Debates of Nov. 30th, 2020

Fall Economic Statement

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that we certainly hear our share of outrageous comments in the House.

We have not had a budget since the last election. It has been more than a year. The good news is that in today's economic statement, the government announced that it will present a budget in the spring. We look forward to that. We have been asking for one for a long time.

This summer the government provided an update that ended up being nothing but a snapshot of where we stood, what money had been spent so far, how big the deficit was and what the projections were. It was a useful document, but it lacked a vision and a plan for the future.

We thought that today's statement would finally give us what we wanted. After all, budgets are important in Parliament and are ideally presented once a year. There is often an update in the fall to brief us in the meantime.

At present, the government is going into debt and putting taxpayers and the public in debt as never before. Since it is providing no budget documents, or very few, we had pinned much hope on the document presented today. It contains a lot of good ideas, but unfortunately, we will have to wait until spring to see anything concrete. That is what the document says. It is a little late, and it is disappointing.

There are two fundamental elements that are important to the Bloc Québécois. We have a number of demands that would address certain needs, and they are not very complicated. Our job is to go see citizens, households, families, businesses and all the organizations working in society. These people tell us what they need and what problems they are having. Our job is to collect all this information, to represent them and to deliver their message. We want to be the voice of these individuals and businesses.

If there is one predominant issue that all Quebeckers agree on, it is funding for health care. That is the case across the country, not just in Quebec. On the eve of the throne speech, all the provinces agreed that better funding for health care was needed. We are in the midst of a full-blown pandemic, a public health crisis, and this document has nothing, or just about nothing, for health.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind everyone in the chamber that there is a presentation being made. Someone is speaking. I want us to respect that person, and we all want to hear what the hon. member for Joliette has to say.

The hon. member for Joliette may continue.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was starting to get a little difficult to speak in the House because the leader of the official opposition was having a loud conversation with one of his members.

That seems to happen a lot in the House, and here is why. When an MP speaks French, many unilingual anglophone MPs do not bother to listen to the interpretation. They do not understand what is being said, so they have their own conversations at the same time. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, that is clearly disrespectful. I thank him for his understanding.

I will pick up where I left off.

Our number one priority, based on what we hear from the people we go see, among other things, is health care funding. Just before the throne speech, all the provinces, especially Quebec, called for more health care funding. They need a funding boost. They get barely 20% of their money from the federal government, and they want a little over one-third, 35%. If I am not mistaken, that is an additional $28 billion.

The reason the pandemic hit our long-term care homes so hard was because the system was already fragile. I even asked the chief public health officer of Canada about this at the Standing Committee on Health, and she agreed.

Why was the system fragile? The system has been chronically underfunded for decades, and that is essentially because the federal government has been stepping back. When the program first started a few decades ago, Ottawa was funding half of health care spending. In the mid-1980s, its contribution dropped to 40% and continued to dwindle over the years. In the late 1990s, Ottawa fixed its deficit problem by slashing transfers, and health transfers were the first to go. Now, the federal government barely covers one-fifth of expenses, and the provinces have to cover the rest. About half of every dollar paid in taxes comes here, so it would make sense for half of health care funding to come from here.

There was a consensus among the provincial premiers, but there was nothing about health care in the throne speech, and there is nothing about it in this economic update either. What is worse, in the economic update, the Liberals are bragging that 80% of the money for the programs implemented during the pandemic came from the federal government. Well, whoop-de-do. The federal government only has that flexibility because 80% of health care expenses are paid for by Quebec and the provinces. Ottawa was supposed to do its part and cover half of that, but it stepped back.

The Premier of Quebec and the other premiers are not asking Ottawa to go back to paying an equal share. They are just asking Ottawa to pay 35%, which is one-third or just over one-third.

There is nothing about this in the economic update, but it gets worse. The government said that it was going to give $1 billion for Quebec's long-term care homes but that the funding would be contingent on Quebec submitting a plan. If the federal government deems the plan to be acceptable, then it will release the money. In spite of everything, Quebec will only be given the funding on condition that it spends it in accordance with the plan. Come on. Could the House please respect the provinces' jurisdiction? Whether the money comes from the Government of Quebec or Ottawa, it is taxpayers' money. Let us respect the areas of jurisdiction.

What does Ottawa know about health other than to fund it? That has been Ottawa's responsibility and it is failing. On the ground we have our nurses, doctors and the entire system. Where is the expertise? The federal government's only responsibility in health care, in my opinion, is the care provided to veterans. When we look at the cost of each service provided, it is two and a half times what the provinces are entitled to, which means that if Ottawa were responsible for health, we would not have the means to support a public health care system. That is the problem.

In this document, there is not one red cent for health, except for the$1 billion with strings attached, and on top of that they are taunting us with standards. The government is using a pandemic, a major crisis, to centralize powers. They are rubbing their hands with glee at the idea. They are going to take advantage of our moment of weakness, at a time when we are on our knees, to tip the scales in their favour and further centralize powers. That is unacceptable and appalling. It is disrespectful and it is just not done.

What about seniors, the most vulnerable segment of the population? In recent decades, there have been all kinds of programs for just about everyone. Those programs are great, sure, but they leave seniors out in the cold. The government said no to seniors. In the meantime, inflation is bumping up the cost of residence rooms, housing, and groceries.

During the election campaign, the government said it would enhance old age security, but only for people aged 75 and older. There is not one penny in this document. The government even backpedalled on its campaign promises. We felt that dividing seniors into two classes, those aged 65 to 75 and those aged 75 and older, was unacceptable, but there is absolutely nothing here, not a penny. This despite the fact that the pandemic hit seniors first and that they are isolated and vulnerable and their buying power has taken a hit. They have been completely forgotten in all this. We might have expected more and better. I am a little disappointed, but not just because of that.

There are some good things in this update. There are not a lot of things. The main message is that we will have to wait until spring to see the budget and what is in it, especially what is in the stimulus plan. Still, there are some little things worth noting, like the announcement that the government will be taxing tech giants. As of July 1, tech giants will have to collect the GST and the other taxes. Quebec does it, and it is worth it. It was high time because foreign multinationals had an unfair advantage over our own businesses.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is hard to hear what my colleague from Joliette is saying because so many conversations are happening, despite our limited numbers here.

Would you prefer to ask my colleague from Joliette to wait until the conversations are over, or shall we let him continue and ask that our colleagues show some respect? I want to hear what he has to say.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will take the second option. I would ask members in the House to lower the volume. It was much better than before, but perhaps they have forgotten the instructions. I know that we cannot get close enough to whisper because of COVID-19, but if it is so important, I invite them to leave the chamber for a few moments and come back when they are ready to listen to what the hon. member has to say.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is due to the fact that most members in the House do not speak French.

