House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.

Topics

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that the throne speech and the government are laying out a plan to make sure Canadians have jobs through the recovery of the pandemic period and through the transition to a low-carbon economy. We are undertaking the largest upskilling and retraining of Canadian workers in the history of our country, and no one will be left behind as we move to a cleaner, smarter future.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I am about to side with the Conservatives. This is a big day.

In his speech, my colleague said that the Conservatives are not team players. He accused them of refusing to work as a team. That makes me wonder. Does my colleague think teamwork means encroaching on other people's jurisdiction when the government should actually be handing over funds so those people can manage that money themselves?

Ottawa decided to hang on to health transfers and not transfer that money despite repeated requests and consensus on the part of Quebec and the provinces. Is that his definition of teamwork? I would like him to clarify what he means by teamwork. On this side of the House, we have not really been seeing much of that lately.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry to hear that my colleague feels he needs to speak in favour of the Conservative position on this throne speech. We will be able to show him and his party many great reasons to support the throne speech and to win his admiration for the plan going forward.

In terms of provincial jurisdiction, the Prime Minister was extremely clear that he chooses to partner with provinces in areas of mutual interest to advance recovery, grow the economy and recreate jobs, without treading on the jurisdiction of provincial governments. Given time, I am sure all members in the House will see that our intention will be played out in our actions.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned many times, and I have heard this many times in the House from the Liberals' side, that nobody is to be left behind. I find I am having difficulty with this, because it has been seven months now and people are still waiting for disability payments. They have been left behind, and they have had increases also. This is something that was supposed to happen in June.

The Liberal government talks about seniors and how much work it has done, but it wants to give them an increase in benefits for those aged 75 or older. What do we do with the seniors who are over 65 and only get the OAS and the GIS? Could my hon. friend tell me why these people are being left behind?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, I share the member's deep concern both for people living with disabilities and for seniors in Canada. I am very proud of the fact that the throne speech announced a new Canada disability benefit. It is going to have a major impact on people living with disabilities in Canada.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we have helped seniors in a variety of ways, with no fewer than two one-time boosts to their benefits and, as the member mentioned, an increase to benefits for those who have reached the age of 75. We are focused, as this government has always been focused, on helping those who need it most first. That is what the throne speech sets out to do.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, the member for Halifax is a champion for urban areas across the country. I would like to ask him about the impact we have seen in urban communities and what the safe restart agreement means for support for municipalities, as well as what some municipal leaders may be saying about it.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, we have seen in urban, suburban and rural communities that their main streets have been devastated by the economic fallout of this COVID-19 pandemic. Our government is committed to helping businesses, employees and individuals to recover economically from this fallout and put our main streets back into the powerful position they have held and deserve to keep in the economies of our communities and provinces rolling forward.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Madam Speaker, our government's throne speech and this debate come at a time when Canadians, and certainly those of us in Fleetwood—Port Kells, are paying more attention than usual to their governments. Of course, this is because these are exceedingly unusual times. These are times when we are experiencing a great reunderstanding of the role of government in the lives of our citizens.

Starting about 50 years ago, people in western Europe and most of the Americas looked for a new balance of influence, one that leaned toward smaller governments. This was after a long period during which those living through the Depression, the world war and recovery had seen national governments calling the shots on how the human, material and financial resources of the nation would be directed.

Now we find ourselves here, at a time when flaws in the free market and the weakness of globalization have shaken the ability of governments to maintain the resiliency needed to deal with the social and economic shocks of the pandemic. These have all combined to have us once again looking to government for leadership, ideas, the willingness to act and hope. That is what our government's Speech from the Throne intended to deliver.

We in Canada have certain advantages that have helped us manage the challenges this year has thrown at us. One of them is that, by and large, Canadians tend to believe in the power of the common good. We are generally prepared to set aside self-interest and assume some duty to act selflessly to help our neighbours. We know that when it is necessary, we draw lines in the sand and stand up for our values, principles and ideologies, because we honestly believe they represent the best direction for the country, but we have also demonstrated the good sense to set that all aside and pull together when efforts toward a common cause are needed.

