion. Yes, absolutely we should be helping businesses improve their ventilation systems. That is the right thing to do in the context of the pandemic and these measures make sense as a way of contributing to that.

We ought to be helping schools improve their ventilation systems. It is not a real answer to reimburse teachers for some of what they are paying out of pocket, because I do not think teachers should have to pay out of pocket. Until we have governments that are willing to fund education to the extent that it needs to be, so that every student has what they need, I am thankful to teachers who are willing to go above and beyond, and I am willing to support a measure that gives them a little relief for doing things out of compassion for their students that they really should not have to do because that is a compassion that we should have collectively. We should work collectively to fund the things that students need, instead of leaving it to their teachers on an individual basis.

I am glad in principle that the government is looking at having some kind of tax for underused housing. However, I think it will be important to interrogate that seriously at committee, because initial analyses suggest that there are loopholes that we could drive trucks through in this legislation. There is a lot more we need to do to tackle the problems of the housing market, some things the Liberals themselves promised in the last election, like banning blind bidding. That was a platform commitment of the Liberal Party.

Why is that not here? What could they possibly be waiting for? Are house prices not high enough? Do they need to escalate faster for the Liberals to make good on their own election commitments? Give me a break. That stuff should at least be here.

We also know that we need a serious plan, not the national housing strategy they love to tout, because it is inadequate. We need to get more real units, and I am not talking about so-called affordable housing, which has a technical definition that really just means “high rent” for most people, rent they cannot afford.

We need to build housing with rent geared to income, and we need to explore non-market options, like co-ops and other things like it, so that we take the speculation out of enough of the housing market that people really can access housing. That would also help relieve cost pressures among people for whom home ownership is a real goal. It would be a larger group if prices came down, as it was not that long ago. That would help them out too by relieving demand in the housing market and helping to lower prices overall.

These are things that we really need to be doing. I look forward to having an intensive study at committee of this new proposed underused housing act. I think that is a good piece of parliamentary work. However, we are kidding ourselves if we think it is really going to change the fundamental trajectory of the Canadian housing market, not just in the last two years, as the Conservatives would have us believe, but over the last 20 years, during which prices have been going up consistently because we have had federal governments that, since the mid-nineties, have not come to the table with enough funding to build enough non-market housing to relieve serious pressure on the market. That absolutely needs to happen.

There is more money proposed for things we need, particularly rapid tests, and we are quite supportive of that. There are some questions, though. I did ask the Associate Minister of Finance about this earlier, and I was somewhat dismayed that he did not have an answer. In Bill C-8 there are proposals for money for rapid tests, and in a stand-alone bill, Bill C-10, the government proposed to spend money on rapid tests. Bill C-8 asks for $1.72 billion for rapid tests and Bill C-10 asks for $2.5 billion for rapid tests, and the Associate Minister of Finance and the government could not give a clear answer to whether it is asking for $4.2 billion combined, the $2.5 billion in Bill C-10 or the $1.7 billion in Bill C-8.

I think Canadians should know, and I think Parliament should expect to have some reliable reporting on those numbers as we go, because as we know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, not that long ago, said the government, when it came to tabling its public accounts, was considerably late and was an outlier among other G7 countries. I think the government really needs to get with the program. There has been a need for a considerable amount of public spending, but the fact that we need to spend is not a reason not to report well on what the money is being spent on and not to do it in a timely way. In fact, it becomes that much more important that the government reports well and in a timely fashion on its spending when so much money is going out the door and so quickly. There are certainly things to talk about in that regard.

Suffice it to say, while I am not impressed by the extent to which many of the things we need to do to rise to the moment are not in here, whether they are in facing the pandemic or the climate challenge, I am not of the view that this is a reason for things not to proceed. However, I really think the government needs to figure out how to rise to the occasion and move forward with a sense of urgency, particularly, to reiterate it one more time, the extent to which is has to internalize the sense of urgency required when it comes to seniors who have had their benefits clawed back by the government. They are not just losing income; they are also losing access to provincial programs in many cases. They were part of their support network and kept them housed, fed and alive. All of that has been called into jeopardy because of the government's refusal to act swiftly in May of last year when it knew that this was going to be a problem. This is something the government absolutely has to act on with urgency.

It also has to address all the people who are still out of work because of the pandemic. Let us not kid ourselves. We all know somebody, at least one person if not more, who is struggling to get back to the job they had or to get enough hours in a new job and who cannot support their family. The 40% cut to pandemic benefits was bad enough, going from $500 a week to $300 a week, but in addition to that, with the Canada worker lockdown benefit, the government made it way harder for people to access help. My office is hearing from people in Elmwood—Transcona and from people across the country who are trying to access this benefit at a time of incredible need and cannot access it. They are being told that it should take a matter of days for a response, but they have waited weeks and still have not gotten a response. The government had a system that was providing income support for a lot of people, and when it ended, the government was still providing support to about 900,000 people. What it was replaced with is not adequate to the task, both in terms of how much it delivers and in terms of the criteria that people have to navigate to access it.

As I said, Bill C-8 can certainly go to committee and there are things worth looking at, but this is not the kind of leadership we need at the moment. The government has to do more to rise to the occasion. I will continue to be here, as will my New Democratic colleagues, to press the government to rise to the occasion.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows, as I do, that the amounts in Bill C-8 are in addition to the amounts in Bill C-10, but let me share my reflection. When I was at the doors of constituents before the election, the three things that kept coming up the most were climate change, COVID supports and child care.

I was in a particular area of my riding that has not always been, let us say, the most politically friendly, but there was a woman on her doorstep who asked me to come and sit with her, so I did. She asked me to look at the three houses to the left of hers and the three houses to the right of hers, and then to take a good look at her house. She said that all seven of those houses would have been gone without our government's supports. She told me that we had the block's support because we had saved the block.