Rather than listening to the interpretation through their earpieces, they are going about their business and doing their work, and they forget that someone is speaking. Unfortunately, that is the reality that many of us too often face when we speak French in the House.

We are disappointed with regard to health care and vulnerable people, starting with seniors. A budget is supposed to be presented in the spring with a focus on the recovery plan. I will come back to that.

The statement does contain some worthwhile measures, such as the proposal to tax the digital giants, which would finally start to level the playing field. The government is even talking about using levies, a sort of revenue tax, in conjunction with the OECD. If that takes too long, the government even suggests that it will move forward in a year or so regardless. This measure could bring in a few billion dollars, so I look forward to seeing it implemented.

This is in no way about taking down foreign multinationals. It is simply a matter of treating the Amazons of the world, which conduct business online, the same way we treat our local businesses, which have been struggling since the beginning of the pandemic as people turned to online shopping. This is a significant measure that we have been calling for for a long time. We are very happy to see it happen.

I will now address the issue of the environment. For eight months, we have been saying that this would be a good opportunity for a green recovery when the time comes. The economist Jeremy Rifkin is calling for a green new deal. That would be a good thing. We expected today's document to start talking about that a little. However, the government is telling us that it will hold consultations and present a stimulus package, but that will be later, and it may equate to 3% or 4% of GDP per year for three years.

We wonder if the government is positioning itself to say that several promises will be made eventually, but they will come during an election campaign. To get everything that was announced, people will have to vote for the Liberals again. If the Liberals want to trigger an election over this issue, we will be ready. We already are. Seriously, though, we expected more for the environment because it is certainly an emergency.

We applaud the home energy efficiency grant program, which will provide $5,000 per home to a maximum of 700,000 people. The budget for electric cars was almost empty, but it has been replenished. That is another measure that we applaud, along with the charging stations.

The government is pulling the same old rabbit out of its hat when it comes to its solution for the environment. It plans to plant two billion trees, a measure that will cost about $3 billion. Sooner or later, two billion trees will be planted and all of the promises will be kept. The Liberals talked about this during the election campaign a year ago. How many trees have been planted? That is a question that my colleagues and members of other parties have been asking me. How many of the two billion trees have been planted so far? The answer is zero.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

One tree has been planted. I planted an apple tree.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the Bloc Québécois just said that he planted an apple tree. He is already doing better than the government. According to my calculations, if it costs approximately $3 billion to plant two billion trees, then the government should pay the House leader of the Bloc Québécois $1.50 or so in compensation.

Once again, the government is going to have to do a lot more than that, and we hope that, in the next budget, the government will have a real plan for the environment. These are good measures and we recognize that, but they really are not enough.

Earlier this fall, the wage subsidy was extended and improved on. Most of the measures announced in today's document improve the wage subsidy, which we applaud because that is good. During a pandemic, implementing income support measures that help maintain employment relationships is the thing to do.

The same thing goes for the new Canada emergency rent subsidy. The first version of this commercial rent subsidy did not work. This second version was announced, we said it was good and we adopted it this fall. We applaud that.

However, we had asked the Minister of Finance what we are now asking the government to do, and that is to present aid programs for industries that are struggling, sectors that are having a tough time. We need aid programs that target sectors that are in a particular situation. We expected to see that, since there had been rumours to that effect in the media.

Sadly, the rumours were not true. Instead, we are being told to wait for the next budget, that something is coming and that, until then, they are thinking about it. For instance, there is a section on assistance for the air sector. It sets out the measures that have been announced for airports, but the air sector and airports are not one and the same.

I met with some airport representatives last week, including one from the Montreal airports authority. Quite honestly, airports are struggling. They need programs. Airlines also need assistance, but nothing has been announced for them, despite the misleading title. We are being told to wait for the next budget and that something is coming. We have been waiting for quite a while already.

On top of that, the government managed to include the words “aerospace industry” once in its document, saying that it was connected to the air sector. However, since there is nothing for the air sector, that means there is even less for the aerospace industry.

This despite the fact that greater Montreal is the third-largest aerospace hub in the world, after Seattle and Toulouse. If we look at what is happening in the United States, France and Europe, it is clear that those countries are doing everything they can to support that industry. Of course, since planes are grounded and orders are being delayed, the industry is struggling. However, that sector of the economy has the highest value added. That means well-paying jobs and innovation.

There is the C Series in Mirabel, which was taken over by Airbus. It is the most fuel efficient aircraft in the world. We have a little gem on our hands and what does the government do? For eight months now, all of the industry representatives, major suppliers and SMEs have been saying that a special assistance program is needed. They had to bend over backwards just to get access to the wage subsidy because Quebec invested a little money in that industry to prevent all of the expertise from being lost, something that Ottawa did not do. Under the program rules, the companies could not get help if public funds had been invested.

We managed to change that, but now a targeted program is needed. We cannot lose this cluster. This value-added sector is very important to Quebec and Canada. We are building planes in Ontario, Manitoba and some other places too. It takes a vision of economic interest, which is not found in this document.

It is the same thing for the tourism industry. We were told that a bit of money was included for that industry and that something will be done one day, but nothing has happened, even though this is an extremely important industry. It is the same thing for the arts. The government is talking about online events, but think about all of the festivals and other events. A lot of sectors are affected. I am thinking about summer camps. People are contacting us to tell us that it was a disastrous season. Sugar bushes and reception halls are also having a hard time. Targeted measures are needed. The government is saying that these things are important but that it is going to wait for the next budget to do something. That is a problem.

As I said earlier, the same goes for the stimulus plan. The government says there will be vaccines. I believe Canada and Quebec will spend weeks or months watching the train go by because the government took too long and lacked vision. Word is that the vaccine will be coming soon, or at least our neighbours will be getting one, so now we can start thinking about economic recovery.

This gives us a great reason to hope we will come out the other end soon. This situation is tough, and we have endured it for months, but the possibility of a vaccine gives us hope that things will get back to normal and that new opportunities will arise. Unfortunately, there is no recovery plan.

Sometimes, people can make numbers say anything they want. That is not something I agree with, but one example from this document really made me laugh. In defence of its vaccine strategy, the government says on page 9 that Canada has the most agreements per capita. It lists fifteen or so countries and puts Switzerland at the bottom of the list. However, we all know that Switzerland has vaccine production capacity because plenty of headquarters, labs and pharmaceutical multinationals operate there. Once again, the government is trying to show that Canada did a good job, but in truth, we should be worried.

