House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.

Topics

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind the member again that she is to address all questions and comments to the Chair and not to the individual members.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Montarville.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Madam Speaker, I will begin by informing you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

We are here to debate the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Perhaps we should first ask ourselves why there was a Speech from the Throne.

The government had not even gotten through the first items on its legislative agenda from the previous throne speech, which was delivered barely a year ago. Then the government sidelined Parliament for months, preventing it from passing legislation and implementing this legislative agenda. Why did the government suddenly decide to prorogue Parliament and come back with another Speech from the Throne?

We need to look back at the context of the prorogation. What was happening then?

At the time, four parliamentary committees were studying the WE Charity scandal, the government did not know how to handle the matter, and the resignation of the finance minister had not taken the pressure off.

In a situation like that, what better way to take the pressure off than to completely shut down Parliament? They had already sidelined it for months, and then they decided to shut it down altogether. The committees that had started working on WE Charity were told, “Game over! Hit the showers!”

We figured that they were raising the stakes, that we would get a substantial throne speech announcing something new, because they had not even been able to carry out the legislative agenda from the previous throne speech that had been delivered only a few months earlier. We thought they would have something big for us, especially since they announced there would also be an address to the nation, which is an exceptional event, a very rare occurrence. We thought we should all sit down in front of the TV, because something absolutely spectacular was coming.

Let me point out to my colleagues that the opposition parties have been working with the government since the pandemic hit, because we felt it was the right thing to do. All but one party ended up regretting it. The government took advantage and started acting like a majority government, ignoring any positive input it might have received from Parliament.

The work of Parliament was suspended, in came a throne speech, and we were all glued to our screens, sitting on the edge of our seats, wondering what would be announced.

In the end, we got nothing but platitudes and recycled promises from last year. The government told us to wash our hands and maintain social distancing and announced what it had already been doing for months, namely being generous to everyone and their dog and throwing around money that it does not have to get Canada through the crisis.

Lord knows it has been tough to get through this crisis so far, in part because, as my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville said earlier, the government has utterly failed to do its job within its own jurisdiction.

When it came time to close the borders, the government once again sat on its hands, wasting weeks. In the meantime, the virus, which was not yet present in the community, made its way into the country. The government's reaction was so pathetic that the mayor of Montreal had to send teams to Dorval airport to warn travellers who were arriving in Canada. That went on for at least two weeks.

The government is continuing to hand out money, but the only people it has not been generous with are supply-managed farmers, despite a formal agreement to compensate them. The government is generous with everyone but supply-managed farmers.

The government has also not been generous with seniors. It is giving them peanuts. It is thanks to seniors that the government has so much flexibility and the privilege of a certain prosperity. The government owes that prosperity to seniors and it has forgotten them.

What is worse, the government has now created two classes of seniors, younger seniors and older seniors. It is as though there is a huge difference between the age of 74 and a few months and 75, as though a person somehow all of a sudden needs more help as soon as they turn 75.

Obviously, Quebec and the provinces have been neglected by the current government. Yesterday, I heard the Prime Minister, all happy and proud, say that, at the beginning of the crisis, the government gave the provinces nearly $1 billion to deal with the pandemic. That is nearly $1 billion to ensure that 10 provinces and three territories are able to deal with the pandemic. That is right: $1 billion. He was all proud and happy to tell us that.

This same government was prepared to give $1 billion to an organization that is close to the Trudeau family to manage a program that would pay people to volunteer. What is the thinking behind paying people to volunteer? The very definition of volunteering does not square with the idea of getting paid to do so. The government wanted to give this organization millions of dollars in fees to manage the program. This government thinks $1 billion for a Liberal-friendly organization is not too much, but then claims it is being generous by offering $1 billion to support Canada's health care system during a pandemic. That is amazing.

When we say that makes no sense, that more support needs to go to the provinces, which are struggling to meet intense demands with the resources they have, the government tells us with contempt and in a patronizing way that we are asking for a blank cheque, for money to be sent without any strings attached, no guidelines and no conditions.

The reality is that it was the provinces that gave the federal government a blank cheque when it proposed an agreement that would create a single health care system from coast to coast to coast. To get the provinces on board, the federal level proposed paying 50% of the bill. Now it assumes only 22% of the cost. We trusted the federal government and we were ripped off. Once again it failed to keep its promise, and now it is talking to us about blank cheques.

Just pay the provinces what you owe them. Give the provinces what is rightly theirs. It was the provinces that gave the federal government a blank cheque.