Our colleagues in the opposition have disagreed with some of the steps this government has taken in response to the social and economic damages inflicted by the pandemic, but when it really counted, the whole lot of us have worked to make our national response to the pandemic better. When so many countries have been torn by partisan political conflict, which stalled action in the public interest, Canadians have been able to count on us to act quickly. They understand the need to make course corrections as we go.

Another advantage we have is the lessons history has taught us in supporting Canadians in times like this. The economic shock we experienced this year looks very much like the sudden and drastic shock of the collapse of the stock markets in 1929, but our response this time is different. In the early 1930s, prime minister R. B. Bennett looked to Conservative ideology and decided that austerity was the right strategy. That served only to deepen the breadth and depth of the misery Canadians experienced in the so-called Great Depression. My parents lived through it and, believe me, there was nothing great about it.

In 2008, unchecked excesses in our financial markets had the world teetering on economic collapse. This time, though, the Canadian government and prime minister Stephen Harper reacted in an un-Conservative way, going into deficit to stimulate the economy and take up some of the economic slack.

There are, however, some things to learn from that experience, too. While Canadians escaped the kind of suffering experienced by our neighbours to the south, the malaise was not cured. Indeed, by the summer of 2015, Canada was still technically in a recession and unemployment was stubbornly high. Mr. Harper had reassumed his conservatism and believed that balancing the budget was what the country needed. His stimulus was too little, and it ended too soon.

This time, the government has had the benefit of those experiences, and what we have learned, we have applied, but more than that, the strategies we brought to government in 2015 have served as a major advantage for Canada. Those deficits we recorded from 2015 to 2019 were not a response to an economic emergency. They were funding investments and, like all good investments, they delivered dividends. The total deficit in the first term was about $60 billion. Canada's GDP grew by just over $180 billion. If we like, we could claim a 300% return on that investment.

Unlike the Conservative stimulus package in 2008-09, which funded projects across the country, the deficits in our first term were divided between infrastructure expansion designed to increase Canada's productivity and the economic well-being of Canadian families.

Our income-tested Canada child benefit delivers help to the families that need it the most, the families that shop at the local stores and boost the local economy. We should not overlook what the Canada child benefit has meant to families in these tough times.

Our economic performance from 2015 to 2019 included the creation of over a million new jobs, real wage growth for the first time in a decade or more, hundreds of thousands of people lifted out of poverty and, by the way, a lift in government revenues, all without raising taxes and the program cuts that define the Harper years.

Something else we learned coming into the pandemic is that growing the economy and working to share the wealth more equitably means families and governments alike can do more. The things we learned, the things we proved prior to and after the pandemic shutdown in March, are now helping Canadians through another round of tough times, so let us recap them.

First, from the response to the stock market crash in 1929, we know this is not the time for austerity. Members may recall this being mentioned in the throne speech. From the response to the financial collapse in 2008, we learned we have to commit to doing what it takes to help Canadians and to take the country through recovery and beyond.

We have proven that support focused on helping middle-class families and the families struggling to get to the middle class does more to deliver well-being, confidence and hope than tax cuts for big business and the wealthy. A strong middle class is good for everybody.

All of us in this place have proven that when the welfare of the country is on the line, we are all team Canada, where a good idea does not care who has it. The quick delivery of benefits is critical. We cannot let perfection be the enemy of good. We have learned that while globalization has done much to lift the prospects of people across the world, we cannot count on it when nations act in their own natural self-interest and fail other nations that depend on them for vitally needed products, such as masks, gowns and gloves. Sovereignty means self-reliance.

We knew that ignoring the problem of conditions in long-term care facilities would come back to haunt us. Some lessons are hard to learn and come too late. As a government, we know that our ability to fund the support Canadians need at historically low interest rates is far better than the ability of families that would have no alternative to credit card debt.

Even adding on the borrowing for pandemic supports, low interest rates today mean Canada's annual debt servicing costs are billions of dollars lower than they were last fall. We can and have locked in these historically low rates for decades, and this makes sense for the nation when families would pay 19% interest on credit card balances.