When we asked Dr. Caroline Quach-Thanh if we could have manufactured our own vaccines in Quebec or Canada, she said that Canada's vaccine manufacturing capacity is non-existent. There is a little work in Toronto, at Sanofi Pasteur, where Connaught Laboratories used to be. There is a little work in Quebec City at GSK, but they mostly focus on manufacturing seasonal flu vaccines, and vaccines for children and travellers.

Quebec had a strong pharmaceutical industry and some large laboratories in the past 15 years that would have had the capacity to quickly manufacture vaccines. This was all dismantled as a result of the inaction and political choices of successive federal governments.

I would like to go back in time. In 1987, during the Meech Lake accord negotiations, Quebec had leverage and managed to work well with Ottawa to establish an ecosystem that would foster significant growth of the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec. The province attracted five multinationals, an expertise was developed and about 2,000 high-calibre jobs were created.

Following the 1995 referendum, Quebec lost its leverage and Ottawa withdrew its support. Quebec tried to redouble its efforts, but it was not enough. The multinationals moved, closed their doors or reduced their staff one after the other. The process accelerated in the 2000s. Ever since the referendum, political decisions destroyed the industry.

Then the pandemic arrived. Health specialists say that there have been many pandemics in the past, such as H1N1 and SARS. Some specialists even say that we are lucky because the current virus is not too deadly and that, despite the present crisis, it could have been worse.

We learned that the government had masks, gowns and equipment destroyed last year when it closed a centre. With respect to the protection and security of the economy, it was unacceptable to let go of such a leading-edge industry. Is it because it was located in Quebec?

Had the industry been sustained, we would have had the capacity to produce vaccines rapidly right here. Unfortunately, that interest was not protected. That is the tragedy of Quebec's pharmaceutical industry.

I would say that Ontario's pharmaceutical industry, though slightly older, is pretty much a joke, to paraphrase the other philosopher. I was talking about that earlier.

Established in 1913, Connaught Laboratories was a globally recognized leader, a massive success, the best in the world. The labs recovered their costs and succeeded at eradicating all kinds of problematic diseases affordably. They produced insulin for diabetes and even worked with Dr. Salk, an American, to produce the polio vaccine.

In the 1970s, under the elder Trudeau, Connaught was converted into a development corporation. It was gradually privatized over the years and then completely privatized under Mulroney in 1989. That was the end of Canada's vaccine production capacity and affordable expertise. Toronto Star columnist Linda McQuaig wrote an article about it in March based on a chapter in her book.

In order to develop the economy, a vision is needed. Some extremely important and highly developed sectors in Quebec could have brought us out of this slump very quickly. They were dropped, and now we are paying the price. When the time came to negotiate for vaccines, the government dragged its feet, and we are paying the price. The government is announcing funds to restart vaccine production, but that will not happen before 2023 at the earliest. That will not help us with this crisis.

Let's hope that we learn from past mistakes and complacency and that we do not repeat them. We have seen what happens when a neighbour decides for us and we are subjected to someone else's decisions. There were multinational drug companies and we had domestic expertise that meant we could produce vaccines for other parts of the world. Because our neighbour is the one who decided for us, we lost everything. Because our neighbour dragged its feet during the first few months of the pandemic, we will only receive the vaccine after others do.

No matter how many charts the Liberals put in this document to try to prove that Canada has more deals than anyone else, everyone knows that we are neither at the very back nor at the very front of the line when it comes to getting vaccines here in Canada. Quebec, then, is paying the price.

We were hoping this document would talk about health care funding, but there is nothing on that. We also hoped it would talk about funding for seniors, a commitment this government made, but, again, there is nothing there.

We expected there to be something for the recovery, but that is missing as well, just like the assistance programs for struggling sectors such as aerospace. The result is not very good, but the government is putting things off and telling us to wait for the budget.

This update did not have much to say about the environment and was well below our expectations. What is there is good, however, including the measures for electric cars and the energy efficient retrofit programs. However these measures do not go far enough.

As far as tax fairness is concerned, we applaud the announcements on web giants paying their taxes, potentially through the use of levies. We also applaud the measure to limit stock option deductions to $200,000. We applaud the gesture, even though the limit remains high. We also applaud the special family benefit that is not insignificant.

We applaud the deductions of up to $400 for the costs of working at home. It is a nice gesture for people who had to turn to telework and this facilitates the requests for that. The wage subsidy is increased to 75% of salaries paid to take into account the gravity of the second wave, which is good.

We will wait for the budget to be tabled. In any event, I am not sure if we will be voting on this document. At the end, two bills were introduced. We were expecting a ways and means motion at the end of the minister's speech. As I understand it, this motion is supposed to be moved before these bills can be voted on. At first glance, the bills seem worthwhile, but we will take some time to study them.

There was no budget last spring. The government has never spent this much money before, and we need a budget. We were expecting more from today's statement, and we are disappointed. The deficit is extremely worrisome, as it has reached an astronomical $381 billion. We have never seen this before, so accountability is important , because this is a lot of money. Fortunately, a substantial portion of this money went to income support measures for people who lost their jobs and for businesses, which is important.

The government needs to show some transparency. We learned our lesson with WE Charity, with the ventilators from the former Liberal member who did not manufacture ventilators and with the management of subsidies connected to their chief of staff's husband. That is a lot, and we need more transparency. Four committees have studied these issues, but the Liberal members on these committees filibustered. We are asking for a special committee to study all of this spending. It was announced when we returned after prorogation, but things are taking a long time.

Liberal members on the Standing Committee on Finance systematically filibustered proceedings for dozens of hours, preventing us from hearing people talk about their needs for the next budget. We need to be able to do our jobs. A special committee is needed to assess spending, because we are dealing with a significant deficit. If the money was well spent, then it was the lesser evil during this crisis, but a committee needs to look into it.

I think that about sums it up.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my issue is on health care. However, before that, I want to reaffirm that when we look at the vaccination issue as a whole, Canada is exceptionally well positioned to vaccinate in many different types of situations. This is because of the fine work that a special group of people, civil servants and scientists, were able to put together.

My question is related to the member's comments on health care. On the one hand, he says that we should be spending more money on health care. On the other hand, the member says that the federal government should have nothing to do with health care.

I believe in the Canada Health Act. It ultimately ensures that as a Canadian, no matter in which province I determine I will live, that there will be a health care system that provides the five principles set out in the Canada Health Act.

Is it the Bloc's position to get rid of the Canada Health Act?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health, Ottawa's job is to provide funding.

