Debates of Oct. 6th, 2020

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives certainly are champions of maintaining Parliament and having committee debates. Unfortunately, as we know, my colleague's government shut down Parliament. We feel that only four hours of debate for $50 billion of investment in the Canadian economy is not sufficient. We want a full and effective Parliament with all of its procedures, so that we can create effective measures that will sustain and support Canadians through the pandemic.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I am pleased to rise in the House today in the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, in the second session of the 43rd Parliament. I first want to congratulate the government on its Speech from the Throne. During a difficult time, it is fair to say that the government has done an excellent job balancing the safety of Canadians with the need to encourage a prosperous economy.

I feel the federal government has done an excellent job of meeting the specific needs of all communities, especially those of my riding of Egmont.

I am impressed with the four foundations of the government's plan. Of course, we must fight the pandemic and protect the health and safety of all Canadians. Second, we have been on a consistent course of supporting the values of reconciliation, equality and the fight against systemic racism. Third, our immediate effort is to help Canadians through this difficult time. As I have heard from many people in my constituency of Egmont, there is an appreciation and respect for government's rapid and effective decision-making. Government responded in a way that was reliable and it built confidence in our country. Across my community, individuals and businesses feel they are supported and respected.

I think Canadians know that the government respects all communities and understands the needs of every individual.

While concerns certainly remain, there is a great sense that government will do everything in its power to protect the interests of every Canadian.

Finally, the fundamental goal of creating jobs and continuing our support for the middle class truly looks forward. We need that aspirational language. We need to put together the constructive framework for future success and we need to provide a clear pathway toward better days ahead. In my opinion, government is meeting that test of leadership. Furthermore, I believe government has achieved its leadership role in partnership with individuals and communities. We have not worked in a top-down manner. Instead we have listened to Canadians. Thanks to the hard work of thousands of Egmont residents, we are building a stronger economy that benefits everyone. As a result, the people of my community have told me they believe they have a share in the community's progress. They believe that we are all in this together and will share the challenges and the opportunities.

I want to thank all those in Egmont who reached out with clear, articulate ideas to move our community forward even in the context of our greatest crisis since the Second World War. In the largest sense, government has done well for the past five years to accentuate a spirit of partnership with Canadians. In my opinion, I believe that community partnerships that emphasize job growth through infrastructure is the best road forward.

In Egmont, that forward-looking plan is helping to build one of the greenest communities in Canada. Our leadership role in renewable energy is well recognized across Canada. For decades, Egmont has adopted an approach that accentuates advances in wind power and now there are new projects that build on the promise of solar energy. The key part of these efforts is government is providing its expertise and investments in a way that benefits an entire community.

We all have the opportunity to share in Egmont's environmental progress. As we emerge from the current crisis, we will be in a tremendous position to take advantage of the world's changing energy demands. We are building, and we are building stronger and smarter. For that reason, I was very happy to see references in the throne speech to an Atlantic energy loop. For years, Atlantic Canada has worked on plans to co-operate on energy initiatives. The support signalled in the throne speech reflects my hope for an eastern partnership that permits freer flow of energy resources while rewarding hard-won advances in technological innovation.

From the perspective of individuals and families, I am also pleased to see further evidence of the government's ability to focus on people. During the spring, we were all deeply concerned about the effects of the pandemic on long-term care facilities. Mercifully, there were no outbreaks on Prince Edward Island, but every Islander shared in the pain and distress experienced across Canada.

For that reason, I am very pleased to say that we will be working on national standards for long-term care, which will protect thousands of Canadians and build confidence in our systems. To achieve that confidence-building goal, we will need to work with our provincial partners and provide the resources needed to create safe and welcoming places.

Additionally, I am extremely pleased to see that we will embark in a new direction when it comes to disability supports. A program modelled after the guaranteed income supplement for seniors will make a tremendous difference in the lives of many people in my community. I look forward to the day that we make this commitment a reality.

In some ways that promise reminds me of the government's decision to reverse the decision by the former administration to push the retirement age to 67. Personally, I know many people who have worked more than 40 years and are looking forward to retirement at age 65. To move those goalposts was unfair. I want to commend the government once again for reversing that unfortunate agenda. Again, that is why I am proud to be a part of this government.

The Speech from the Throne does not pick winners and losers. It does not favour one group over another. Instead, we are following a path that tailors itself to the needs of individuals, families and communities. We are not about the broad, sweeping generalizations of the past government, rather this is a government that embraces unique challenges faced by every Canadian in a way that responds to specific needs and recognizes opportunities.