We know that, with some notable exceptions, Canadians will do what is necessary for the sake of their neighbours and the good of the country. Social distancing, wearing masks and not holding big parties are not onerous gestures.

There is one other thing we know. We have an opportunity, one that this government believes we must take now, to reformat our post-pandemic economy. We are wasting too many valuable human resources in Canada with so many of us working precariously in the so-called gig economy. We can do better than re-establishing those conditions. We cannot pass on the opportunity to build and bolster in a number of sections.

That includes the low-carbon economy. The major oil companies get it. They are leading the transition in many cases. Our government's support for Canada's energy sector must build on that for the sake of good jobs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and northeast B.C., and for the sake of our climate and the future of life on this planet. This too was incorporated into the Speech from the Throne.

Help will be on the way for our tourism and hospitality sectors. Our commitment to a national pharmacare program still stands. Family reunification is a priority, more important than ever in such an uncertain world.

Like all throne speeches, the one we heard last week provided the country with a strong commitment to deal with the challenges of the day and a high-level vision for where we think the nation needs to go. Day by day, the details are emerging on programs that signal our commitment to do what it takes to protect the health of Canadians, our communities and our economy.

The next step is to build on the foundation we have laid over the past five years to realize the full value of our natural national advantages. If members listened carefully they would have heard the essential elements of leadership, creativity, collaboration, flexibility, resiliency and thoughtfulness. These are not the exclusive property of the party in power. This is what Canadians have a right to expect from all of us in this place.

Yes, we will have different ideas about what to do and how to do them. Canadians will benefit from a healthy exchange of ideas, but the signals we send to our citizens must unfailingly give them not just the hope but also the confidence that their Parliament will work as a community of purpose for their common good.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question. Unemployment in Canada is three points higher than the OECD average. Today it is the highest in the G7, of all our major competitors. The member waxes with a lovely monologue about all the spending, but the results are not there. Why?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Madam Speaker, one statistic does not tell the whole story. We have recovered two-thirds of the jobs we lost. Most of the jobs that have not been recovered are in the gig economy. These are precarious jobs and the investment needed right now will mean turning many of these jobs into something that will be more fulfilling and more rewarding for the individuals working at them and their families. We do not want to go back to where we were in January and February where people were working at part-time jobs, with minimum wage, no benefits and no future. We can do better than that for those people. That is what we have to focus on.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, my question is simple.

With all due respect, in the umpteenth version of the throne speech, the member said that, if we want sovereignty, we need to be independent. I completely agree with him. That is why Quebec wants to be fully independent as a nation.

I therefore want to ask a question about the vision, or lack thereof, in this throne speech when it comes to national standards for long-term care facilities.

How can the federal government impose standards on the provinces? For example, is it up to the federal government to decide how many health care providers work in our long-term care facilities? Is it up to the federal government to dictate delivery of care to the provinces? No. In our opinion, the federal government's role is to transfer in a sustainable way the money needed to meet these health care needs.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member needs to realize that we are truly in this together. We are a nation. We are all Canadians. The fact is that the Canadian Armed Forces went into health care facilities in Quebec because that system collapsed to the detriment and suffering of many seniors. We should work together. This is not just a matter of “let us do your thing and go on your own merry way”. No, we went into this together and we need to work our way out of it together. That is the best way forward.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Madam Speaker, my friend mentioned, and there are many people on his side who have mentioned, that no one be left behind and we on this side agree with him 100%, that no one should be left behind. However, we realize that the people aged 75 or older also need help as mentioned in the throne speech. What we do not agree with is the people who are aged 65 and older have the same problems as the people who are 75 and older, but the government wants to leave them behind. What is it? Is it just a certain group that are allowed to be left behind? Is that what Liberals want or is it that no one be left behind?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Madam Speaker, I like that question because it highlights a challenge that emerged as a result of the pandemic and that is the fact there are many foundational systemic problems that were laid bare by the suffering of the pandemic. There was a huge temptation to try to address those at the same time that we were delivering emergency help to people in many sectors. That would include our seniors. We have to do better for our seniors, there is no doubt about it.