While the government lectures Quebec and the provinces about what happened in long-term care centres, the reality is that on top of paying 78% of Canada's health care costs, the governments of Quebec and the provinces assume 100% of the costs associated with seniors' needs and care. That is the reality.

The government wants to stomp all over us once again and is proposing an agreement with conditions attached if we want the money. We will never accept it.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind the member that he must not use the name of another member or the Prime Minister in the House. He cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Also, he must address the Chair, and not the government directly.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I give the member credit, he delivers a fairly passionate speech. However, the problem with the speech is the content. To say that it grossly exaggerates would probably be generous. To say that it was inaccurate would probably be a lot more accurate. It is full of falsehoods.

A prime example is the member said the federal government is giving $1 billion to provinces. It is over $19 billion just for the safe restart agreement throughout the country.

The member draws the comparison saying the government was giving WE $1 billion; not true. The member says we are giving the provinces less than what we were giving WE; not true. That made up much of the member's speech.

The federal government is there in a real and tangible way for all Canadians in all regions of the country. Would the member at least acknowledge that it is a $19-billion restart program that is getting Ottawa and the provinces to continue to work together?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Madam Speaker, I would urge my hon. colleague to actually listen to the speech instead of getting his questions ready for when the speech ends.

What I was talking about was the Prime Minister, who just yesterday was boasting of having given the provinces $1 billion at the start of the pandemic so they could deal with it. That is the billion dollars I was referring to. The member needs to pay attention.

I thought it was especially ironic that my colleague would talk about the content of my speech. Perhaps he could talk about the content of the throne speech instead. Was there any content?

Show me the money.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, the member started off his speech asking why we had the throne speech in the first place. That is my exact question.

Ultimately, as I follow this debate, all I hear from the Liberal side of the House is talk about things they have already done. As the member indicated, the whole purpose of the throne speech was to lead us to see something grandiose, to see how we were going to be progressive and doing exciting things for this country. However, we heard the same old things.

The member did talk briefly about debt, and he is probably aware that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has talked about how big that debt is becoming, over $1 trillion, and how the government has put over $27,000 per person onto the debt.

Could the member comment on how that $27,000, which amounts to roughly $100,000 for a family of four, is going to affect people in Quebec?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question.

I want to be crystal clear. We in the Bloc Québécois have one question: Is it appropriate to support individuals and businesses in need? The answer is yes, but it has to be done properly. The government plainly admitted that there was a problem with the CERB, not because it rewarded laziness, as some have claimed, but simply because it did not encourage full-time work. Rather than fix a problem that even it had recognized, the government doubled down and created even more problems.

Unemployment is around 9%, yet businesses are struggling to find staff. There is a problem. Solutions need to be found. All the government is doing is making sure everybody gets a cheque. It is paying for its next election win on the backs of future generations. That is the problem.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, the NDP has long supported the principle of asymmetrical federalism because we recognize that Quebec has its own distinct history, language and culture.

However, I would like to ask my Bloc Québécois colleague the following question. Are the reasons for greater autonomy for Quebec based on this distinct culture and history, or is my colleague saying that, as a province, Quebec has provincial rights like all the other provinces and this comes down to recognizing the rights of all the provinces?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Madam Speaker, whether we like it or not, Quebec is one of the provinces in this federation. The Constitution sets out a certain number of powers that belong to the provinces and, consequently, to Quebec.

When the federal government negotiates a health care agreement with the provinces, the expectation is that it will abide by and respect the agreement signed. We know that sometimes the federal government's signature is not worth the paper it is written on. Here we can add my colleague's very pertinent arguments on the particular history, evolution and development of Quebec, which make it—without wanting to seem presumptuous—a distinct province and a distinct society.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, our reading of the throne speech makes it clear that the Prime Minister's government has once again ignored Quebec's demands. It is actually very hard to find any concrete answers to people's demands in the throne speech. I myself do not see any.

We want measures for our farmers, especially measures that address compensation, the importance of getting cheques quickly and the agriculture programs that do not reflect the reality of small farmers. We want answers about the aerospace industry, but we did not get any.

SMEs are another issue, specifically partnerships, business owners who pay themselves dividends and very small businesses. Liquidity issues are going to be huge. With all the problems suppliers are having and the whole fixed-costs issue, I am worried we are going to see a spate of bankruptcies. None of that is in the throne speech.

The Liberal plan also involves interfering in areas under provincial jurisdiction, such as health and infrastructure, by investing money without going through the Government of Quebec. The Government of Quebec is opposed to that, of course, and is backed up by the Canadian Constitution.