Half of the taxes we pay go to Ottawa. It would therefore make sense for Ottawa to pay for half of the health care expenses, but year after year Ottawa decreases the share it pays. Ottawa is currently paying 21% or 22%. The provincial premiers are asking Ottawa to pay 35%. That would be a step in the right direction. There was nothing about that in the throne speech and there is nothing about it in the document that was distributed today. There is no commitment of any sort in that regard.

Quebec's long-term care facilities are struggling and do not have the staff they need. This has forced employees to work in several facilities, which is what led to the cross-contamination during the first wave of the pandemic. Did these facilities need Canada-wide standards or did they need money to hire health care aides and nurses?

To be honest, I visited some long-term care facilities because there are several in my riding. Just a few weeks ago, there was a major outbreak at the Saint-Eusèbe CHSLD, which is right in downtown Joliette. I did not hear anyone there say that things were not going well and so they needed Canada-wide standards. It is money they need, money to pay workers.

For decades now, since the mid-1990s, Ottawa has been withdrawing funding. This means that Quebec has had to make cuts because the money is no longer there. Tough choices have to be made, which weakens the system, as we have seen.

The Bloc Québécois, the National Assembly and I all firmly believe that Ottawa's role in health care is to pay its fair share. That would be half of the taxes sent here.

As for the vaccination issue, I would like to speak with my colleague again about it in six or nine months. We will see who is right, but I get the feeling that he has fallen for his party's propaganda. He seems to be one of the people who believe in it.

Quite honestly, if we compare Canada with other countries, there is no longer any production capacity here. We are neither at the front nor at the very back of the line. The government was slow to act last spring and dragged its feet before adopting any vaccination plan or strategy. We are going to pay the price for that, which will be no laughing matter.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members of opposition parties, our desire is to scrutinize and offer suggestions to help the government perform well for all Canadians and I appreciate the co-operation we have had.

You mentioned transparency and accountability. Could you share ways, if those perhaps were dealt with better, in which Canadians would benefit more during this crisis?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would remind hon. members to place their questions through the Chair. It is wonderful when it is peaceful, but sometimes it gets emotional and goes back and forth so that it gets out of hand. It is a reminder for all members.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging my colleague and thanking her for her intervention and her positive comments.

It is true that we manage to find solutions, improve bills and suggestions and, ultimately, make things better for people because we do our job well.

Right now, we have a government that is spending like no government has ever spent before. It has to spend because the situation is very serious. However, at the same time, as we saw in the spring, the government is asking lawmakers to back off a bit because the situation is so serious. The government passes bills under closure and accelerates the process, and it asks lawmakers to take shortcuts and not bother it. Then it shuts down Parliament and asks us to trust it. At the beginning, that is what happened, but we got some surprises. It passed the emergency wage benefit. Political parties were not listed under the wage subsidy program, but the Liberal party claimed it anyway.

Some friends of the Prime Minister's family own an organization. Public servants say that they can administer the program, but they are told that it will be administered by the organization's owners. The friends stand to make about $10 million, because a friend is a friend. We learn that the organization is WE Charity but that there are so many hundreds of billions of dollars in play that it is impossible, under the current circumstances, to scrutinize everything. We must take it on trust. However, given the track record of the party in power, we no longer trust it.

We must continue to put programs in place, but there needs to be more transparency and oversight. For that to happen, we need a special committee to study the spending. That idea has been requested and debated since the House resumed sitting after prorogation, but the government does not want to talk about it. It does not want to explore issues of transparency.

We remember the sponsorship scandal. We thought the government had cast off its old habits. Just because the Liberals have a younger leader does not mean that the old habits have disappeared and that the people behind him have changed their ways. This is unacceptable. That is why we need an oversight committee, a special committee that will look at all of this, because we need to be able to trust them.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague well, and I know that he knows that as members of the Standing Committee on Finance, we also have to address the issue of revenues.

Let's look at all the budget cuts that were made in the past in response to the Paul Martin government's austerity measures. If we do not take care of revenues, then there will be cuts to the programs that help people.

My colleague talked about web giants that do not pay a single dollar in corporate taxes. We do not have wealth tax or an excess profits tax. As for tax havens, not one tool has been brought in by this government to deal with them.

My question is this: is my colleague concerned about the fact that the government is doubling down on a tax system that is unfair and refusing to go after all these billionaires who got $53 billion richer during this pandemic without paying their fair share of taxes?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his spot-on observations.

Many economists are saying that the problem with this crisis is that we will see a K-shaped recovery. We are hearing that more and more. The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. This is a matter of tax fairness and tax justice. As a society, we need to create mechanisms to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities and that wealth is redistributed to some extent.

The French economist Thomas Piketty is suggesting a special tax on wealth and the ultra-wealthy. The Minister of Finance once wrote a book on plutocrats and billionaires. She explained how they get away with it. In my opinion, these are some very important questions to consider in order to figure out how to better redistribute wealth. Obviously, it could get complicated to implement and enforce this redistribution, since if we increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy, we need to make sure that they do not come up with an offshoring scheme. Nevertheless, this is necessary. It is important.

It is also important that we combat the use of tax havens, which continues to be legal here thanks to the government. We need to make things that are immoral illegal. The big Bay Street banks are raking in record profits this year. They all have branches in tax havens and artificially transfer their largest profits to those tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That is unacceptable, and it needs to stop.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that a big part of this economic update touched on things that have happened over the course of the last few months. As members are well aware, when we first hit the pandemic, the government was certainly willing to work with opposition parties, and the NDP stepped up.

Members will also recall that the first action of the government during the pandemic was to offer supports to the banking sector with about $750 billion in liquidity supports from a number of different federal institutions. That was a bold move. It is not matched by any boldness to actually support regular Canadians at this stage in the pandemic.

We are well aware of what the member for Burnaby South did. The entire NDP caucus stepped up with a series of proposals that we knew would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. Canadians have really struggled through this pandemic. They are still struggling. We believed that there needed to be a series of measures that would make a difference in the lives of individuals as they struggle to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

We needed measures to support small businesses. People often give their lives to their small businesses, and we want to keep them operating so we can avoid the tragedy of people turning the key in the lock for the final time as they leave that small business behind. That was the measure that was brought to this pandemic response. This is what we proposed and pushed the government to put into place.

We had the emergency response. When the government had a series of holes in the emergency response benefit, we pushed for the student CERB as well, and we pushed for a 75% wage subsidy. The member for Burnaby South was very eloquent in this regard. Other countries had already done that, and we believed firmly that Canada needed to put in place a 75% wage subsidy too to make sure that businesses could continue to operate and people could continue to work.