That is what we do next. That is something that we should not lose. We should not lose the fact that our seniors are suffering, that they need more support and that the investment necessary to lift them up with all Canadians is definitely necessary. I would invite my friend across the way to collaborate with us on the best ways to get that done because it does need to be done.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, the government has had some foreign policy accomplishments. It has continued Operation Reassurance in eastern Europe and Operation Unifier in Ukraine, both military missions that we support. In trade, the new USMCA was concluded, a mostly defensive outcome that will see drop of 0.4% in real GDP relative to NAFTA, as outlined by the C.D. Howe Institute. A trade agreement with the European Union was also concluded, but, it must be said, it was largely negotiated under the previous government. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, also largely negotiated under the previous government, was concluded, but it was almost upended by the Prime Minister, who failed to show up at a meeting for 10 heads of government at the apex summit in Vietnam in November 2017.

However, whatever hope Canada had in starting trade talks with India was lost in the embarrassing antics of the Prime Minister during his eight-day trip to the world's fifth-largest economy. So, too, it was with trade talks with China, when he opened with the progressive proposal on the environment, labour and gender rights, all non-starters for China. The deal was over before it had even begun.

In general, the government's foreign policy has been a disappointment. The Speech from the Throne does nothing to change that.

The government came to office with a big commitment to resurrect Canadian peacekeeping.

It sent hundreds of peacekeepers and hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars to Mali. As in many other cases with this government, these efforts were made for only a short time, barely a year. The government then lost interest in helping this country, as well as the political will to do so.

Now, just one year after the mission has ended, there has been a coup in Mali, with the government replaced by a military junta.

The previous foreign minister mentioned the rise of populism and distrust of the global economy as one of the two big challenges in foreign policy. She pointed at her government's economic plan as a solution. After five years in power, we can judge.

The Canadian economy was in trouble before the pandemic had hit, with record-high levels of household debt. The OECD and the IMF predict that we will have a deeper recession and a slower recovery than our economic peers, an economy with the highest unemployment in the G7 and a middle class that is further behind today than it was in 2015. Under the current Prime Minister, Canada has become less prosperous, less united and less respected on the world stage.

The government came to office in 2015, telling the world that Canada is back, but the facts say otherwise. Canada lost its vote for the UN Security Council seat last June. It got 108 votes, six fewer than it got a decade ago. That is six fewer countries in the world today that see Canada as a leader on the global stage. That is a quantitative and identifiable indictment of the current government's foreign policy.

The government came to office saying it was going to make Canada a global leader in helping the poorest around the world. The opposite has happened. Under the current government, official development assistance has declined. Under the previous Conservative government, ODA averaged 0.3% of GDP for the 10 years that government was in office. During the current government, it has averaged 0.27%, a 10% decline.

Bob Rae called out the government on its failure in foreign aid in a damning indictment. About Canada's ODA target number, he said, “Canada has never come close to that number, and if our rate this year looks slightly better than last year's, it is only because the GNI number is stagnant, if not declining. Despite this record, Canadians think of their country as generous, and deeply engaged on the international front.”

On climate change, the current government has been a disappointment. It came to office promising to do better, but the facts say otherwise. In 2016, the first full year the current government was in office, emissions were 708 megatonnes. In 2018, the last year for which we have data, emissions jumped to 729 megatonnes. Canada's emissions are increasing, yet the government said in the Speech from the Throne that it will not only meet the Paris targets, it will exceed them, yet again, another yawning gap between rhetoric and reality.

The Liberal government's foreign policy has been incoherent and inconsistent. For example, China is not upholding its responsibility to the rules-based international system. It is ignoring its condition of entry into the WTO. It interferes through its state-owned enterprises. It infringes on intellectual property, and it engages in cyberwarfare. It violates human rights in international treaties, and in its treatment of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, the Uighurs and the people of Hong Kong. In short, it is threatening our interests and our values.

In that context, it is really important that the government speak with a consistent, coherent voice. Unfortunately, that is not happening.

In July, the foreign affairs minister told this House that he was looking at sanctions on Chinese officials, and a day later the government told Reuters that is off the table. Just two weeks ago, the foreign affairs minister told the Globe that trade talks with China were off the table, the same day Ambassador Barton said that we should expand trade and do more in China.

