Debates of Oct. 6th, 2020

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see my colleague back in the House.

Let me say that I wish we did not have to spend one cent of this money. I wish we never had this coronavirus pandemic, but we have it. I am so proud of the fact that the Government of Canada took on the task to meet the needs of Canadians. We did not turn our backs on people and say that we spent $100,000 and cannot spend anymore. None of us wants to be spending all this money, but the reality is that if we do not help Canadians now, then when do they need a government? They need a government now when we have a pandemic and that is exactly what we are doing. We are going to do whatever is necessary to help Canadians survive this terrible pandemic.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her fine speech. I heard her talk about what she and her team have done for people during the pandemic. It seems to me that if we all did our jobs properly, what she has described likely represents what the other 337 members of the House did as well.

If she listened carefully to her constituents, she must have learned that while the CERB did indeed help many people, it also hurt businesses because it did not encourage people to go back to work. Businesses called on us to include incentives. However, the government did not listen to the opposition parties or to the suggestions made by the Bloc Québécois.

I must also talk about seniors. If my colleague did indeed listen to her constituents, I am sure that seniors shared their grievances with her. They surely told her that 75 is too far in the future and that they need pensions to be adjusted as early as age 65. In fact, seniors who need their stipend adjusted are already vulnerable by the time they turn 75.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me say that of course we had given all seniors approximately $1,500 of extra support, which they needed through this difficult time. When we are trying to balance out what we can do with a reasonable amount of money, trying to increase the pension from age 65 and on in a way that would help many of those seniors, we utilized the GIS program to the best of our ability. We did make a commitment. We know that when one gets to be 75 years old, for many of these seniors, it becomes very difficult for them. There is an increased number of expenses at that time. We want to make sure that we help them to the extent that we can.

The goal is to help as many Canadians get through this pandemic as possible with as little damage as possible. We are trying to be there to help everybody as much as we can and trying to keep our eye on the balance sheet, because we are very aware of that as well.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech sounds as though it would be a speech at the beginning of a pandemic, not seven months later, when they talk about the positions they are going to have for creating a national standard of care. Members will recall that, as New Democrats, we called for this and many Liberals said we were absurd, yet here we are seven months later with 10,000 deaths, 80% of which are tied to long-term care facilities.

Why will the government not commit to taking profits out of health care as it relates to seniors in long-term care?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear his enthusiasm. I am sure he will work with us and the provinces and territories throughout Canada to ensure that, sooner than later, we get national levels of care so that we can all be proud of how we treat our seniors.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to remind all of my colleagues that the pandemic we are facing has prompted a renewed focus on scientific studies and the mobilization of the entire scientific community around links that may exist between zoonotic diseases, pollution, climate change and the emergence of pandemic phenomena.

Hundreds of specialists were already conducting research into this credible and well-documented area of study. In October 2019, the Canadian Public Health Association released its recommendations on the human health implications of climate change and the urgency to act on climate change.

Publications that have come out over the past few months point to an increased risk of pandemics with the loss of biodiversity. Global warming is altering temperate zones. Other zoonotic diseases are expected to emerge as did Lyme disease. Protecting biodiversity is not a pipe dream. It must be done. Biodiversity is the cornerstone of an effective strategy to address the impacts of climate change.

By giving environmental issues the importance and prominence they deserve, we can take concrete action to prevent zoonotic diseases from becoming pandemics.

I now want to talk about the environmental aspects of the throne speech, found in the section entitled “Taking action on extreme risks from climate change”. I have been the Bloc Québécois's environment critic since mid-March, and I want to point out that it is extremely important for the government to understand that a fair economic recovery and a green economic recovery can easily happen together. There is no doubt that we can work on economic recovery and protect the environment at the same time. However, investing in fossil fuels is not the way to go.

We appreciate that the government realizes pollution requires immediate climate action, as it showed in its throne speech. However, I encourage members to read the Bloc Québécois's recovery plan to learn how we can quickly get moving on climate action.

The Speech from the Throne states, “The Government will immediately bring forward a plan to exceed Canada’s 2030 climate goal. The Government will also legislate Canada’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.”