We then pushed support for seniors through this House. We pushed for a moratorium on student loans. We did not think that students should have to pay back their loans to the federal government during a pandemic. We pushed for supports for first nations communities. A number of members from our caucus were very strong in pushing the government to provide those supports.

We also pushed for supports for the people who were not receiving supports through other means. That is why we pushed for things such as the Canada recovery benefit. The member for Burnaby South, numerous times, pushed for a national sick leave, which is historic in nature. It means that people who are unfortunately not able to work because of their sickness, or are concerned about catching COVID-19, could actually, for the first time, take that paid sick leave and not have to chose between putting food on the table or doing the right thing. That paid sick leave is historic, and we believe it should be made permanent as well.

We provided and pushed for sectoral supports for a variety of industries. Members of this caucus, including the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who is our small business critic, pushed for an emergency rent subsidy. We pushed for very strongly for this and for our supports for people with disabilities. These are two areas in which the government basically only did a part of what was needed to be done to provide those supports and make sure that those Canadians had the wherewithal to get through the pandemic.

Originally the emergency rent subsidy the government rolled out was a program through a company that had ties to the chief of staff of the Prime Minister. The initial program that was rolled out was actually with a commercial mortgage company, and it was for landlords who held commercial mortgages. This is very clearly inadequate and a very strange approach.

We continued to push for the second emergency rent subsidy, which is a much better program. That program has not been retroactive for the course of the spring and summer. It should be because many of the businesses that went through all those difficult periods in the spring and summer are now living through these difficult periods in the fall. They need the wherewithal, and they need those supports.

We continue to press the government to make that rent subsidy retroactive to the spring for those business owners who were not able to benefit because the program is so complicated. It is actually a failed program in so many respects. With this new rent subsidy program, which the NDP applied pressure to bring to bear, those business owners would actually be able to benefit from it.

For people with disabilities, I have expressed on the floor of this House my deep disappointment. While the banking sector got three-quarters of a trillion dollars within the first days of the pandemic, the government had to be pushed and prodded repeatedly. The member for Elmwood—Transcona, the member for Hamilton Centre and other members of the NDP caucus pressed the government repeatedly, and finally, after an eight-month wait, the Liberals put in place partial supports. They are only for people with disabilities who are registered and exist in the federal database.

There is no doubt that there are many other people with disabilities who need support. The only way for them to receive support is with planning and forethought to make sure that those who are registered provincially for disability programs get supports. In short, what the NDP brought to bear was a series of measures that would make a difference for people, and we will continue to do this.

This is where my disappointment lies and our disappointment with the fall economic statement. We believe that those supports need to be continued. There needs to be a sense that all Canadians matter, that we can all come through this pandemic, and that, coming out of the pandemic, we can actually put in place a very solid foundation for Canadians in the future.

However, the government has refused to do this. With the fall economic statement, the Liberals have refused to take any of the revenue measures that have been suggested, not only by the NDP but by many forward-thinking people who are thinking ahead.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is an independent officer. All Canadians can rely on his advice. He said, very clearly, that with the fiscal situation of the country there are only two alternatives. One is to cut those services and supports to people, otherwise known as program cuts or austerity.

Liberals may laugh at that, but they also laughed at austerity when we suggested it back in Paul Martin's day, and we know the result. The cuts in programs have an impact even to the present day. Ending the national housing program for the justification of austerity meant that today there are people who remain homeless because the federal government stopped building affordable housing, which is so necessary for so many Canadians.

We look at the fine print. We in the NDP do not only look at what is said, the basic speech and the basic balance sheet of this economic statement, we also look at the details. The summary statement of transactions clearly indicates that the government is planning substantial cuts in program expenses next year. Many of those program expenses came through COVID-19. The intention of the government is not, on the revenue side, to put in place supports that make our rebuilding sustainable. Instead, it is making the choice of looking to wind down programs of support without looking to replace them with other programs that can make a difference in people's lives.

Members will recall that so far during this pandemic, Canada's billionaires have added to their wealth in the order of $53 billion. Canada's big banks, who received that massive dose of liquidity support within days of the pandemic hitting, are looking at substantially increased profits. In the next few days, when each of the big banks release their latest quarterly figures, there is no doubt that we will see an increase, just as we did in the spring and the fall. They have had $15 billion in profits so far during this pandemic.

The reason 90% of Canadians support a wealth tax is they see that discrepancy. They see that contradiction of billionaires having massive increases in wealth, some web giants having massive increases in profits and significant profits for the banking sector through the pandemic, while so many Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, making ends meet and keeping a roof over their heads. Many small business people are struggling to keep that small business operating. They see the contradiction between the banking profits and the addition to billionaires' wealth of over $53 billion. They are well aware of the massive amounts of money we lose every year to overseas tax havens.

As the House is aware, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as an independent officer of Parliament, has advised all parliamentarians that we lose over $25 billion each and every year to overseas tax havens. That means that over the last five years under the Liberal government, over $125 billion have been lost to overseas tax havens. When we talk about the supports Canadians need now, those massive amounts of money have not been diverted to help Canadians, but rather have served to pad the bottom line of some of Canada's wealthiest people and some of Canada's most profitable corporations.

We also have the web giants. During this pandemic, we have seen substantial increases in profits by the web giants like Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google, yet they do not pay corporate taxes in Canada. The measures announced today, which only talk about implications around the GST-HST, are minor compared to the impacts of those web giants not paying that corporate taxation.

As well, we have seen significant subsidies going to oil and gas companies. The government wants to spend what could be up to $20 billion on the Trans Mountain pipeline. The private sector walked away from this project, a project that has profound implications for the climate emergency. The government is intending to spend money on this project. The PBO will define that in the next week or two. It has as been asked to produce a study and the bottom line in the rapid rise in construction costs. However, we are looking probably in the order of $20 billion that the government wants spend on a project that is not financially viable. Basically, it will have dramatically negative impact on any hope of Canada meeting its obligations to meet the climate emergency.

The question is very simple. Why does the government's priority always seem to be billionaires? Why is protecting that increase in wealth and those profits more important than ensuring we take care of regular people?

I mentioned people with disabilities earlier. Most of them have not had access to even that one-time emergency benefit of $600. Getting that $600 makes a dramatic difference in a person's life. A constituent of mine was unable to get medication for a number of months. With the $600 the person did receive, they were able to get their medication for the first time in months.

When we think that most people with disabilities are suffering the same type of financial challenges through this pandemic and were not able to receive even that one-time payment, we can understand there has to be higher priorities than allowing Canada's billionaires to increase their wealth by tens of billions of dollars and Canada's banks to reap the profits they have during this pandemic, and having the have the web giants not pay a dollar in corporate tax. The priorities of the government really do not seem to be in conjunction with what most Canadians are feeling through this pandemic.