Along those lines I also want to congratulate the government on its rapid and effective response to COVID. All of us remember the difficult days of March and April when there was so much uncertainty and concern. Programs were designed that almost immediately addressed those worries and built a relationship of trust and confidence between the federal government and Canadians.

I admit that I was worried. I was concerned that the crisis was too big, that we would miss people and lose sight of communities, but we did not. We succeeded because this government has an understanding of the uniqueness of every individual and every community.

In closing, I would like to encourage the government to maintain that path, to remain vigilant about the concerns of the kitchen table and the need to build a stronger national economy.

I want to thank all the residents of my community for their hard work, creativity and willingness to build a stronger community.

We worked together, and together with Prince Edward Island, we are building a stronger Canada.

We are beginning to emerge from this crisis and I am confident that we can do so in a way that will leave both Canada and communities like Egmont even stronger than before.

As a Liberal member, I believe that a government can accomplish great things. As parliamentarians, we must work together for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to various proposals put forward in the throne speech.

He spoke about retirees who have decided to change their lives at this time. However, in the throne speech, there is nothing for people 65 and older. The Liberals are only offering an income supplement starting at age 75.

Why does my colleague think that the government has chosen to ignore a segment of retirees, of older people, who are often women, and seniors who find themselves alone?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first moves of this government when it came to power was to return the age of eligibility back to age 65. At the same time, it increased the guaranteed income supplement by 10%. That was because we recognized the majority of seniors who live alone are women. We were committed to advancing support to single seniors, the majority of whom are women, in that particular decision.

Our government will continue to support seniors as we proceed.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I sit on the fisheries and oceans committee together and I know he cares deeply about our oceans. I also want to thank him for voting in favour of my unanimous motion to tackle ocean plastics. One part of that motion deals with ghost and derelict fishing gear. We were glad to see the government commit $8.6 million to dealing with the cleanup of that abandoned and derelict fishing gear, but it is literally a drop in the bucket. It is not the only solution. We need a polluter-pays model with tracking, marked gear, regulations, monitoring, better accountability and enforcement if we are really going to tackle this issue. Washington and Oregon have done a great job. The Global Ghost Gear Initiative has made many recommendations to the current government, but when it comes to the Speech from the Throne, it barely mentions oceans. It talks about a blue economy and our oceans protection.

Will the member commit to coming up with a comprehensive plan to deal with ghost and derelict fishing gear and not put it on the backs of taxpayers, but on the polluters who are creating this problem that is choking out our ecosystem and actually hurting our fishing economy?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, when our party formed the government in 2015, one of the commitments we moved on quickly was to restore funding to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the key areas of science, habitat protection and protecting the industry.

As for removing plastics from the oceans, I agree with my hon. colleague that we should be moving toward a system that makes the polluter pay for those particular items that he referenced in his question.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, in just the last few years the Liberal government is set to triple our national debt. Can the member explain the Liberal plan to balance our budget or does he want to admit that it really does not have a plan to balance the budget?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great myths is the hypocrisy that often occurs within the Conservative Party when questioning in the House on the balancing of budgets. We can listen to the rhetoric that we hear day after day coming from across the floor or we can look at the actual practice of Conservative governments. We have had two in the past, one in the late eighties that racked up the biggest deficit at the time in the history of the country when facing no extraordinary measures. Therefore, it is a bit ironic for the Conservative Party to lecture this government on balancing books when it barely did it on one minor occasion in about 20 years of governing.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honour and privilege to be a voice for the residents and businesses of Mississauga East—Cooksville and to virtually speak in Parliament from my great community.

I would like to acknowledge we are gathered on the ancestral land of the Mississaugas of the New Credit.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank all the front-line workers from all sectors of health care and essential services from my home of Mississauga East—Cooksville and from all members' hometowns from coast to coast to coast. In no particular order, they include Canadians from all walks of life: personal support workers, police, bus drivers, military personnel, pharmacists, supermarket workers, nurses, doctors, drivers, public servants, waste-removal people, construction workers, cleaners, security guards, support staff, postal workers, our teachers and thousands more. I believe I speak for all members when I say we owe them a debt of gratitude and thank them for their self-sacrifice, their service and their dedication to our communities across our great country.