Madam Speaker, do you know what the problem is with that statement? Canada is not even close to achieving its objectives. Environment Canada's projections show that we may reduce greenhouse gases by 19.5% at most by 2030. This represents a shortfall of 77 megatonnes. We are certainly going to need meaningful action.

Let's begin with legislative measures. The Bloc Québécois, through the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, proposed framework legislation that would require the federal government to meet its own targets. There were promises, targets and projects, and we also see that the international community is critical of Canada's climate inaction with regard to its Paris agreement commitments. Canada's current environmental position is unenviable. It is high time that the government did something about it.

Given the decisions that the government has made since 2015 and all the deregulation that has occurred since the pandemic, it seems urgent and necessary to us that the House support the bill introduced by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

The throne speech indicates that the government “will ensure Canada is the most competitive jurisdiction in the world for clean technology companies”. Clearly, the government will have to put words into action and stop turning a blind eye to environmental issues.

Creating thousands of retrofit jobs? We support that. Investing in reducing the impact of climate-related disasters and figuring out how to adapt? We support that too. Reducing the impact? We agree. We understand that we need an emergency plan in case of disaster. That goes without saying. However, why not start by recognizing the need for prevention?

We must do whatever we can to mitigate climate change and recognize new discoveries from around the world. That would help us move faster.

The throne speech talks about modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Is that not what hundreds of organizations, researchers and reports have been saying we need to do for years?

The 87 recommendations in the 2017 report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development gave Environment Canada an exhaustive look at what needs changing. This is no small task. The mountain is high, but we must climb it. It would be a very bad idea to modernize the act by making a few superficial changes of no real consequence.

The Bloc Québécois certainly welcomes the announcement about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but we want to be sure that this mission will really be taken seriously.

When the report came out, the authors clearly indicated that thousands of people in Canada who are exposed to toxic substances die prematurely and that millions more get preventable diseases. Ideas evolve. The Canadian act has not kept pace with scientific progress.

With the emergence of COVID-19 and concerns about human health and vulnerability to the virus, I implore all my colleagues to recognize the intersectional nature of environmental issues, especially in relation to human health. The challenges of our time demand it.

Another possible path forward would be to pass a zero-emission law modelled after California's legislation. This is a very serious avenue that is having significant, positive effects on human health in relation to pollution levels caused by greenhouse gases. A bill was passed unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly recently. This could serve as a catalyst to increase the availability of electric vehicles in Canada. That was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but companies need to get up to speed and start producing more electric vehicles.

On a slightly different note, it should come as no surprise to anyone, incidentally, that I denounce the elements in the Speech from the Throne relating to the environment because, as they are currently written, they encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

The Bloc Québécois supports protecting nature and green spaces in municipalities as it supports water management. However, it is up to Quebec and the provinces to determine how they want to address these matters. The federal government needs to take care of its own jurisdictional responsibilities, not those of Quebec and the provinces.

In addition to the carefully crafted legislative measures that absolutely must be passed swiftly, there will also be an unavoidable cost to begin the transition to a zero-emissions future. The speech outlines supports, programs and federal funding earmarked for consolidating climate goals. There are similarities to the Bloc Québécois's recovery plan starting with research incentives for developing electric heavy-duty and commercial vehicles. Given Quebec's enviable sectoral development in the field, it definitely needs to benefit from some of that support.

Quebec's SMEs proved to be ingenious, bold and resilient when they got into this industry 15 years ago, when this sector of the economy was emerging. Now, Quebec is North America's transportation electrification hub. A green and fair recovery must recognize the different expertise and strengths the various regions have to offer. We cannot pit one region against another. We must focus on how they complement each other.

I will close by quickly saying a few words about the state of the country's finances. There has indeed been some deficit spending as a result of the pandemic in order to provide help to our constituents. Is it not obscene to carry on with the fantasy of the Trans Mountain project? Who would argue that $12 billion has to stay in this project? Nearly 100 signatories, including Canadian economists, experts and scientists wrote the government on September 16 to say no.