These are some of many examples.

The government acknowledges its China policy is broken. That is why it is supposed to come forward this fall with a new framework, but I am not confident it is going to address the problem. Here is why. Foreign policy starts with who we are. It is about our projection abroad of what we are all about. The problem is that the Prime Minister has said that Canada has no core identity, that we are just a collection of different groups, that we are the first post-national state.

I could not disagree more. Canada is not simply a collection of different groups with no common identity or common purpose. We as Canadians are some 37 million citizens who live on the north half of this vast continent, who share together a common identity and common purpose, a shared citizenship, rooted in our two official languages, our shared history, our collective institutions and our future together. That is who we are as Canadians.

The problem with the Liberals' foreign policy is, if they do not know who they are, then their foreign policy will reflect that.

Let me finish by saying this: foreign affairs matter. I know this first-hand. At the start of the Second World War, a young Chinese boy was defended by Canadian soldiers in Hong Kong. Half of them died or were wounded. At the end of that same war, a young Dutch girl was liberated by Canadian soldiers in the Netherlands. Some 7,500 of their comrades never came back home, and died in the canals, the fields and the villages of the Netherlands. That Dutch girl and that Chinese boy were my parents.

They came to Canada in search of a better life. They believed in Canada. They believe in our nation's ability, generation after generation, to look beyond a person's colour or their creed, to harness their ambition to build a better Canada.

That is also true of the millions of Canadians who came to Canada over the past few decades or in the more distant past to make this country our home and native land, to build a better life for themselves and their children, to build a better Canada.

This is a nation whose founders, just 150 years ago, came together to build a new country. They built a Constitution and a democratic system that endured to this day, a Constitution that has enshrined timeless values and principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

They made Canada a free, prosperous and united country that was able to overcome divisions based on language, religion or ethnicity.

This is the Canada we must stand for, here and abroad. This is the Canada the government must stand for, here and abroad.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member's speech, which as always is very thoughtful.

The member was negative on Canada's ability to meet its Paris targets. I was wondering if he was aware of the report that came out of Queen's University this week, out of its Institute for Sustainable Finance, that concluded that we can reach our targets with about $120 billion in investment, of which about half could come from the private sector.

When I read that, it made me think of the throne speech which mentions that the government will be creating a clean energy fund, and will be using the Canada Infrastructure Bank to leverage private capital towards achieving a greener future.

I think this report offers a lot of hope, and a bit of a path forward. I would like to hear the member's comments vis-à-vis that report.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, climate change is one of our biggest foreign policy challenges. I read the report that came out of Queen's University, but we are a long way from our Paris targets. Our target is 523 megatonnes and we have nine short years to reach that.

With the path we are currently on, with all the measures that have been implemented to date, all the analysis demonstrates that we are not on track to meet those targets. Therefore, I am skeptical about the rhetoric in the Speech from the Throne that Canada will not only meet its Paris targets, but in fact exceed them. I will wait for legislative and other measures the government brings forward, but the track record does not suggest a lot of optimism.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, in his speech my colleague spoke a great deal about international organizations.

However, unless I missed it, I heard nothing about the WHO, the World Health Organization. We know that the United States has withdrawn from the WHO and that Canada has received a request from the European Union to increase its contribution to the WHO. I would like to know the position of my colleague and his party on this.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, we support the WHO. I believe that this organization is very important in a world currently in the throes of a major pandemic.

We also support the role of Taiwan in this organization. I spoke with my Taiwanese counterpart here, in Ottawa, to tell him that the Conservatives support Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO because, in my opinion, Taiwan did a good job dealing with this pandemic.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his appointment as the foreign affairs critic.

Unless I am mistaken, I am not sure I heard my colleague's views on Canada's relationship with Saudi Arabia. He mentioned some of the very serious transgressions of human rights in the world. With Saudi Arabia, we have an absolute monarchy. Not only is it not a democracy, it does not even allow its citizens to vote. It is a known misogynist country. It is interfering in neighbouring Yemen, where we have maybe the largest humanitarian catastrophe on the planet, with children starving and civilians being bombed. We know that the Saudi Arabian government was responsible for murdering a journalist in Europe.