What about the increased health transfers called for by Quebec and the other provinces? There is nothing about that in the speech. How to explain that Canadians have to wait until the age of 75 before getting help? It is impossible. COVID-19 has real-world implications. I will share two examples from my riding. The Agora des arts, a theatre and concert hall, has undertaken a major renovation. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has made the bids skyrocket by 60%. A project that was supposed to cost about $5 million will now cost about $9 million. The federal government's contribution was already limited at 14%. The Government of Quebec covered the majority of the costs, but the community also invested $700,000 to get this project completed. The project is now in jeopardy because of COVID-19, but there are no programs to help in this case. I am very worried, and I am calling on the Minister of Canadian Heritage to ensure that the federal government will join the Government of Quebec in contributing to the project. I also encourage the people of Abitibi-Témiscamingue to show their support for the Agora des arts.

Then there is the issue of the Resolute Forest Products paper mill in Amos, which is facing an extended shutdown. This is happening in my area, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, on the North Shore and in other regions of Quebec. We need to create a recovery committee and I would like to be able to propose real solutions to promote the recovery and help processing. Can we capitalize on secondary and tertiary processing? I would like to be able to say that I am building on federal government solutions but, for now, that is not the case. People can count on me: I will be very involved in this file.

The solutions are not in the plan entitled “A Stronger and More Resilient Canada” but in the document known as “Le Québec choisit, le Bloc agit”. That is recognized. The Bloc's COVID-19 recovery plan is strong and practical and based on what people in Quebec's regions are asking for. My leader and all the Bloc members went to meet with Quebeckers. They listened to them and came up with real solutions. I will name several of them.

There is the whole issue of people who are receiving the Canada emergency response benefit. We are very concerned about that. These people are going to have to pay back the money they were given. Could that not have been addressed beforehand? Obviously, the answer is no. It is the same thing with the problems that the lack of employment incentives have caused for businesses. Businesses were looking for workers. Could the government consider giving non-fraudulent CERB recipients an eight-month grace period on any penalties and interest they have to pay when they file their taxes? It is going to be chaos in our 338 riding offices this spring. We will be getting a huge number of calls from people who are unable to pay back the thousands of dollars they owe as a result of the CERB.

We are talking about increasing federal health transfers to 35% with no strings attached. I would remind members that, under the initial agreement set out in the Constitution, the federal government is supposed to cover 50% of health care costs. I am tired of being told that my province is poor when Canada is not paying the share it owes Quebec.

I will continue by talking about the recovery plan. Quebec deserves the truth about the country's public finances. Will the government provide its fiscal projections for the next three years? That is fundamental. Can it give our business owners and our governments an idea of what to expect? It seems to me that that is just common sense.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing new revenue sources to restore the economy. In particular, we must stop tax avoidance by large corporations that use tax havens. That way, the government could recoup billions of dollars and help the provinces and the less fortunate.

We could force tech giants to pay GST. We could also charge a 3% royalty on their Canadian operations. The royalty would go to arts and media organizations that deliver 40% French-language content. We need to stop saying that we are proud to be a country whose two official languages are French and English, and we need to take concrete action.

The moving expense deduction for oil, gas and coal companies could be eliminated. Legislative amendments could be made to collect sales tax from retailers without a local place of business, including on tangible goods purchased from abroad and online. What I find absolutely astounding is that it costs more to send a parcel through Canada Post. For example, Miellerie de la Grande Ourse sells two jars of honey for $12, but Canada Post's fees push the cost to $30. How can our businesses stay competitive? If that parcel were sent from the United States, it would cost less due to international agreements. I do not understand the logic. We need to support our businesses more, especially by lowering transportation costs.

There are concrete ways to support economic recovery in our regions. How can we develop a collective, pragmatic vision? The answer is economic nationalism. For example, we could create a regional development, recovery and economic diversification fund geared toward processing natural resources in Quebec. Regional funds like these could be administered by regional councils empowered to set their own priorities for our own resources in collaboration with Quebec. This could be done for various sectors, such as aluminum, forestry and farming. In my riding, a territorial innovation support fund could be used to build a slaughterhouse.

I think one great idea is to use the infrastructure of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, but its budget will have to be increased and indexed retroactively so that it can provide concrete assistance to our SMEs.

We could bring workers back to the regions by creating a tax credit for young graduates, newcomers and families who settle in the regions. COVID-19 is an opportunity to encourage people to move back to Quebec's regions.

Federal programs have to be more flexible and adapt to different realities in each of Quebec's regions. No more unilateral solutions, because they are bad for us. Employment insurance clearly needs a complete overhaul so that it covers all workers.