The Bloc Québécois traditionally stands in support of workers. Workers take a lot of flack for the endless aid that is given to the oil sector. In the Bloc Québécois recovery plan, we propose taking this money and allocating it to renewable energy projects in Alberta.

The Speech from the Throne sets out admirable ambitions, but contradictions as well. There is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.

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

Madam Speaker, there are two things I want to ask.

The first is a question I asked of the leader of the member's party a couple of days ago. The member mentioned the oil and gas sector, and I think she and I would both agree that the oil and gas sector is going to play a reduced role in the Canadian economy in the days ahead, as we transition to a low-carbon economy.

Would she recognize that this sector has benefited Canadians from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, and in particular Quebec, in terms of equalization payments, and the fact that a lot of revenue from the oil and gas industry has helped to support Quebeckers?

My second question is on provincial jurisdiction, which the member mentioned. Does she see the federal government as a key contributor in terms of the fight against climate change, or is that best suited to the provinces?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question as it lets me dispel a potential myth about Canadian policies. Oil revenues in no way fund equalization payments. That is not how equalization works. I can dispel this myth. These revenues belong to the provinces.

As for the federal government, we know that the environment is a shared responsibility. The federal government has a role to play, as do the provinces.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about Trans Mountain and the commitments made in the throne speech. The government has given away billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies. It bought a pipeline for $4.6 billion, and it has committed to spending an additional $12 billion.

I am wondering what the member thinks these billions of dollars could be better spent on, if we were to invest in a just and sustainable recovery.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise to my colleague that we believe it is time to put an end to all fossil fuel subsidies.

I am not the one saying so. Canada has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions of all G20 countries. It is time to act. We can see that. There have been fires in British Columbia. There are also fires south of the border in California. Other parts of the world are experiencing flooding. Fossil fuels must stay in the ground. We have heard that repeatedly from most well-known environmentalists and climate change activists around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague, the member for Repentigny.

We have worked together at COPs on climate change negotiations. We are absolutely on the same page when it comes to not only the urgency of climate change, but also the fact that the government did not make the necessary commitments in its throne speech to reduce greenhouse gases in order to protect our civilization from the worst-case scenario.

I would like to ask my colleague and friend about the throne speech and how it says all the right things about climate but fails to include any obligation or commitment to a new target.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The throne speech is full of big ideas, but there is no specific plan. We are calling for specific plans. I have been a member here since 2015. We have been calling for a meaningful, binding plan since 2015. My hon. colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia introduced a bill to force the government to meet its own targets and fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement. Other countries are doing this. People are not fooled by the government's rhetoric. They want action. They see Canada's climate inaction and know that we have a long hill to climb.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, when he was the federal industry minister, the late Jean Lapierre said that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the auto industry is to Ontario. That is true, because we are talking about 40,000 direct jobs, 100,000 indirect jobs, 220 businesses, including 200 SMEs, and $18 billion in sales, of which 80% are exports. It is the leading exporter in Quebec. With 12% of manufacturing exports, Quebec accounts for 50% of jobs, 60% of sales, and 70% of research and development in Canada's aeropace sector. The sector funds 55% of industrial R and D in Quebec. The greater Montreal area is the third-largest aerospace hub on the planet after Seattle, with Boeing, and Toulouse, with Airbus. It is an integrated industry. There are only three places on earth where we can find suppliers capable of providing all the components to build an aircraft from nose to tail. The greater Montreal area is one of them.

Continuing with the statistics, the number of times that the term “aerospace” or “aviation” appears in the Speech from the Throne is zero. This industry is in trouble. It was already struggling, but COVID-19 has made things worse. Certain economic sectors will be affected for longer than others and will need special assistance. The aerospace industry is one of them.

The Speech from the Throne mentions culture, tourism and agriculture. We will see how that goes. We will see if rhetoric becomes reality, but at least they got mentioned.