The war against this invisible enemy has truly been a team Canada effort to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to support workers and businesses. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have put Canadians first. The way our Liberal government, led by our Prime Minister, has collaborated and consulted with our partners, including the provinces, territories, municipal governments, labour, businesses, not-for-profit agencies, scientists, public health authorities and so many other stakeholders, has been essential to the successes we have had in our fight against the coronavirus. As was crystal clear in the Speech from the Throne, for our Liberal government, support for our workers and families is paramount. The health and safety of our workers and the recovery of our economy remain our government's top priorities.

I need to address what I feel in my heart of hearts was the saddest and most tragic aspect of this pandemic. COVID-19 has exposed significant ugly weaknesses in our health care system. Of all of Canada's deaths related to COVID-19, a staggering 85% have occurred in long-term care homes. Now with the second wave, we must do more to protect our most vulnerable. Our hearts go out to all those who have passed away from this terrible virus.

Many seniors from my riding were residents of Camilla Care long-term care home. Tragically, Camilla Care lost over 70 residents to coronavirus. The reports of understaffing, COVID-positive residents sharing rooms with residents who were COVID negative and a lack of basic care, including feeding, toileting and dressing, are unacceptable and cannot happen again. I heard from families, friends and loved ones who could not see or speak with their dying parents. They will live with these painful memories forever. The lives lost in long-term care homes to COVID is one of Canada’s greatest tragedies. Vulnerable seniors deserve to be safe, to be respected and to live with dignity.

Although long-term care falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, the federal government will take any action it can to support seniors while working alongside our provinces and territories. Canadians stand strong with us on this righteous cause. A recent survey showed 88% of Canadians agree that there is a need to implement extensive social and health programs to help and protect our seniors and most vulnerable citizens.

The Liberal government will work with Parliament on Criminal Code amendments to explicitly penalize those who neglect seniors under their care, putting them in danger. The Liberal government will also work with the provinces and territories to set new national standards for long-term care so that seniors get the best support possible, and take additional action to help people stay in their homes longer. Let us all thank the members of the Canadian Forces who were there in long-term care homes and shined a light on the neglect.

The Prime Minister said recently that he remained unapologetic for doing everything we could to support our seniors, that they deserved nothing less. We agree and we grieve for all those we have lost.

The Speech from the Throne addresses gaps in our social system. The pandemic has underscored the inseparability of Canada’s economic, health and social well-being. Our sound recovery will address these stark gaps in our social safety net and ensure that the most vulnerable communities are not left behind.

The government has pledged support, taken action and will continue to work with further targeted measures for personal support workers; help for vulnerable communities; support for the disabled; increased flexibility of systems to reach people at home, i.e., like we are doing here virtually; and the accelerated development of a universal pharmacare program. We will support our communities, investing in all types of infrastructure, including public transit, energy-efficient retrofits, clean energy and affordable housing.

The throne speech is a plan for a stronger and more resilient Canada. I can say unequivocally to workers in my community and across our country that if they have lost their jobs, we have their backs. Since March 15, almost nine million people have received the Canada emergency response benefit, also known as the CERB, helping millions of Canadians and their families avoid catastrophic household income loss while, at the same time, helping to keep our economy strong. People are still living in uncertain times and the government will continue to be there for them. So many residents in my area have emailed, written and called me just to say what these concrete investments have meant to them, and the financial stress and strain they have alleviated.

We are shoring up our employment insurance system. The government has created a transitional Canada response benefit to help Canadians transition from the CERB to the employment insurance system, which will be revamped to include self-employed individuals and those in the gig economy. A more flexible EI program, paid sick leave and a caregiver benefit will allow us to continue helping Canadians and their families.

The government will do whatever it takes and use whatever fiscal firepower to support people and the businesses that employ them. I have worked closely with the Mississauga Board of Trade and the many businesses that have been impacted negatively by this pandemic. I can think of no greater shock to a business than to have to stop cold, through no fault of their own, and live with the uncertainty of when things will get better or start to normalize.

I have reached out to small businesses to identify needs and facilitate access to programs, such as the Canada emergency business account and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. These and other programs were greatly appreciated in my riding and the government's commitment to extending these programs is welcome. The wage subsidy program has literally saved tens of thousands of jobs and has prevented many businesses in Mississauga East and across Canada from going bankrupt.

The Liberal government will take the following steps to support struggling businesses. It will extend the wage subsidy into the summer of 2021, expand the Canada emergency business account, improve the business credit availability and introduce support for industries that have been hardest hit, like travel, tourism and hospitality.