It is really a matter of billions of dollars for billionaires.

When we look at this economic update as a whole, the government is giving Canadians crumbs compared to what is needed. Meanwhile, as I said, the government is not putting a tax on wealth or excess profits, web giants are not being required to pay business taxes, and tax havens are having a huge impact on the money laundering that we see across the country.

What is more, the government is still refusing to implement a public registry of beneficial owners, which would enable us to put an end to money laundering. The government could have and should have made investments in a different approach in this economic update. I am thinking about measures like pharmacare, which people across the country are calling for. I will come back to that later, but the reality is that pharmacare is essential. We have seen that. Coming out of this pandemic, people are still going to be in great need of a pharmacare program.

There is also child care and the day care system. That comes up all the time, but it is a shortcoming of this economic update. The issue of affordable housing is even more critical right now because so many Canadians are struggling and having difficulty finding affordable housing because there is a shortage of it across the country. Some members of the Liberal Party are saying that it is okay. I can point out every cut that was made under Paul Martin's government, which are, of course, still having an impact on today's lack of affordable housing in Canada.

Of course there is the climate emergency. Trans Mountain might end up costing us up to $20 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated some estimates that will be released in the coming weeks. We already know about nearly $13 billion to which is added nearly $5 billion for the cost of acquiring the company, while the private sector saw no interest in Trans Mountain. Of course, we are in a context where the government is prepared to pay any price for this project, even though the private sector does not think it is profitable and did not want to invest in it. We know full well that the repercussions on the environment will be enormous.

These are not minor decisions. This is a series of decisions and Canadians are the ones who will pay the price for these bad decisions. The choice is very clear. We have to prioritize the needs of the people instead of always prioritizing corporations that make huge profits. We have to stop thinking that billionaires have to come first.

On this side of the House, we do not agree that we must not tax excessive profits, wealth, or the profits of web giants, and that these companies should not even pay a corporate tax just as everyone else in the country does. We do not agree that we should continue with the Trans Mountain project, no matter the climate cost to be paid and no matter the cost of construction. The private sector does not want to have anything to do with the project and taxpayers will have to pay for Trans Mountain.

That is why we can say that this economic update is extremely disappointing. This government refuses to think clearly, make good investments and take charge of its revenues. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear about that: Either the government cuts services and the assistance it provides to people, or it increases revenues. There is a significant amount of missing revenue, and the government refuses to collect it.

What is missing from this economic update that could have made a difference?

We have the regular reference to pharmacare, which has been written for the last five years, and the government keeps saying that eventually it will do something about it. However, commitments for pharmacare have been made for over a quarter of a century and we still do not see or have in place a universal pharmacare program that provides supports for everybody.

Ninety percent of Canadians support universal, publicly administered pharmacare in this country, so we are talking about a broad public consensus. Why is that? It is because we know that hundreds of Canadians die every year because we do not have universal, publicly administered pharmacare.

We know as well that a million Canadians are trying to pay for their medication now in a pandemic. They have to make the desperate choice between putting food on the table, heating their home and paying for their medication. In a country as wealthy as Canada, for anybody to be forced into that position is simply irresponsible governance. When a government puts a person in that position, the government is neglecting that person's basic needs.

The reality is that pharmacare brings a huge cost savings to Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent, non-partisan officer of Parliament whose reports are well worth reading, says that we would save $4 billion overall as Canadians. Businesses would save about $6 billion, and individuals who are paying for medication out of their pocket now would save about $5 billion.

What the economic update should have announced, instead of the direction the government took, is that we are moving to get pharmacare in place now, that we are actually going to put in place the steps that are needed and that we are going to sit down with the provinces. We already have an NDP bill on this, Bill C-213, which is coming up for a vote in February. Thousands of Canadians have written to their members of Parliament urging them to support Bill C-213, which is the legal framework for universal, publicly administered pharmacare.

The Liberal government should have said that it was going to sit down with the provinces now because it understands, from this pandemic, that it is time it actually put in place a universal pharmacare program in this country. It is long overdue. It should have happened 50 years ago, and the cost to Canadians has been enormous ever since. Now that we have a bill that would actually set the legal framework, the government should have sat down with the provinces to negotiate the financial framework and made sure that pharmacare became a reality in 2021. That should have been in the economic update.

What also should have been in the economic update is a real commitment to child care. Child care advocates across the country know how important child care is for our economic prosperity. The reality is that for every dollar invested in national child care, we get about six dollars in economic stimulus. It is probably the best investment a country could make. Countries that have universal child care programs know that with the participation of families and women in the workplace, there is a huge economic boon that happens when investments in child care are made.

Tragically, in this economic update, the government just basically drew the line on the next steps that should have been phase two for national child care. It basically stopped at phase one and said that was enough. However, the reality is that Canadian families are spending up to $2,000 a month per child because there is no child care. We need to turn this around and put in place a child care program.

We already know from child care advocates the investments that are needed. The investment for next spring would need to be $2 billion or more. The government is not even providing half of that amount and is basically freezing it at an amount that is well below what is needed for national child care.

A constituent of mine named Michelle works with her family and children. She says trying to find a child care space has been a real struggle. She has been able to substitute in with a local child care facility, which is filled up, so her child can sometimes have access to it, but she is like so many other families across the country struggling with child care costs of up to $2,000 per child. They think this needs to happen. It is surprising to me that the government has not taken the opportunity, in looking to build back better, to build into the framework coming into 2021 a universal pharmacare plan and a national child care plan.

If we are looking to build back better, we need to establish the revenue foundation. We need to put into place the measures I spoke about earlier. We cannot keep giving $25 billion away to overseas tax havens. We cannot refuse to put in place a wealth tax next to this profits tax when billionaires have increased their wealth during the pandemic by $53 billion. If we do not put in place the revenue foundation, it will lead to, as the Paul Martin government found out, austerity and cuts.

When we look at the fine print of this document, we see that once we get past the spring, the government intends to dramatically decrease the number of supports that are going to regular Canadians. This should give everybody pause, because it is exactly what happened when Paul Martin was finance minister and we saw cuts to the national housing program, which was eradicated for a generation. We continue to deal with the fallout of those cuts.

We also have to deal with the climate emergency. We have the pandemic and the climate emergency occurring at the same time. The government is making these massive investments, up to $20 billion, in ramming through Trans Mountain when indigenous people have raised huge concerns and when there is a variety of very legitimate criticism of the government in this regard. The government cannot pretend to be working on the climate emergency when it builds a massive pipeline that will undercut anything else that it does.