Does my colleague have any comment about what his party's position is on what Canada's relationship should be with Saudi Arabia? Does he agree with me that we should be putting sanctions on a country like Saudi Arabia, which is violating human rights so egregiously?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, the government needs to uphold its obligations under domestic law, under the law concerning export and import permits for military exports and imports, and it needs to uphold its international obligations under the arms treaty. The government has been inconsistent in upholding those obligations.

The member mentioned Saudi Arabia, but there is another present example this week of Turkey. A year ago, the government halted exports of military equipment to Turkey out of concern that it was failing to uphold its obligations as a NATO member. Last April/May, it reinstated the approvals for those permits, and exports have allegedly gone to Turkey. These are being used in Azerbaijan in the conflict currently unfolding in the Caucasus. Then several days ago it reversed course yet again and put another halt to the export of permits.

It seems to me that the government is not upholding its obligations under domestic and international law.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to give a shout-out to my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. I congratulate him on his fantastic speech. I have had the honour of serving with him for over five years now.

This is a unique situation. We are in a hybrid situation. I am speaking from my hometown of Williams Lake, where I am very proud to be from, in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

I could comment a lot on the Speech from the Throne, but as October 4 to 10 is Mental Illness Awareness Week, it has provided us a unique opportunity to view this global pandemic through the mental health lens. Now more than ever we need to turn our focus and see mental health in parity with physical health. Looking at COVID, the Speech from the Throne fell short in many ways, and I will focus my speech on that.

I want to take members back to January 27 when I first raised the issue of COVID-19 with the government, and I was summarily dismissed by the Minister of Health. I was told that it was not an issue. I and my Conservative colleagues and other colleagues from the opposition were fearmongering. I was wrong to suggest that we needed to do more as a country. I was wrong to suggest that we needed to really focus. We were taking a non-partisan approach and we were challenging the government to look at and prepare us for what was eventually to come. The warning signs were there. The opposition saw it. I am not quite sure why the government did not see it coming.

We know that prolonged isolation and physical distancing have a detrimental effect on mental health. From personal experience, the effects of this pandemic have been extremely detrimental. Our colleagues on all sides, and who are speaking all across our country, are hearing heart-breaking stories. They are talking with their constituents who are losing their businesses. Not only do they have their financial stressors, they also have their health stressors that are adding to increased anxiety. We need to be better.

A very serious issue with COVID has been raised, and it is our seniors. My father-in-law has been diagnosed with cancer. Early in May, we moved him to our home for palliative care. The end is near for my father-in-law. COVID has been both a blessing and a curse. We have the chance to spend an increased amount of time with him, time that most Canadians do not have. However, the stress on everyday Canadians and what we have seen in seniors care facilities across our country is shocking.

It is not the case for a majority of Canadians. We know that many Canadians are not as fortunate as we are, for example. for me to bring my father-in-law into our home. We have seen cases on social media as well as in the news where loved ones have had to watch at a distance. They have not had the opportunity to spend those final moments with their loved ones who are in senior care facilities.

Unfortunately, we know that seniors 50-plus are at a higher risk of COVID as well as mental illness and mental injury. Those who are 60 and 70 years of age are even at a higher risk. We are failing this important community in our nation. Underlying medical conditions put seniors at a higher risk. As high as eight out of 10 deaths related to COVID are seniors over 65.

Another important segment are those people who are living with deadly illnesses such as ALS. I had the honour to meet with one of my constituents, Deane Gorsline. Deane was a young man serving in our Canadian Armed Forces. At the age of 29, he was struck with ALS. Just a couple of weeks ago, I met with him and his group, the ALS Action Canada organization.

The group shared with us that those who were living with these deadly diseases were suffering devastating impacts because of COVID. Some members in the chamber will remember our colleague, Mauril Bélanger, and the speed at which the disease racked his body. It quickly took away his ability to communicate and it quickly took him from us.