In conclusion, the throne speech reflects our government's road map to manage the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and the role that Canada will play in a world that has likely changed forever. When I think of the millions of everyday acts of kindness and thoughtfulness that are being performed across this country, I know we are already building back better. We are and will be more resilient, more innovative, more economically dynamic, but also more generous and sharing. However, for now, we must stay alert, control the virus and save lives.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about small business at the end of his speech.

I know that small business owners in my riding of London—Fanshawe have heard the Liberal rhetoric. They have heard how Liberals are putting Canadians first and that they have their backs. So many of those small businesses and their owners barely made it through the first wave, and they are terrified about what the second wave will have in store for them. They are unsure they will survive it.

A lot of problems came in the failure of the rental subsidy in the commercial program that the Liberals put forward. It was because it was given to landlords. It was not provided to tenants. I would like to hear the member's explanation for why the government chose to do it in that really specific way, knowing that it probably would not actually help the majority of small business owners.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our businesses, especially our main streets and small businesses, are really the backbone of our communities and our economy. That is why, from day one, the government was always there, every step of the way, helping those businesses through the wage subsidy program, through business loans and through a number of other programs.

We are going to continue to help them as we go through this second wave. As was seen and read in the throne speech, we will also be there to address other fixed costs for these small businesses.

I know we are on the street, in touch with them, speaking to them every single day, consulting, listening and understanding, so that we can provide the tools they need to be able to bridge this pandemic, get to the other side and continue to succeed and be those great beacons of light in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that according to my colleague, the Prime Minister said that he remained unapologetic for doing everything for our seniors.

However, did they really do everything? There is an annual $23-billion shortfall in health transfers that Quebec and the provinces have unanimously asked the government to make up. Based on constitutional agreements, the annual shortfall is actually $51 billion. In July, the old age pension decreased by between $4 and $5, and last week, it was increased by a few measly cents.

Therefore, I am asking my colleague to tell us who is mistreating our seniors by refusing to respect health transfers and financially starving our seniors with increases that are minimal and reductions that are significant for them?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health care, I and millions of Canadians find that our universal health care is one of our Canadian values that we cherish dearly. The government has always been there, every step of the way, working together with our provinces and territories to find ways to provide better health care. We did it with mental health services and home care services in previous budgets. We will continue.

During this pandemic, we did it by deploying our military to help in our long-term care homes that were hardest hit. We will continue. We want a universal pharmacare program for our nation. We will continue to make this one of the strongest values in Canada, working with our partners, the provinces, and showing leadership to be able to provide the type of health care that we want to see from coast to coast to coast.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week we passed a bill with over $50 billion in expenditures. Would the member agree that more than four and a half hours of debate and some parliamentary committee work might have actually had the benefit of improving the bill?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, what I hear from the Conservatives is that one second they want to cut and the next second they want to spend more money. I do not know what side of the fence they are on. They keep jumping. One cannot suck and blow at the same time.

We are investing in Canada. We are investing in Canadians. The Conservatives will say that universal health care is a social experiment. I just talked about how it is the value of Canada. If we had the same Conservatives back in the day when we brought in universal health care, they would have scrapped it and it would not have gone forward.

The Conservatives have to come clean with Canadians and say what they want to cut. Is it the CERB? Is it health care? What is it that the Conservatives want to cut?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I want to quickly address all the members who are participating virtually.

I appreciate the fact that all of you are looking to the Chair for guidance regarding speaking time. This helps the sitting go smoothly and ensures that the speaking time of all members is respected.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again rise in this House to represent the good people of Sturgeon River—Parkland.

The past six months have been a time of tremendous trial for my constituents and all Canadians. Loved ones have been lost, families have been separated, businesses have shut down permanently and our government has failed to provide a clear plan for a way forward for this country.

Alberta and the other western provinces were hurting before this pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, including in my constituency. The Liberals have refused to sign off on new resource projects, costing thousands of jobs and billions in investments. Their infrastructure bank and infrastructure minister have failed to deliver billions of dollars in investments, costing our communities and many more thousands of jobs. Just the other day, Alberta was hurt again with the announcement that Suncor will be laying off thousands of workers, along with TC Energy.

Canadians pulled together to get us through the first wave of COVID-19. We endured lockdowns in the spring that cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and closed tens of thousands of businesses. Yes, we saved lives, but what did the Liberal government do with the sacrifice of Canadians? It dithered.