With regard to agriculture, it is time to stop selling out supply management in future negotiations and start compensating farmers without delay. A lot of promises have been made to farmers, but they are still waiting for their cheques. Then we have to promote local agriculture and let Quebec take over the management of the temporary foreign workers program, which has been disastrous.

As far as fisheries are concerned, a domestic market needs to be developed by improving distribution networks and promoting lesser-known seafood products. This would help reduce our dependence on foreign markets. All of this comes with a cost. Why is fish from China cheaper than fish from the Gaspé Peninsula? I will never understand that.

When it comes to transportation and infrastructure, Ottawa needs to commit to contributing unconditional funding for upgrading Route 117, which is notorious in my region as the site of countless accidents. It is a dangerous highway back home in Abitibi—Témiscamingue and in Laurentides—Labelle. This is a trans-Canadian highway. The federal government should contribute. It should also support the regional airports' development plans and encourage a Quebec alternative to Air Canada's virtual monopoly.

We are concerned. The NAV Canada issue had repercussions. If we want our regions to be autonomous and have a strong economy, then investments need to be made in our infrastructure, in our airports.

We need support for programs that help people who work in the tourism industry.

The government can help the region of Montreal. I talk a lot about the regions of Quebec because that is where I am from. Fighting climate change is crucial.

The Speech from the Throne only makes me more of a sovereignist. After all, if you want something done right, you are better off doing it yourself.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member talked so much about agriculture. He and I both represent ridings where agriculture is important.

He talked about compensation for dairy farmers. His colleague from Montarville implied that no compensation has been paid yet. The riding I represent, Kings—Hants, has the largest concentration of dairy farmers east of Quebec, and I can attest that $345 million in compensation began to flow last year.

Does the member recognize that compensation has begun to flow to dairy farmers, since those in my riding of Kings—Hants have received it?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for his concern for our workers.

I worked for the Union des producteurs agricoles, and the psychological distress among farmers is palpable, because they simply cannot count on any predictability. How many times have we heard from people who joined unions to improve their working conditions because they were not getting any government support? The AgriStability and AgriInvest programs are simply not working.

Getting back to the question of financial compensation, we are talking about a first and second cheque, and about a deal reached several years ago. We are also talking about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Europe. There is still nothing for the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, and I think that is appalling. We want our farmers to survive so they can ensure our food security and food sovereignty. That is what is at stake.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, as members know, today is National Seniors Day. We heard a very passionate speech talking about a nationalized economy.

I would like to put a question to my friend from the Bloc Québécois, understanding, as reported, that close to 80% of the close to 10,000 deaths that have happened during COVID, most have been associated with long-term care facilities. Does the hon. member support a national program that would provide public, nationalized health care in the long-term care sector?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

What I support is transferring money directly to the provinces so that they can look after their own jurisdictions, including health care.

Health transfers were originally supposed to be 50%. However, the federal government currently covers just 18% of costs. There is a gap there, and we are proposing a compromise at 35%. If we had that money, seniors would be able to live in dignity and receive quality health care in long-term care homes. If we had that money, we would not wait for seniors to turn 75 before giving them money to cover the rising cost of living, including groceries and rent. That is dignity.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, I can see how passionate my colleague is about making Quebec a country.

At the end of his speech, he spoke about climate change and environmental issues. In the throne speech, the government rehashed the idea of planting two billion trees. My colleague comes from an area with lots of trees. Two billion trees would reduce greenhouse gases, or GHGs, by 30 megatonnes by 2030. However, the Trans Mountain project would increase GHGs by 620 megatonnes by 2030.

Could my colleague comment on that?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Montarville mentioned, we should perhaps start planting those two billion trees.

Setting that aside, the issue of the environment is worrisome. The recovery plan should include one very simple element: the carbon footprint should be one of the criteria used in granting service contracts. That would change everything.

We could be more competitive and promote the use of wood. Besides being more beautiful, wood is strong and durable and can lower the carbon footprint. I believe that is major. With innovations like these, we will ensure economic growth and protect our environment.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Beaches—East York today.

I rise today in a virtual manner to first and foremost thank you, Madam Speaker, and all the House staff for making our participation in this virtual Parliament possible. It is important to be able to have MPs across the country participate, and while I would much rather be in Ottawa physically, I am pleased to be able to represent my constituents here today.

Given this is my first address in the new session of Parliament, I want to recognize two things before addressing the Speech from the Throne.