The aerospace industry is probably one of the most important parts of Quebec's industrial landscape. Airlines are the primary clients of the civilian aerospace sector, and they are struggling. We know that planes have been grounded. There is no maintenance and no replacement parts. Orders for new planes are few and far between, and it will stay that way for years to come. Airlines that submitted orders are postponing taking delivery of the aircraft to avoid having to pay the balance.

Since the spring, 4,000 aerospace jobs have been lost. The industry resigned itself to creating ties with the construction industry so it could send workers there, at the risk of losing expertise and the ability to bounce back. That also means that there are SMEs that might end up closing their doors.

We have always advocated for an aerospace policy. What exactly is an aerospace policy?

I often talk about this, as did several of my predecessors assigned to this file. The government says it has already provided help. However, a real policy means more than providing sporadic help. It means more than providing funding here and there, no matter how much.

I will take the risk of explaining what a real aerospace policy is, in the Parliament of a country that is rather foreign to the concept of economic nationalism. Very few sectors are protected and supported and have a real strategy dedicated to them. The aerospace sector should be one of them.

Of all the countries with a significant aerospace industry, Canada is the only one without a policy to support its development. That is why the Bloc Québécois plans to raise this issue before the standing committee on industry in order to identify the challenges and the vision needed, thereby forcing the government's hand.

An aerospace policy means, first and foremost, a space where all stakeholders, including companies, workers and governments, have a seat at the table to convey their realities and needs. Ottawa already does this for the auto industry. It also means specific programs tailored to the reality of the sector. It means predictable support that allows stakeholders to anticipate and commit to longer-term projects. Of course, it requires a comprehensive vision that encompasses all the links in the chain, including a military procurement policy that strengthens the entire cluster. It means sharing the risks associated with the biggest projects. It means reviewing R and D support programs to ensure they are better adapted. It means credit for purchasers that buy aircraft from us.

Now, what do we want?

I want to suggest some ideas that we could put forward and debate. However, we would have liked to have seen some initial thoughts on this in the throne speech.

For example, there is recycling. To reduce the cost of keeping its planes airworthy, Air Canada removed 80 planes from its fleet. They are going to be sent to an aircraft boneyard in the Arizona desert. However, there is a company in Mirabel that dismantles and recycles planes. It is the only such company that is certified in North America.

The accelerated removal of aircraft presents an opportunity if Ottawa decides to place environmental conditions on its assistance to airlines. This is in keeping with the very appropriate proposal put forward by my colleague from Repentigny. Hundreds of technicians could continue to work in the field rather than having to seek work elsewhere until things take off again.

With regard to climate change, France put a condition on its seven-billion-euro bailout for Air France. Air France was told that the assistance was conditional on the preparation of a plan to make its fleet greener. If Ottawa had a similar program, it would guarantee sales of the A220, which is built in Mirabel and is the most fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly aircraft in its class. In Quebec, going green pays off.

I also want to talk about maintenance. Over the years, airlines have outsourced most of the heavy maintenance on their aircraft. The closure of the Air Canada maintenance centres in the late 2000s cost this country 3,600 jobs, 2,500 of which were in Quebec. Members will recall the Aveos saga. Today, those same airlines are knocking on the government's door looking for an aid package. We could take advantage of that to rebuild our industrial sector.

Of course, they need cash flow too. We can expect major buyers to slow their activities during the crisis but to get through it eventually. Unfortunately, for the 200 SMEs in this sector that supply parts and components, the future is much less certain. If a supplier goes out of business, the part it supplies will not be available for planes. We are in danger of losing our ability to build an aircraft from nose to tail, which is something we are proud of and known for.

As I was saying, only three places in the world have that ability, and the greater Montreal area is one of them. The sector is highly integrated, so only an integrated policy will properly address its unique characteristics.

We need loans for buyers too. Airlines that have A220s are pretty much flying only those planes. Not only are they more fuel efficient, making them cheaper to fly, but they are also well suited to the pandemic. The A220 is the only plane that can replace the cabin air in flight. Other planes recycle their air. I am sure we can all agree that that is a priceless advantage during a pandemic.