While our government could have spent the summer procuring rapid testing or planning for an economic recovery, it focused all its energy on shutting down an investigation into its own ethical failures. We have yet to receive the full details of the WE Charity scandal created by the Liberal Prime Minister, and if the Liberals had it their way, Canadians would never know the full truth. That is why we are here today, not even a year since the last Speech from the Throne: Instead of governing the nation through this crisis, the Liberals chose to play political games, prorogue Parliament and shut down any committee investigations into their wrongdoing.

Our Conservative team will not relent. We will hold the Liberal government accountable for its ethical failures. I know that on this side of the House, we are looking forward to sunny ways and sunny days indeed. While many Canadians may be dealing with a COVID pandemic, the government is dealing with an ethical sickness. The Prime Minister has been fond of telling the opposition that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we have heard him loud and clear. We will be taking his advice and prescribing a full dosage.

There is a pandemic, and everyone out west is talking about it, but it is not COVID-19; it is the joblessness pandemic. It is a disease that has been with us for years before COVID-19 hit us. Unfortunately, rather than working tirelessly to save our struggling energy industry and the western economies, the Liberals looked eager to dance on our graves and declare our economy bust.

Why else would nearly every decision since their election in 2015 appear to be targeted toward undermining our jobs and energy industry, whether it be the pipeline-killing Bill C-69, their carbon tax or now their mega carbon tax that is masquerading as a clean fuel standard? Why is it that whenever western MPs stand up for their constituents, they are accused of only playing to regional interests? Whenever our auto sector or aerospace sector is threatened, all Canadian MPs are called together to stand up to save jobs, yet we hear nothing when our energy sector is suffering.

Alberta was proud to support fellow Canadians in the 2008 financial crisis. We carried this country's economy when the federal government had to bail out an American auto company. We were proud to support our brothers and sisters in Newfoundland and Labrador when their offshore industry was suffering. When the Atlantic economy was struggling, it was the cheques sent home by Atlantic workers working in the Alberta oil patch that kept families going.

Today, Albertans are struggling and Saskatchewan is struggling. The west is struggling. The engine of Canada's economy is facing record unemployment. Where is our federal government to lend us a hand? We have shovel-ready projects that will create tens of thousands of jobs. We do not even need a bailout from taxpayers; we just need the Liberal government to get out of the way.

The Nova Gas Transmission line, which has been waiting for nearly a year for federal approval, would create 5,500 jobs. It is the next generation of polypropylene production in the Alberta industrial heartland. At least 2,500 jobs are on the line, yet the Liberals are pushing forward with their antiplastic manufacturing agenda. With the Liberal mega carbon tax at an estimated $350 a tonne, major players that produce fertilizer to feed our farms and produce fuel to heat our homes are at risk of packing up and moving south of the border. Western Canadians do not need a minister of the middle class and those working hard to join it; we need a minister of the middle class and those working hard just to survive and stay middle class.

The Liberals are promising Canadians a lot of goodies in the throne speech, but nothing that has been promised has not been promised before by the Liberal government. The Liberals will say that this time is different, that they are working with the NDP, which holds the balance of power. We have heard this story before. I have a word of caution to my colleagues in the NDP. They can learn a lot from the B.C. Green Party or the Liberal Democrats in the U.K.: Things never really work out for the junior partner.

The throne speech should be praised for its commitment to recycling. By that I mean recycling old Liberal talking points. The Liberals have promised universal pharmacare and a universal day care system. They have promised universal broadband as well. Yet, they have been in power for five years and have failed to deliver for rural communities.

All of this is happening while the Liberals continue to plow forward with the greatest expansion of government spending and debt financing in modern Canadian history. This is over $400 billion in federal deficit, not counting the hundreds of billions taken out by arm's-length Crown corporations such as the Bank of Canada, BDC, EDC and the CMHC. This is hundreds of billions off the government's books, but hundreds of billions that Canadian taxpayers will still have to pay for if things go bust.

How exactly are the Liberals going to finance this new pandemic debt, while also launching the most radical expansion of the Canadian welfare state in a generation? It is with low interest rates, cries the Prime Minister. We can afford everything, as if we can sustain low interest rates for decades on end without the consequences of massive inflation: inflation that will erode the savings of our vulnerable seniors, inflation that will risk the opportunity for millennials and those in generation Z to buy their first home and inflation that will devalue the hard-earned wages of the working class for the benefit of big business and debt holders.