First, I want to recognize that today is Treaty Day. I am privileged to represent communities across the riding of Kings—Hants, including three indigenous communities: Sipekne'katik, Glooscap and the Annapolis Valley First Nation. Sipekne'katik was involved in the signing in the peace and friendship treaties with the British Crown back in the 1700s, whose agreements form a key basis of the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples today. I wanted to recognize Treaty Day at the beginning of my remarks and join those in my community and across the country who are celebrating today.

Second, I want to acknowledge and thank my constituents for their hospitality and caring for others during a difficult time. Of course, it was and remains COVID-19 where constituents helped by making masks, delivering groceries and providing fresh produce to those who needed it. These are just a few examples, but I could honestly create an entire speech simply on the kindness that was shown since COVID-19 and in the days following the Nova Scotia mass shooting, and I want to recognize those efforts.

As it relates to the Speech from the Throne, there were many themes that I think are important for the communities I represent, indeed, all Canadians. In the time I have remaining, I will highlight some of those.

I will start by saying that Canada is still in the midst of fighting the pandemic, and while I sit here in Nova Scotia where we are fortunate to have a very low case count, we are seeing a rise across the country and, indeed, across the world. That is why I thought it was prudent that the first half of the Speech from the Throne was focused on efforts to continue fighting the virus while supporting Canadians.

We have already taken significant measures as a government to protect Canadians' health and economic security. As it relates to health, there have been direct investments to the provinces, including the safe restart agreement, with $19 billion to support measures such as greater testing capacity, improved testing, support for the purchase of personal protective equipment for health care facilities and resources to municipalities across the country that are on the front lines, frankly, of delivering key services.

This summer, I had the chance to connect with my constituents directly on their doorsteps. As we approached September, the back-to-school plan was the top priority, whether it was grandparents wondering about their grandchildren's plans for going back to school or parents wondering how they could balance jobs and whether their children were going to be safe. This is why I am proud of the government for investing $2 billion to provide support directly to the provinces so that they have the resources necessary to keep our kids, teachers and staff safe, which I know has been a conversation we have heard a lot in the House over the last couple of months.

Programs such as the Canadian emergency response benefit, the wage subsidy and the emergency business account have benefited millions of Canadians and protected their jobs. I would like to highlight investments through the regional relief and recovery fund, which allowed local development agencies, such as the Hants-Kings Community Business Development Corporation, to provide funding to businesses that needed help and did not meet eligibility criteria in other programs.

Given the importance of agriculture in my riding, and I mention this every time I get the chance, nearly $500 million of COVID-19-related support provided to various commodity groups was welcomed and will be important to reducing the negative impacts felt in the industry.

In my riding, I have spoken to many business owners, individual employees, those who have had to stay home to look after a loved one and seniors who benefited from additional top-ups under the old age security. These investments and programs have ensured that Canadians stayed safe and have helped our economy avoid the worst impacts. However, there remains a lot of important work to do.

I represent a riding with many jobs of family members, friends and neighbours tied to the Halifax Stanfield International Airport. There are thousands of jobs in Kings—Hants tied directly and indirectly to the vitality of our airport. I was pleased to see mention of airports and airlines in the Speech from the Throne. While we know that air travel will not return to normal any time soon as a result of the pandemic, it is important for us, particularly in rural communities, to have transportation links that can connect us as a country and serve as a gateway to the world beyond our borders.

I was also pleased to see a commitment from the government to expand the Canada emergency business account to support businesses that are the hardest hit by helping support their fixed and overhead costs.

I have said this many times, but I will say it again. Kings—Hants is home to the highest tides in the world and it is an emerging wine region with hospitality second to none. I hope my colleagues and, indeed, all Canadians will consider visiting when they feel comfortable in doing so. However, I have heard many tourism and hospitality operators and business owners whose model is built around bringing people together who have suffered greatly, so I was very pleased to see mention of the tourism and hospitality sectors in the Speech from the Throne and I look forward to our government's work to support them in the days ahead.

I was also heartened to note that the government has committed to promoting affordable housing. Affordable housing is often referenced as solely an urban issue. It is not. This matter is in the community that I represent and in many rural communities across the country, in particular, by adding the national housing strategy and increasing investments to rapid housing in the short term. We saw that with the $1-billion announcement by our government about a week and a half ago.

I want to mention one development. The Ryan's Park development in Kentville, the community that I represent, serves as an ideal example of what can be achieved through solid public partnerships and the right vision.

I know this topic has been discussed in the House as of late, but I was also encouraged to see rapid testing as a top priority for our government. Given the fact that COVID-19 is likely to be a reality for many Canadians at least in the year ahead or perhaps longer, this is going to be an important tool for us to try to adapt to what is, frankly, our new normal.