Airlines with no cash flow are not accepting delivery of the aircraft they ordered so that they do not have to pay the balance. The yard next to the plant in Mirabel is full. There are 16 aircraft parked there, ready for delivery, because the buyers cannot yet take possession. If they had credit, there is a good chance that they would do so. That would be a solution.

We must also consider the defence sector. A number of businesses in the aerospace industry supply to both the civilian and defence sectors, in the areas of manufacturing and maintenance. Logically, the defence sector is less dependent on economic cycles than many other sectors. It provides more stable revenue, which helps companies through crises. Ottawa is preparing to replace its aging CF-18s. Strict local content requirements would give our industry a much-needed boost.

I also want to talk about research and development. The aerospace industry is very technology intensive. Designing an aircraft can take 10 to 15 years. The research and development of an aircraft is paid off in the years the aircraft is on the market. Under this business model, revenue pays for the previous research project, but what company is going to go into more debt to work on the next project? To reap the technological spinoffs, SMEs need to get in on a project during the early phases to design the part they will supply to the contract givers once the aircraft goes to market. They also need to incur debt in order to participate.

In times of crisis, research is the first thing a company will cut, since there is no immediate return on investment. This business decision makes complete sense. No one would disagree that the research and development tax credit is a good thing, but it does not generate cash flow in times of crisis. Direct assistance is required if we want to keep our companies from being downgraded once we emerge from this crisis.

Of course, better tailored programs are needed. The research and development tax credit provides assistance for the development of a new product, but it is not available to those who want to improve an existing product. It should also be noted that this credit does not cover everything. For example, it does not cover costs such as—

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

I am sorry, but your time is up.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

For years, the NDP, just like the Bloc Québécois, has been calling for a pan-Canadian aerospace and aviation strategy. I believe that my colleague was going to discuss this. We must understand that Canada is at a disadvantage compared to other countries such as France, the United States and Brazil, whose governments invest heavily in the aerospace and aviation industries through their military expenditures. That is not the case for Canadian companies. In those countries, the entire research and development process falls under military spending. Here, we do not have a level playing field, which puts us at a disadvantage.

In fact, all the research and development credits are currently inadequate. We do not have the government support needed to keep this flagship of Quebec industry or the province's good jobs.

I would like my colleague to continue talking about research and development and the government's support.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question since it allows me to pick up where I left off. I was on a roll and now I can keep going.

In the aerospace sector, adjustments are constantly being made throughout the entire life cycle of an aircraft. Credit for research and development is not adapted to that.

As I was saying, credit for research and development does not cover everything. For example, obtaining a patent and certification and the cost of precision devices that are needed for product development are not covered. In short, the credit is ill-suited.

The emergency wage subsidy is also ill-suited. In June, the finance minister had to adopt it by an order in council. That was done at the very last minute. It is just another sign that the program is ill-suited to our sector.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I forgot to put on my tie. If you want me to put it on now I will do so right away. This can be part of the blooper reel.

With regard to protecting aerospace businesses, the broader issue is that businesses in general need to be protected.

Would the hon. member like to add anything about the Investment Canada Act?

Are our businesses being adequately protected by the current actions of the federal government?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and I hope he is not featured on Infoman this week. He had a very nice tie.

With respect to the Investment Canada Act, that would obviously be another aspect to watch closely. It is not particularly well suited, although it is already in effect, so when a transaction occurs, it does carry some weight. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry must comply with it.

Is the threshold inadequate? Probably, and it certainly warrants further study. I am sure my colleague, who is the industry critic, will do so brilliantly in the near future.

We do not have to look far for a model of national aviation support policies that has proven to work very well. Of course I am talking about the Quebec model. Quebec has established all the tools needed to support—

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

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite frustrated with the throne speech, as I am sure the member is, since the Bloc is not supportive of it. The most frustrating thing for me was the time in which the House of Commons was prorogued. The timing of it was very suspect. Then when I saw the Speech from the Throne, there was nothing new in it.

I told my constituents back home that I expected a big bold vision. I did not expect that I would agree with all parts of it, but I did expect something new and bold. None of that was in the speech from the throne.