To the parliamentary secretary's question, the average across Canada is that our government provided $8 out of every $10 in COVID support. In Alberta, that number is $9 out of $10. That is how much the federal government has had the backs of Edmontonians, Calgarians and Albertans through this COVID pandemic, and we will continue to do so.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, not that long ago the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report in which he expressed concern about the late tabling of Canada's public accounts, and about the government's accounting for money and the way it is spent.

The situation we have before us is that in Bill C-8 there is a proposal to spend $1.72 billion on COVID-19 rapid tests, and then of course we just heard a question of privilege about Bill C-10, which proposes to spend $2.5 billion on rapid tests.

Is the intention that the amount in Bill C-10 would replace and get rid of the clause in Bill C-8 for purchasing rapid tests, or is the idea that the government is asking for money in two places and ultimately intends to spend about $4.2 billion on rapid tests?

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-10

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent respecting the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

On Monday, the Prime Minister made a general statement of the government's intention to introduce a bill to purchase rapid tests. The Prime Minister did not divulge the details of the bill, namely the amount of money for the purpose, nor the mechanism for purchasing and distributing these tests across Canada. This is a very short bill with two clauses: the amount, which is about $2.5 billion, and the mechanism for distributing these tests. As a result, I submit that speaking in very general terms about the bill does not meet the bar for a question of privilege respecting the divulgation of the contents of the bill during the notice period. Furthermore, as part of the government's consultation process, a draft legislative proposal on the statutory spending authority for rapid test procurement was shared with parties of the House last week before the bill was placed on notice.

On June 8, 2017, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege related to the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-49. He stated:

The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation. Speaker Parent explained on February 21, 2000, at page 3767 of Debates:

Although the members of the House should always be the first ones to examine legislation after it has been introduced and read the first time, this rule must be balanced against the need for the government to consult both experts and the public when developing its legislative proposals.

Speaking in very general terms of the bill without divulging the specific details of it does not meet the threshold of a question of privilege. Any risk was further mitigated by the government sharing a draft bill with opposition parties four days prior to its introduction. This clearly satisfies our long-standing imperative that members of the House should always be the first ones to examine the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate.

However, I want to raise a very serious concern about what we call a question of privilege.

I am rising on a question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, by the Prime Minister himself while it was on notice and before it was introduced and tabled in the House of Commons. On Saturday, a special Order Paper was published that contained the notice for Bill C-10.

As members know, according to our Standing Orders, notices of bills must be very succinct. In this case, the notice was. It gave the title of the bill and the number, Bill C-10.

Yesterday at noon, the Prime Minister held a press conference in front of his house. Incidentally, we were able to see that, despite the fact that he and his two children have COVID-19, he is doing well. That is good.

However, he said a lot more about Bill C-10 than what was written in the notice.

In fact, CTV, in a publication following the press conference, noted that the Prime Minister provided a bit more detail about the bill's contents beyond its title. Those details provided by the Prime Minister were as follows: “We'll be introducing legislation to ensure we continue providing as many rapid tests as possible to the provinces and territories.”

Yesterday, after question period and the Prime Minister's press conference, Bill C‑10 was introduced during Routine Proceedings. At that very moment, it became clear to us and to all Canadians that what the Prime Minister had said was exactly what was in the bill.

The bill authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund in relation to the coronavirus disease 2019, well known as COVID-19, tests. It also authorizes the Minister of Health to transfer COVID-19 tests and instruments used in relation to those tests to the provinces and territories and to the bodies and persons in Canada.

The Prime Minister talked about Bill C‑10 in detail at the press conference before the bill was introduced. In our view, that is a breach of trust under the rules that govern us.

The Prime Minister's disrespect for Parliament goes beyond just the premature disclosure of a bill. The Prime Minister, having wasted so much time with a prorogation, followed by an expensive and unnecessary election, is trying to play catch-up by leaning on the opposition to co-operate and fast-track his bill.

In an attempt to show some goodwill, his House leader provided embargoed copies to the House leaders of the opposition. For our part, and for the part of all opposition parties, we did respect the fact that we cannot make any comment publicly about the bill. That is the way to do it. Unfortunately, yesterday the Prime Minister did not respect that situation.

On March 10, 2020, you commented on the premature disclosure of Bill C‑7 on medical assistance in dying. You said the following:

...based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C‑7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House.

...

The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one's intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.

On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found there was a prima facie question of privilege regarding a similar bill, namely Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts, respecting medical assistance in dying. He said the following:

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

Another question of privilege was raised on March 19, 2001, regarding the media being briefed on a bill before members of Parliament. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken said, at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The Speaker at that time found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, again involving the media being briefed on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House. The precedents are very clear in these matters. The Prime Minister is in contempt of the House for disclosing the content of Bill C-10 while it was on notice and prior to being introduced in the House.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that this issue of COVID tests was part of the opening round of questions during the first question period my leader attended in September 2020 after becoming the leader of the official opposition. This issue is a really serious one and we care about this situation. It may have taken the Prime Minister a while to get it and I understand he now needs help to hurry things along, but he does himself no favours by thumbing his nose at the privileges of this House and the goodwill of the opposition parties by playing by his own rules.

This practice has gotten him into trouble before. On more than one occasion, he ran into difficulty with the Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner found in 2019 that he breached ethics rules. The Prime Minister had tried in 2018 to undermine a decision by federal prosecutors allowing a construction company, the SNC-Lavalin Group, to face a corrupt trial. The Ethics Commissioner also sanctioned him in December 2017, ruling that he broke conflict of interest rules when he accepted a vacation on the Aga Khan's private island in 2016.

I could go on and on, but to quickly get to the point and pursue a resolution to this matter, I ask, Madam Speaker, that you find a prima facie case of privilege. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)