Finally, as aforementioned, child care and early education are top of mind for Canadians across the country and I was very pleased to see a focus on early education and a national strategy for after-school programs. Of course, we have provinces that are able to deliver that, but us working with the provinces and territories is important. We have seen that collaboration throughout the pandemic and this is an important step forward.

While our focus must remain on the challenge at hand, we cannot forget about other challenges and opportunities that Canada needs to address, and I would like to address some of the build back better aspects of the Speech from the Throne.

We knew rural connectivity was a challenge before the pandemic. We had invested $500 million under the connect to innovate program and the universal broadband fund and accelerating that is going to be extremely important because we have seen the divide between rural and urban Canada in terms of connectivity. It is like not having electricity in the 21st century. I look forward to our government and all parliamentarians helping support us on that initiative.

I also want to talk about greening the economy. This was a top issue in my riding during the last election. Of course, it is across the country and, indeed, the world. I really appreciate the reference to working with rural industries to help transition them and be ready to be competitive in a low-carbon economy. That is things like agriculture, forestry and mining. It is extremely important that our government work hand in hand with these industries to have them ready to compete in a low-carbon economy.

I will quickly mention the Atlantic loop, the coal to clean strategy. We have a tremendous opportunity in Atlantic Canada, in partnership with Quebec, to have electricity that is zero-emitting by 2025. This is going to open up a world of opportunities.

Platform commitments around old age security, a 10% boost for those over 75, I know will be extremely important in Kings—Hants. I hear from seniors often about the fact that they have challenges in dealing with increasing costs and I was pleased to see that, along with a plan for national pharmacare.

I mentioned agriculture in my riding. One of the silver linings of COVID-19 has been the benefit to local agriculture. Canadians across the country are focused on where their food is coming from. We have seen that the agri-food industry has become very centralized. We need to position ourselves to feed the world, but we also need to be mindful of making sure that our regional and domestic supply chains are strong and that we can support local farmers. It will not only help the local economy, but it will also help for environmental reasons.

The final thing I will mention, which was in my remarks before I joined in today, was around the SM5. I was very pleased to see the continued support for our supply-managed sectors. I have the greatest concentration of supply-managed farms east of Montreal and this is extremely important in my riding.

I am pleased to say that I will be supporting the Speech from the Throne. It is a Speech from the Throne that puts Canadians at the centre of its work and I look forward to working with all parliamentarians to address the needs of Canadians in the days ahead.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech, but the problem I have is that many things in this particular throne speech are recycled rhetoric from elections past.

The member raised the issue of Internet access. The government has been promising to service rural areas and it has not gotten the job done. In fact, the Liberals go so far as to criticize the previous government on other issues, such as addressing climate change, but their own government allows an extension for coal-fired plants in Nova Scotia. Tires have been burned in his province to generate electricity.

How can the member continue the charade of saying the Liberals are all about these good things when they do not address the actual behaviour of the government in its own policies?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, the member opposite had two frames, so I will try to address both in the time that I have.

The first is digital connectivity. We know it cannot come soon enough. I will point out that one million Canadians have been connected since we formed government in 2015 and that through the connect to innovate program, over $500 million has been invested. Had the Conservative government, during the 2008 recession, put a similar amount of focus on connecting Canadians, we might have been way further along than where we are today. Regardless, under the universal broadband fund we are going to continue those efforts. As chair of the rural caucus of the governing party, I will continue to push for these efforts.

I also want to address the member's comments about Nova Scotia. We are one of the leading jurisdictions within the federation when it comes to using renewable energy to fuel our electricity. I find it a bit disingenuous for him to suggest that Nova Scotia is not a leader on this. Of course, there are agreements for coal-fired generation, but we are one of the leaders in the country, and the Atlantic loop will help us get there even quicker.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech. I am very pleased to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I know that he is just as worried about these issues as I am.

He ended his speech by insisting on the importance of food self-sufficiency and local production, which has been highlighted by the pandemic.

Like all my colleagues, I am disappointed by the general nature of the throne speech and its lack of detail. Yes, compensation was paid to dairy producers. However, it was to be paid out over eight years, not just one. When will the other payments be made?

The other producers, egg and poultry producers, need to launch their modernization and marketing plans very quickly to counter unfair competition. In addition, processors are not mentioned in the throne speech.

Can my colleague assure me that all these sectors will be adequately covered?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, while my French is improving, I better answer in English for clarity. However, I will continue to work hard on my language skill set.

The member mentioned that the Speech from the Throne is general. Well, indeed it is. A Speech from the Throne does not necessarily get into the deep details of public policy. However, I think there was a lot mentioned about agriculture. I share with him the desire and the want to implement more regional capacity and to have more focus on the ability of Canadians to access healthy, nutritious foods locally.