Could the member comment on the boldness of the Speech from the Throne and the timing?

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

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for a very brief response.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, brief answers are not really in my nature, but I will try.

During a speech last week, I had an opportunity to speak out against that approach, which made no sense at all. When our work here is adjourned, we can come back a few days later and restart the House. Instead, we waited three months for an empty throne speech. Well, it was not exactly empty; it was full of interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, so I suppose it did have some content. Basically, we agree that the approach was unacceptable.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Aerospace Industry; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Seniors.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

While this is not the first time I have spoken in reply to a Speech from the Throne, it is certainly the first time I have done so from Halifax, my hometown, the place that I love and fight for and the community that I am so humbled to represent in Canada’s House of Commons. Today I am more proud of my hometown than ever.

Over the last six months, the strong sense of community that has propelled our city’s success over the last decade, with neighbours brought together by a shared purpose and pride of place, has been our strength and reassurance in a time of great uncertainty.

At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted our way of life, where we work, when we see our families and friends, how we enjoy our city’s shops, restaurants, recreational sites and attractions, I have found great comfort and inspiration in Haligonians’ commitment to one another. Heeding the calls from our trusted public health officials, though not without sacrifice, Halifax has weathered the storm of the pandemic together.

I come to the House from a province that has seen, at different points during the spring, consecutive weeks at a time of no new cases, including today. Together with our Atlantic Canadian neighbours, we have come out of the first wave of the pandemic as one of the safest places in the Americas and as an example for the world. The key factor in our successful response has surely been our people: health care professionals who care for the sick, essential workers who put themselves at risk to keep the rest of us going, and neighbours helping neighbours.

During the lockdown, I received many letters, calls and emails from constituents who wanted to recognize the kindness of their neighbours. With their permission, I would like to read a couple:

Lauren Hutton wrote of her friend Ann Marie Danch:

Ann Marie has made many, probably a hundred by now, cloth masks and surgical caps for friends and family, some who work at Northwood [Seniors Centre], run small businesses or work in essential services, and she’s still going!

Susan Smith wrote of her brother-in-law, Ron Griffiths:

I am the caregiver of my 92 year old mom and was very nervous about going out as I was scared I’d bring COVID-19 home to her. Ron ran all my errands, shopping, did work in my yard and was here for us 100%.

Katie Ells wrote of Graciella Clarone:

Miss Graciella brings me fresh vegetables every week. She checks in on me every couple of days, knowing I am alone and high risk. I know she does this for many people. Without Miss G, I don’t know how I would get through this “stay home” order.

Of course we have not been entirely spared this terrible virus. Sadly, we mourn the loss of 65 Nova Scotians who succumbed to COVID-19. This number is too high. One person lost is too many. I want those families to know that our city holds them in our thoughts and in our hearts.

We also know that we need to do better in our long-term care system in Nova Scotia. The province is actively working, with support from the federal government, to ensure that we have the equipment we need to protect the seniors who live in these facilities. After all, as governments rely on the hard work of everyday citizens to get through this crisis, citizens are relying on us, as government and parliamentarians, to lead.

That brings me to the government’s agenda, as laid out in the Speech from the Throne. It is difficult to believe it was only 10 months ago that we gathered in the red chamber to hear the speech that kicked off the first session of this 43rd Parliament. The world feels like a much different place than it did on that day last December and, in fact, very different from this time a year ago when I, and all of us, were on the campaign trail, asking Canadians for their trust. At the end of that campaign, Canadians re-elected our Liberal government for its strong record and our bold, hopeful plan for the future of this country.

In that election, Canadians looked at our achievements as a government, from creating a million new jobs, to enacting the strongest climate plan of any government in Canadian history; to our historic investments in community infrastructure, transit, and housing; to our important work on reconciliation, restoring Canada’s place on the world stage; and to the advancement of gender equality in all sectors of our society.

Canadians looked at our record and they re-elected a Liberal government. They looked at our vision for the future: a net-zero-emissions future, ambitious conservation goals, national pharmacare, more affordable child care, more support for our seniors, lower taxes for clean tech, and continued investments in the communities that we call home. Canadians looked at our plan and they re-elected a Liberal government.