If the government chooses not to go down that disastrous path, we are left with two alternatives: They will increase taxes to finance this new spending or they will cut spending in other areas to reallocate to these new promises.

Will the Liberals be cutting the child care benefit and child care expenses tax deduction for families so they can pay for their new national day care system? Will families be denied the choice of whether to stay home with their young children or send them to day care? When the Liberals remove the Canada child benefit and tax deductions, that is exactly what they are doing. They are removing choice from parents who want to raise their children at home.

How will the government pay for this new universal pharmacare system? Will they cut health transfers like the Liberals did back in the 1990s? Will they refuse to allow new life-saving drugs like Trikafta, which miraculously saved the lives of those with cystic fibrosis.

If they do not cut spending, they will have to raise taxes. The throne speech talks a bit about this. It talks about raising taxes on digital giants and closing stock loopholes. This is not necessarily something I disagree with, but will these new taxes generate the tens of billions in new dollars that will finance universal day care and universal pharmacare? The fact is that they will not.

We are left with few alternatives. Will the Liberals raise the GST that the Conservatives lowered from 7% to 5%? Will they raise personal income taxes or capital gains taxes? Are they going to raise corporation taxes and risk capital and investment being taken to our neighbour to the south, a low-tax jurisdiction?

It is time for the Liberals to be honest with Canadians about their fiscal plan. Canadians deserve that honesty. Will the Liberals allow mass inflation to destroy the middle class? Will they raise taxes on Canadian families? Will they cut spending and benefits? Will it be a combination of all three? Canadians deserve a real answer.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about our neighbours to the south and pointed to their finances and the way they operate in terms of taxation. However, clearly their deficits, debt-to-GDP ratio and deficit-to-GDP ratio are much higher.

Is that a jurisdiction we should model for our taxes and social programs? I am wondering if the member could elaborate on how Canada should run more like the United States.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the United States is a completely different jurisdiction from Canada. It is a worldwide reserve currency. When they print dollars, the world is ready to lend the United States money.

Back in the 1990s, there was a time, under a previous Liberal administration, that the world refused to lend Canadians money. We cannot simply allow the Bank of Canada to keep printing money and buying up Canada's debt. There is going to be a consequence to this. We will hit a fiscal wall and have massive inflation, tax hikes, job cuts and spending cuts.

The Liberals have to pick their poison and stop living in this fairy tale world they are making up. There are going to be consequences. They need to come up with a plan because Canadians deserve to know what their fiscal plan is.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time understanding the basis for my colleague's argument that the Canadian government has abandoned the fossil fuel industry.

In the past four years alone, the government has invested $22 billion in fossil fuels, while investing only $800 million in a comparable industry, the forestry industry. That is very disproportionate.

Perhaps my colleague is having a hard time accepting the very simple truth that, with the drop in oil prices, the oil sands industry is just not competitive anymore. I am therefore asking my colleague if we should consider transitioning Alberta's economy to something other than fossil fuels and oil sands.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I dispute the member's finding that 22 billion in federal dollars went toward our energy industry, which has been a huge net contributor to our nation's economy. He will notice that, earlier in my speech, I said that we are not asking for a bailout in the energy sector. We are asking the Liberal government to get out of the way. With bills like Bill C-69 and the new mega carbon tax clean fuel standard, it is threatening to shut down industries that already exist, let alone bringing new industries to this country.

The west is very distinct from Quebec. Quebec is blessed with ample hydro resources, low-carbon hydro resources, and those are wonderful resources to have, but in Alberta we are dependent on natural gas to fuel our electricity. I hope the member would agree our economy is distinct, just like his province is distinct, and we need to have different approaches to our economic growth.

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

Mr. Speaker, at one point in his speech my colleague was talking about the clean fuel standard. I am hoping he can clarify the Conservative Party's position on this. When I look at organizations such as the Canadian Canola Growers Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, I see that they both support an increased Canadian clean fuel standard. Canola farmers in particular, and many of them have Conservative members of Parliament, are in support of this.

Is it the position of the Conservatives that they are going to go against this very vital sector of our Canadian economy? Are they going against the canola growers who live in their own ridings when they go against the clean fuel standard?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my family members are canola farmers, so I know well the challenges we are facing. The devil is really in the details of what this clean fuel standard is going to be. There is going to have to be a lot negotiation.