He can rest assured: Our government understands the importance of agriculture. I look forward to working with him in the days ahead on implementing these policies that we both share as important issues.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about greening the economy and that he is a member of Parliament from the coast. I am a member of Parliament from the opposite coast. The government spent $4.5 billion buying a pipeline that puts my coast at risk. It is also an economic and environmental disaster. Over 100 economists just wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to rethink Trans Mountain given that it no longer makes sense economically.

Only a fraction of this pipeline has been built. Would it not be better to take those billions of dollars and invest them in a just and sustainable recovery?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, if the member opposite will recall, we had a chance to discuss this with media outlets in the fall of last year. I explained to her that the investment in Trans Mountain makes sense economically and that the pipeline is indeed the safest way to get our products to market.

I understand her concern and her ideology on this. We are a government that is focused on climate change. We are a government that will continue to make those investments. I share her concern, given the fact that I represent a riding with the highest tides in the world. However, that particular investment was about the safety of communities and the fact that product would be going to international markets. As opposed to sending it by rail, where we have seen, at Lac-Mégantic, the impact of having product go through communities, we should be doing this in the safest manner.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Madam Speaker, at the outset, I want to thank every constituent in Beaches—East York and every Canadian across our country who has stepped up in these difficult times, whether they are essential front-line workers in health care, grocery stores or food supply chains, or whether they are teachers or individuals looking after loved ones. I give sincere thanks to everyone who has stepped up and made a difference in these really difficult times.

In the throne speech, we have seen a comprehensive set of old commitments, from the 2019 platform, mixed with a set of new commitments that respond to lessons learned in the course of this pandemic. I want to focus on lessons learned and what we can glean from the throne speech in answer to those lessons.

First, it is important to recognize that we face an economic crisis because of the health crisis and that the best economic response is also a public health response. In the short term, that means a massive rapid-testing program, and in the long term, that means a vaccine. In the throne speech, we heard our government commit to doing everything it can to see rapid tests deployed, upon approval. With respect to a vaccine, the government notes that Canada has already secured access to vaccine candidates and therapeutics, while it is investing in manufacturing here at home.

Second, our social safety net was not fit for the purposes of millions of Canadians. When we look at the CERB numbers, we see there were almost nine million unique applications. Almost nine million Canadians received income support in their time of need.

Our social safety net, specifically employment insurance, was not fit to answer to this crisis. Our government's new EI recovery benefit will ensure that most people will be supported in the coming six months. That is important because there was a lot of angst from people who were worried the CERB was going to end. They now know they are going to receive supports through the EI system in the months ahead.

However, fundamentally, we need a permanently strengthened social safety net. I have pushed within caucus and outside of caucus for a permanent minimum floor below which nobody will fall in our society. In a wealthy country like ours, we should not have the poverty levels we have.

My third point is about essential workers. I mentioned at the outset a need to thank essential workers, but we have to do more: We need to protect essential workers. That fundamentally means ensuring that there is leadership. I know provincial minimum wages matter more than a federal one, but we should lead through a federal minimum wage, as we committed to doing in 2019. It also behooves us to ensure that we work with provinces for portable benefits. Where there is federal jurisdiction, we should also ensure that we are updating our competition laws to address wage fixing. We have seen concerns there recently, and certainly I saw concerns there through my work on the industry committee, where our national grocers communicated directly about the prospect of ending pandemic pay premiums for front-line workers.

We also need to recognize our migrant workers, who are so often our essential workers, whether on farms or in health care settings. We need to ensure that we are protecting migrant workers and ending the systemic exploitation of them. This means prioritizing permanent residency through immigration work programs.

In the throne speech we see language that says, “We owe an immense debt to those who served and still serve on the frontlines...earning the lowest wages in the most precarious sectors...on the frontlines of the pandemic.” It also notes, “Canadian and migrant workers who produce, harvest, and process our food...deserve the Government’s full support and protection.”

Fourth, a lack of supportive housing has undermined isolation efforts, and existing supportive housing, especially for-profit nursing homes, has failed our seniors. We need more supportive housing, but also national standards for nursing homes and increased staff and training levels, with a focus on non-profit care.

In the throne speech we see a commitment to a conversation with provinces about national standards for our nursing homes. We see a commitment to targeted measures for personal support workers to provide increased supports. We see language that says, “No one should be without a place to stay during a pandemic, or for that matter, a Canadian winter.” It also references a recent $1-billion announcement that is focused on eliminating chronic homelessness. Importantly, with regard to old commitments and new commitments, there is an important new commitment in this throne speech to ending chronic homelessness in our country.