This economic update should have had an announcement that the government was not going to pour more money into Trans Mountain, the $20 billion. Instead, the Liberals should have announced a shift to clean energy. That $20 billion could have been used to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the clean energy industries.

We know that in the United States, with the change in government, the most recent projections indicate that the clean energy sector will quadruple over the next 10 years. Canada could be in a position to take advantage of that if the federal government worked with the provinces on clean energy production and on ensuring clean energy investments. However, instead, the Liberal government is building a pipeline. It makes no sense. It means the direction the government is taking in this document is simply not sustainable.

There are issues like affordable housing and investment. Affordable housing and the right to housing that the NDP brought to the House just a couple of weeks ago are fundamental in ensuring that the needs of indigenous communities are met. They are fundamental and yet what we see from the government is an approach that prioritizes the needs of wealthy Canadians and Canada's most profitable corporations over the needs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This is what is most disappointing about this economic update.

There are some measures that we could all say we can support. Those measures are all below what is required in this time of a pandemic and at a time when so many Canadians are suffering. So many Canadians want to see a difference in this country, with a federal government that has quite often neglected so many fundamental issues, whether it is the climate emergency, the needs of indigenous communities, the need for affordable housing or putting in place pharmacare and national child care. Those are all legitimate needs that have not been met for years and yet the government continues to prioritize other things. The result is something that Canadians will say, particularly when they read the fine print, this is not the direction they want to see going forward.

What would the NDP have been announcing today? If we had been making this economic update, what would we be saying? Of course we would be talking about the programs that we would have put into place over the course of the last few months. I would say we would very clearly have taken a different and better approach in terms of the pandemic. Some of the suggestions and things we pushed, fought for and negotiated on are in place during this pandemic and some are not.

Some things are absolutely fundamental to us. First off, for people with disabilities, months ago we would have sought to get the provinces on board to make sure that the pandemic payment that went out to people with disabilities went to every single person with a disability across the country. We would have made absolutely sure of that. It would have meant a couple of months of preparation, but it would have made a difference. There is no doubt.

On the rent relief program that New Democrats had pushed and prodded the government to bring to bear, we would have made it retroactive for all of the businesses that simply could not access the program when it was originally set up. We would be making sure that those businesses could take advantage of that retroactively.

We would be making sure that the many holes we saw through the pandemic response were filled. That is an effort that we undertook. When we saw the government leaving holes, we fought back, negotiated and pushed to make sure as many holes as possible were filled. We would have taken the approach that everybody matters and we should not leave anybody behind.

In the economic update today, New Democrats would have been announcing that we are putting in place adequate funding for the next stage in the national child care program and we would have made sure that funding was available so that Canadian parents and families could see the next stage of child care funding being put into place, the national child care program that has seen delay.

If it were up to New Democrats today, we would have said no more money for oil and gas subsidies, that we need to focus on the climate emergency, we will not be spending $20 billion on Trans Mountain and would make sure that money goes to ensure clean energy development and jobs. We would be investing in indigenous communities. We would be making sure that the shortchanging that has created so much suffering and so many crises in indigenous communities was ended and the supports were in place for health care, housing, clean water, all of those things.

We would have made sure that today we were announcing an affordable housing program that ensures the right to housing and would put into place something that, within a short period, would actually end the homelessness crisis we are seeing in our country and that has been aggravated by the pandemic.

We would have made sure that we pay for these things by putting into place the revenue measures I mentioned earlier.

The first would be an excess profits tax, as we had in the Second World War because Canadian governments understood the importance of making sure that, when we are all in this together, everybody pays their fair share. We would have made sure that there was in place a wealth tax so Canada's billionaires with their $53 billion in additional wealth during this pandemic paid their fair share. We would have made sure as well that the web giants actually paid a fair share of corporate tax, instead of taking the windfall profits they made during this pandemic and simply doing whatever they wanted with it.

In this economic update we would have ensured the legislative tools to crack down on overseas tax havens, which costs $25 billion every year that Canadians simply cannot afford.

We would have been building a country where everybody matters and where nobody is left behind. We would have taken a different approach on this economic update.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have a passion for a national pharmacare program as I know many, if not all, of my Liberal colleagues have. We are very happy with the degree to which we have been moving on that front. Since we have been in government, a number of things have been set into procedure. We will have to wait and see and hopefully it will be sooner as opposed to later.

My question for the member is in regard to helping me better understand something. When I was in opposition in the Manitoba legislature, I sat while the NDP was in government. In budget after budget, several times New Democrats decreased corporate tax. Even when I challenged them on why they were decreasing corporate tax, they decreased it. Here in Ottawa the NDP members are advocating the very opposite. They are saying go heavy on corporate tax.

I wonder if the member could explain why the NDP at the provincial level decreased corporate tax when the national NDP seems to say, no, we should be increasing corporate tax.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked this question knowing full well that Canada has the reputation of having the poorest tax system for corporate profits among all industrialized countries. We are also known as the snow-washing capital of the world: those who make illegal money want to launder it here in Canada because of the porous legislative tools the government has always refused to provide the CRA. As the House is well aware, the Canada Revenue Agency came to the finance committee a few months ago. When asked why nobody who was involved in the paradise papers, the Panama papers or the Bahama papers, all regarding notorious tax havens, has been prosecuted, the CRA said that after five years the Liberal government had not provided it with the legislative tools. Not one legislative tool do we see. The CRA has said it does not have the tools to prosecute what is massive tax evasion. The PBO has told us that we lose $25 billion in tax dollars every year.

My question back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North is this. He is well aware of all those facts and is a very educated man. Why has the Liberal government steadfastly, in the last five years, refused to take action to crack down on overseas tax havens and put in place a wealth tax, or even an excess profits tax?

Why is it that, with the Liberal government, billionaires always come before people?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned pharmacare. We know the Liberals have been promising pharmacare forever and it is still not in the economic update. There were other things like that in the economic update, such as the two billion trees they were going to plant, yet they have not even planted one tree and they have been saying this for years. I see that proposing to fix the boil water advisories is back in, even though they promised that in 2015. It does not give me a lot of confidence that the government is going to implement any of the stuff that was in the economic update.

Does the member share my skepticism?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do I share that skepticism? With respect to supply management, this time the Liberals say they are really going to provide support to the supply-managed sector.

With respect to the boil water advisories, this time the Liberals say they are really going to do it. The other times they were kidding, but this time it is really, really going to happen.

With respect to pharmacare, there is absolutely nothing new in this economic update, but the Liberals said, and the text reads, that they promise this time that they are really, really going to do it.