Liberals could have a very bad clean fuel standard, which we are afraid of, or they could have a fuel standard people could deal with. When we talk to canola and wheat farmers, they tell us that one of their biggest inputs is fertilizer. There is a major fertilizer producer, a nutrient fertilizer plant, in my riding that says it will not be able to compete and create fertilizer if this clean fuel standard goes through.

How are farmers even going to grow canola if they cannot access fertilizer? They will have to buy it from the United States, which means more lost jobs for Canada. I cannot support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Governor General and recognize the hard work of her staff, who are no doubt under even more pressure than usual.

I also want to take this opportunity to give my best wishes to retiring members of Parliament, Bill Morneau and Michael Levitt. The WE organization promised its international trips were life-changing. In the case of the former finance minister, that turned out to be true.

My friend Michael Levitt departs politics under more honourable circumstances. I hope his own very principled approach to many foreign policy issues, such as his call to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity, had a positive impact on his Liberal colleagues. Unfortunately, some of his work remains undone, as the IRGC remains unlisted, but I know his advocacy for important issues of justice and human rights will continue.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a public health crisis that also brought on an economic crisis. No government should have been caught off guard by COVID-19. While most Canadians could not have imagined that a coronavirus pandemic was possible, it is incumbent on governments to be prepared to respond to crises.

Less than 20 years ago, the world experienced another coronavirus pandemic, which led the government of the day to create a national public health agency whose primary responsibility was to prepare a plan for responding to a potential future pandemic. However, this government did not ensure that the agency had the necessary plan or equipment in place.

Given the compassionate tone we sometimes hear, it is easy to forget that this government originally spread anti-mask messaging because of its own failure to ensure an adequate supply of masks.

In response to COVID-19, our Minister of Health insisted that the risk was low and that the border should remain open, until it was too late. She wanted to promote her medical aid in dying agenda and eliminate life-saving benefits, rather than working to make much-needed improvements to assisted living. She had her priorities backwards.

Even after the government announced controls at airports, many journalists and Canadians saw that the measures were not put in place early enough, at the time when they would have had the greatest impact. If we had had border controls and mandatory masks sooner, if we had started using rapid testing like South Korea did over six months ago, if we had had contact tracing technology ready to go, we could have avoided the economic shutdown. It was all so preventable.

In Alberta and elsewhere, oil and gas workers and their families face the painful intersection of multiple threats to their livelihood. Those of the radical left are talking about a just transition for oil and gas workers. They tell them to give up their jobs today and they will be given a job of the future at some indefinite point around the corner.

If I told my employees that I was going to arrange a just transition for them, those salty words would not hide the fact that they were getting fired. Nobody is fooled by the language of a “just transition”. It is in reality a code for the intended destruction of highly productive parts of our economy, which have, up until now, been producing commodities that the world will continue to desperately need.

The truth is that making petroleum products is both a job of the present and of the future. If these products are not produced here, they will be produced somewhere else, because the world is going to need petroleum products for a very long time.

Can members imagine the absurdity of it? Can they imagine trying to get through a pandemic, or even run a hospital during normal times, without any petroleum-based products? The anti-energy zealots in this place should not only stop taking flights or car rides, but should also swear off the use of any plastic products. I defy them to organize a protest without the use of petroleum products.

I would like to now build on the throne speech's references to international development and Canada's role in the world as it relates to my own portfolio as shadow minister for international development and human rights. When it comes to thinking broadly about how to achieve international development, it is critical for us to learn the lessons of history.

Too many of the interactions between the west and the global south during the late 20th century were characterized by a post-colonial echo, in which the worst ideas from the west were promoted and then inflicted on countries in the global south by local elites with the encouragement of some western or European voices, and with the direct support of some international organizations.

Ideas such as communism, state-imposed atheism and coercive family planning all had their genesis in western Europe, and yet they were never fully implemented there, outside of a few fateful months in 1993 and 1994. Generally speaking, while avoided at home, these bad ideas have been imposed in various ways for much longer periods of time on much of the world's poor in Central and Eastern Europe, and in various parts of Asia, Africa, and Central and South America. This echo of colonialism, the use of the developing world to experiment with violent and coercive revolutionary policies, which were never really attempted at home, has led to untold suffering and loss of life.

Revolutionary ideas from the west attacked free enterprise, faith and family. The destruction of pre-existing markets, traditions and family autonomy, with an eye to so-called modernization, obviously did not lead to actual improvements in happiness or quality of life. These experiments were a grand and tragic failure. China's destructive Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and one-child policy are examples of the horrific impacts of this post-colonial echo.