Yes, times have changed. Priorities have shifted, and new challenges have risen to the top, but I want all Canadians to know that we are that same government. We are the government with a strong record of results and a bold plan for the future. Now we are the government that has led Canada through the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are also the government that will see us through to the other side, to a strong recovery and to brighter, sunnier days. In March, at the outset of the pandemic, we promised we would be there for Canadians. We have kept that promise.

We put workers first with the Canada emergency response benefit, ensuring people had money to put food on the table and cover their bills. We provided small businesses with quick access to capital through the Canada emergency business account. We made sure people could keep their jobs and keep their businesses running with the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

We topped up the GST credit, OAS and the Canada child benefit to help Canadians get by. We are helping people with disabilities with a special one-time payment. We have stepped up for charities and non-profits, and for cultural and heritage organizations. We have provided much needed relief for the provinces and municipalities.

Now, we find ourselves at a critical juncture, not only in the timeline of this pandemic, but in the history of Canada. Our next steps will determine the kind of Canada in which our parents will live out the rest of their lives, and the kind of Canada in which our kids will grow up.

We are at a crossroads, and the Speech from the Throne illuminates the path that leads toward progress and prosperity for Canada. It seeks to build a fairer Canada, where no one gets left behind or falls through the cracks; a more resilient and sustainable Canada, one that is clear-eyed about the challenge of climate change and what it will take to fight it; and a healthy Canada that protects and cares for its citizens, as we persevere through a deadly global pandemic.

The Speech from the Throne lays the foundation for a once-in-a-generation, transformational shift in Canada to build toward a Canada-wide early learning and child care system; to set new, national standards for long-term care; to introduce a new Canadian disability benefit, invest more in housing and commit to entirely eliminating chronic homelessness in Canada.

We are making the largest investment in Canadian history in training for workers, and making a commitment to create one million jobs. We are moving forward with the clean power fund, including projects like the Atlantic loop, which will connect surplus clean power to regions transitioning away from coal. We will modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We will continue the fight to dismantle systemic racism in our country through measures like law enforcement reform, including enhanced civilian oversight, modernized training and a shift to community policing. We promise all of this and more, on top of critical investments in public health to support our provincial partners through the COVID-19 pandemic.

I mentioned earlier that Canadians put their trust in our record and in our plan when they re-elected the Liberal government last October. Of course, it is also true that we were returned to Parliament as a minority. The message to all parties was clear: Canadians want us to work together.

I hope Canadians see that, on this side of the House, we have heard their message loud and clear. As a government, we have worked respectfully and meaningfully with opposition parties on areas of shared interest. We have shown that we are a collaborative, flexible government that works with any party in the House that puts Canadians first, ahead of posturing and politics.

Sadly, the Conservative opposition has chosen a different approach. They have chosen a self-serving agenda that seeks to tear down rather than build up. They would rather play games, and try to score political points, than work in the interests of Canadians. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition push a divisive narrative that does nothing to bring our vast nation together in this time of crisis, choosing instead to disrespect the Canadians who sent us here to find common ground. He is choosing instead to begin his tenure as leader by planting seeds of division all across our country. He is choosing instead to leave the millions of hard-working, middle-class Canadians who voted for his party in the lurch as they have called out for help. He does this all because it served his party better to play politics.

However, we have seen this cynical trick before, and Canadians will see through it. Instead, they will find pride in a Liberal government that is working hard for them, in partnership with other willing parties, to put their health first. We are working hard to keep families afloat, to fight climate change, to bring joy back to our streets and to build back better.

That is the plan we have outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and it will be a privilege to cast my vote on behalf of the good people of Halifax in favour of the hopeful vision it lays out for our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the Speech from the Throne talked about phasing out particular jobs, specifically jobs from my neck of the woods.

Could my colleague lay out his record on whether he thought that oil field workers' jobs should be phased out? I can tell the people back home that I will be working hard to phase out all the jobs of all the Liberal MPs.