Fifth, the economic fallout has disproportionately affected women, and we know that child care is a significant answer. Our federal government has taken important steps over the last five years to support child care, but we need to build on these efforts. In the throne speech we see a commitment to building on these efforts. We see an acknowledgement that we must not let the legacy of the pandemic be one of rolling back the clock on women's participation in the workforce.

Canadians need more accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care. The government will make a significant long-term sustained commitment to create a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Also important to note is that there is a renewed attention to before- and after-school care, an acknowledgement that flexible care options for young children are more important than ever.

Sixth, the twin health and economic crises have disproportionately affected people of colour. We need to double down on our efforts to address systemic racism and reconciliation. Working to end poverty will make the biggest inroads.

As an aside, during the course of this pandemic, I had the opportunity to spend a considerable amount of time reading and learning more about a number of different issues. I read the last writing of Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, from 1967. More than 50 years ago, this leader was focused on tackling racism and speaking about the need to end poverty. Of course we need criminal justice reform, but we also need to focus on our social safety net, not only as a matter of justice for essential workers and people in poverty, but also if we are serious about addressing systemic racism.

We also need to focus on reconciliation. In the throne speech we see acknowledgements that we need to keep moving even faster: We are going to work toward a national action plan for missing and murdered indigenous women; we are going to have UNDRIP legislation before the end of the year; and we are going to continue to work to close the infrastructure gap and make sure there is clean water in every community. I said this in answer to the first throne speech, but I will reiterate it again: We need more attention to our urban indigenous communities. As we know, here in Ontario, over 80% of indigenous Canadians live in our urban centres.

Seventh, we have listened to public health experts to save lives in this pandemic and need to continue to heed their advice to address the opioid epidemic. That work should include a federal task force to reset our national drug strategy, which has been called for by police chiefs, and action toward decriminalization and safer supply projects. We have heard so many different voices: Public health experts across our country have called for this conversation; police chiefs have called for this conversation; the Chief Justice of Ontario has called for this conversation; and people who have lost loved ones have called for this conversation. Every serious person who has looked at this issue has said the current drug prohibition framework is killing people and that we need drug policy reform to save lives. I hope we have a serious conversation about this and put the politics aside to save lives going forward in the same way we have put politics aside in the course of this pandemic.

Eighth, our government can respond quickly and successfully to a crisis with determination, and we need that same level of determination brought to a green recovery and the climate crisis. The throne speech rightly acknowledges that climate action will be a cornerstone of our plan to support and create a million jobs across our country. We need great action, from the retrofits announced in the throne speech to the clean vehicle supports announced in the throne speech, and so much more, to make sure we get to net zero by 2050, have stronger science-based 2030 targets and ensure we have effective climate accountability legislation to set five-year carbon targets and turn those long-term targets into short-term practical actions.

Ninth, infectious diseases represent an incredible threat to our collective well-being, and we need to be proactive in order to prevent the next pandemic. I would argue the Public Health Agency's Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response should issue a public assessment of how Canadian activities, domestic and abroad, contribute to pandemic risk and then tell us how we can take steps to reduce those risks. I had the luck to speak to Dr. Jane Goodall recently, and she made it very clear that this pandemic is at least in part a result of the way we have disrespected our planet and animals. We need to reconsider and reset how we treat both our planet and animals as this relates to pandemic risk.

Lastly, the pandemic is not over and there will be more lessons to learn. This summer obviously offered us a reprieve, but as the cold weather sets in and we move increasingly indoors, we need to maintain our bubbles strictly, as much as we reasonably can. We need to keep physical distancing with others and wear masks when distancing is not possible.

I want to close by thanking every single person in our community who, through the Michael Garron community campaign, has sewn and helped distribute masks. Our office alone distributed 10,000 cloth masks in our community. I want to thank everyone for those efforts.

The federal government will continue to be there, in partnership with Canadian families and the provinces, to make sure we get through this pandemic, not only to address the economic crisis, but also to address the health crisis.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Madam Speaker, I must say I was quite disappointed in the Speech from the Throne. Even while I was thinking that I would disagree with many aspects of it before it came out, I was expecting more fireworks and a big bold vision, but we can see that it was basically a rehash of the 2019 throne speech.

That begs the question of what the prorogation was all about about. Was it truly necessary to prorogue? The timing of the prorogation was very suspect, as it followed right on the heels of a large document dump.

What does my hon. colleague think about the prorogation and its timing?