The so-called Great Leap Forward led to between 30 million and 45 million deaths. The Cultural Revolution intentionally turned families against each other in a horrific never-ending show trial of revolutionary purity. These events in China earned Mao the dubious distinction of being the most violent person of the 20th century, but the communism he imposed had its genesis in the west and not in China.

The one-child policy led to forced abortion on a massive scale, as well as large-scale infanticide of baby girls, murdered at the hands of desperate parents who preferred a male child. An estimated 100 million missing women were killed or aborted across Asia as a result of the gendered impacts of coercive family planning.

China's oppressive policies also hampered its development at a time when its neighbours were roaring ahead. Its effects will be enduring, as China deals with skewed sex ratios and a coming demographic winter. Some who work in international development want to talk about a demographic dividend associated with smaller families. However, we are now on the verge of the devastating social impacts that will follow an abrupt aging of the population, which is the result of the steep drop-off in population brought about through coercive family planning.

The one-child policy was not a crime that the government of China committed alone. The United Nations population fund, while claiming to eschew coercive family planning, gave China's government an award for this policy and funded the data collection system that facilitated it. The UN population fund has yet to recognize and apologize for its complicity in this crime.

Conservatives will champion a development policy that holds the UN and other multilateral institutions to account, leverages Canadian expertise and involvement, and promotes partnership with the global south. Rather than seeking to upend existing structures of private enterprise, faith and family, we believe in promoting partnerships that seek to help free enterprise, faith and family to flourish according to their proper nature and purpose. That is the true path to humane development.

We will restore a principled foreign policy that sides with free nations and freedom-seeking peoples against oppressive governments and coercive international institutions. We will oppose all neo-colonial coercive policies, which limit freedom and choice, and we will make the case for the power of free trade and free markets to fight poverty. This will be animated by the idea of solidarity as an individual and community virtue, and not as an excuse for coercive power.

We will support economic growth by seeking to deliver training and financing to the world's poorest entrepreneurs, giving them the capacity to build opportunity for themselves and their families. We will partner with willing nations to strengthen justice systems, fight human trafficking, protect collective security and promote the advancement of propluralism education.

Propluralism education is neither narrowly sectarian nor relativistic; rather, it celebrates the traditions and faith of one's own community as well as the rights and contributions of those with different beliefs. Supporting propluralism education is key to supporting the development of harmonious societies around the world. We will fight to restore Canada's historic role defending religious freedom and communal harmony.

Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada invested more in international development than it does currently. We also gave more to our military, and we even got more votes at the UN. The current government's platitudes tell one story about Canada and the world, but the numbers tell a very different story. The Liberal Party says it will spend more every year on international development, although they have not specified whether that means more in nominal terms, in real terms or as a percentage of gross national income, and currently its contributions are lower than they were under Stephen Harper.

The current government is spending larger and larger portions of our aid through multilateral organizations, instead of working with Canadian charities that engage Canadians directly in the delivery of vital assistance, which are often more efficient. This betrays a lack of confidence on the part of the government in Canada and in Canadian organizations.

Conservatives are building a different vision of how a strong international assistance policy can contribute to the advancement of our values. Conservatives believe that our approach to international development must be characterized by respect for and partnership with the global south, not by the imposition of failed revolutionary doctrines of collectivism.

I hope that 50 years from now Canada's international development budget will be zero, because the goal of international development is to put itself out of business and establish the conditions whereby nations no longer require the generosity of others in order to survive and thrive. Under the Liberals' economic policies, it is more likely that we will be a recipient of development assistance in 50 years, but I hope for a different path. I hope for a day when development assistance will no longer be necessary because reforms have taken place, education and financing have been made available, vestiges of authoritarian oppression have been dismantled, and free people have been able to prosper through their own ingenuity and with the support and help of strong families and communities.

Our strategic and thoughtful support for the right kind of international development today, tied to rigorous accountability and a focus on results, will help us move toward that desired future.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the pandemic. We have been hearing from the Conservatives that, hindsight being 20/20, what we know now, and taking the measures that we now have, should be applied to what was going on in January, February and March in terms of masking, closing borders and airports.

If we could all go back in our time machines to February and March, I would like the hon. member's comments on how well the countries did that focused on border closures as a primary measure, like Italy and the United States, versus how well public health officials did in Canada.