We have all suffered through this pandemic, but those suffering life-threatening diseases are at a greater risk of physical and mental illness. Without access to hospital services, chronic health problems can worsen. Changes in sleeping and eating patterns can be detrimental to their mental health. Isolation, loneliness and increased anxiety are all factors in someone's mental well-being. We know that increased isolation and physical distancing leads to increased anxiety and high stress. It also leads to substance abuse, increased domestic violence and suicidal crises. We need to be better.

When I looked at the Speech from the Throne, I was hopeful. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament for six weeks. I was hopeful that it really was a reset. Instead we saw much of the same that had experienced over the first year of last session and the four years previous.

There was not much in the Speech from the Throne on mental health. Essentially, it was two lines. The first was that the government would further increase access to mental health resources for all Canadians. If they have the care they need when they need it, we will all be stronger for it. We need to ensure that whether it is somebody struggling with mental illness or injury in Newfoundland or British Columbia, we need to have consistent care.

It is shocking for me to hear comments from ministers of the Crown, such as the Minister of Employment, who make light of PTSD. That further minimizes and stigmatizes those who are struggling and suffering silently in the shadows.

The second mention in the Speech from the Throne about mental health was, “Expediting work to co-develop distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Nation, and a distinctions-based mental health and wellness strategy.” We all need to ensure we build awareness, but we also need action. I was looking for that. The stakeholder groups that I have met with in the last few weeks since the Speech from the Throne all say the same thing. It is not enough to create hope; we have to create action. That was missing in the Speech from the Throne.

This is really shameful. Now more than ever we need a plan for recovery. We did not see that. We saw more platitudes in the over 7,000 words in the Speech from the Throne. I think Canadians across the country were looking for an economic plan and a recovery plan, and that has to include mental health. Right now more than ever we need that. We need a plan that will not leave seniors behind. We need a plan that will not further alienate those living with deadly illnesses.

The Liberals are talking a good game, but are not doing enough. The Speech from the Throne is a failure. Seniors, like my father-in-law, will drop through the cracks if we do not change course very soon. What happens to seniors who do not have families like our? What happens if families do not have the opportunity to move their loved ones into their homes for end-of-life care? What happens to a family who cannot afford to take on that extra responsibility?

Those suffering with ALS and diseases like it need special care and consideration when developing plans for second and third waves of COVID. We are well into the second wave at this point, or just entering it, but we need to be thinking about that third wave. We need to do better and we must.

We also know that two to three years after a major crisis, such as the wildfires in Fort McMurray or in B.C., there is an increase in suicides, domestic violence and socio-economic issues such as alcohol and substance abuse. We need to have a plan to combat that. We can do better and we must do better.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk about the importance of our seniors. That is something the government has been very much aware of from listening to members of the Liberal caucus, ministers, opposition members, governments at different levels and seniors themselves. The support given has been very real and tangible. We can talk about the increases to the OAS and GIS, or about the GST rebates, but something that often gets overlooked is the millions of dollars that have been given to non-profit organizations. Many of these are committed to supporting our seniors, ensuring that they do not become shut in and so forth.

I wonder if my friend could provide some thoughts in terms of how important it was that the Government of Canada, in co-operation with others, worked to support these non-profits that provide such critical services to our seniors.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, whether it is this government or future governments, more is needed. We are seeing seniors fall through the cracks. We need to work with our provincial partners to make sure that we have a plan moving forward. We did not see that in the Speech from the Throne.

We will take no lessons from the Liberals in terms of how they are moving forward, in terms of their seniors' care or those living with serious illnesses. We know that the Liberals were not prepared. They did not heed the warnings and were left scrambling at the last minute, and people lost their lives.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here from Hamilton Centre, and I want to tell the hon. member that his speech and his interventions earlier on mental health, quite frankly, were very touching and moving. They are compassionate, and of the likes that I perhaps have not heard from members of the Conservative caucus in talking about the need for expanded health care.

In his pleas for increased investments in mental health, would the member not agree that mental health ought to be part of our health care act, that it be included in a head-to-toe provision and provided free to Canadians across the country regardless of the benefits package that is tied to their work? We know that during the COVID pandemic, as people lost their jobs, any benefits for mental health were cut off. They need to be restored in a national health care effort.