The Liberals have broken promises for five long years. This economic update tells us that this time they actually mean the things that, before, they broke their promises on. I hope it is the case in at least those three areas, but there are many other broken promises that I do not think Canadians will forgive them for having broken yet again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He touched on a number of very important issues, including tax evasion and tax havens.

A lot of important things were left out of this economic update, which is very disappointing. We are going through a pandemic, of course, but there is nothing in here about provincial health transfers, pharmacare or dental care. The aviation industry, which includes air transportation and the aerospace sector, is not even mentioned. We are being told to wait and maybe there will be something later on.

My colleague stressed the importance of collecting all available revenue. I would like him to comment on one aspect of that. The government is going to make digital giants collect the GST. That is a very good thing, and it is fair, but it will not start until next January, whereas digital giants will pay their taxes in January 2022 at the earliest, and only if they are asked to. Consumers will pay the GST right away, but digital giants get a 13-month exemption and will only pay tax if necessary, according to what the Minister of Finance said.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question. He hit the nail on the head.

The web giants are under no obligation. After all the promises this government has broken over the past five years, it is promising once again to perhaps force the web giants to pay some taxes.

It is sad when we think of all the people who need to find affordable housing and feed their families and who often need medication, too. These people are looking for assistance and support right now. They are getting some, but not very much, and the Liberals are indicating that it will come to an end next year, soon, depending on the program. Meanwhile, the web giants will not have to pay taxes for at least another year or two, or maybe five.

That is what is disappointing. Canadians' needs should come first. With this government, the needs of the billionaires and web giants always come first.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has said. We need to close tax loopholes. We need to tax the billionaires. We need to deal with web giants and tax them properly. That is how we will pay for the programs we want, such as universal pharmacare, child care, taking care of our citizens with programs like a guaranteed liveable income. I agree with them 100% about the Trans Mountain pipeline and the waste of money when we are dealing with a climate emergency.

My question is about funding that the federal government has put into another pipeline project, the Coastal GasLink project and LNG Canada to export fracked gas for a number of multinational corporations. There is nothing Canadian about LNG Canada. It is a bunch of foreign multinationals that are getting huge tax breaks from the NDP government in British Columbia, but also from the federal government.

I would like to know if he agrees with that and if we should just ban fracking and put an end to this climate-destroying process of energy extraction.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very complex and important question. What I, the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus have said all along about Trans Mountain is that $20 billion are simply not justifiable on any grounds. That money needs to be focused on clean energy. We do not believe in oil and gas subsidies.

At the federal level, if we stop putting money into oil and gas companies and start putting money into clean energy, energy workers being able to work in the clean energy sector. I was an energy worker. I am a former refinery worker at the Shellburn oil refinery in B.C.

We have no action from the federal Liberal government. It simply refuses to make the necessary investments in clean energy for our transition. That should be the priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by recognizing that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of WSÁNEC peoples and I am honoured to represent Saanich—Gulf Islands. To the WSÁNEC indigenous peoples of this land, Hych'ka Siem. I am also going to apologize to my francophone friends.

I always want to speak a bit in French. The problem is that every time we have to change the channel, we lose time. That is why I am speaking only in English during my speech, and I apologize for that.

We received sombre news during today's speech. I want to acknowledge that the moment our hon. Minister of Finance stood to present where we are as a country right now, in British Columbia, Dr. Bonnie Henry presented the sombre news that we had a new record broken this weekend. Over the weekend, 46 British Columbians died, which is a new record, and we had 2,364 new cases. Records were also broken in Alberta.

I take to heart very much what our hon. Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, said. This is a hard time. COVID is in its second wave and it is surging. It is important to acknowledge that we have to try to work together. We have to hold onto a sense, which we seem to have already lost in this Parliament, that we are all in this together and Canadians want to see us working together.

I also want to acknowledge that a bit of history was made today. I am the first women to take the floor to deliver a speech since the Minister of Finance did. I acknowledge my friend from the Bloc, the member for Repentigny, got to put forward a question. However, as the first women to deliver a speech since the hon. Minister of Finance did, I want to acknowledge that this is the first time in Canadian history that a finance minister has presented an economic update and that that finance minister was a women.

It happens that our first female finance minister also delivered her speech to the highest number of women members of Parliament. With the two recent by-elections, we are now 100 women out of 338 members. That is not enough, but it is a historic breakthrough.

It is in the spirit of women believing we can accomplish more when we work together that I want to acknowledge the recent leadership on a number of files of the new leader of the Green Party of Canada. As fortune and luck would have it, and I certainly wish there were more women leaders of other federal political parties, Annamie Paul has replaced me as the Green Party leader. She is, again, the only woman leader at the federal level.

Annamie Paul, in Green values tradition, has been on the COVID front saying we have to work together. We cannot allow this to become partisan. I know it has already become quite partisan in the House of Commons. I would urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to put Canadians first and recognize that we can score points off each other later.

For now, I urge members to try to work together and keep the volume a little lower out of respect for people across this country who are afraid. They are afraid of catching COVID, and they are afraid of older relatives of catching COVID. In my case, as my daughter teaches school in the Burnaby school system, I pay particular attention to any economic statement that says we will get better ventilation in our public spaces because I remain worried.

I want to reference another very wise woman before I turn to the details of the speech. That woman is Margaret Atwood. It is on one of the themes in our debates in Parliament, and it is a theme that really runs through the finance minister's fall economic statement.

There is the question of whether in a COVID emergency we can also be cognizant of a climate emergency. In the summer, Margaret Atwood was asked in a virtual speech she was giving to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities if she was concerned that, because of COVID, the climate crisis has been pushed to the back burner. Margaret Atwood said that she is not sure about other people, but her stove at home has two front burners. I want to make sure that as we build back better and look at economic recovery, we continue to remember that the climate emergency has not gone away.

We must ensure that every step we take is consistent with the kind of action we take as grown-ups in a climate emergency, as grown-ups who recognize that nothing has gotten better while we turned our attention to COVID.

Looking at the fall economic statement, I have to say that in some ways it predicts the path forward, and it gives us some quite substantial hints about what we may see in the next budget. We do not know when the next budget will be, but clearly there has been a lot of hard work going on here.

I did mean to say this earlier, so forgive me. Everybody has been working very hard. I just want to acknowledge that. In Finance Canada, they have been working very hard. Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc, all of us as members of Parliament have been working very hard, but goodness knows, so has the civil service and the people, whether their efforts are inadequate or not as we judge them today, who have been securing vaccines for Canadians, who have been securing PPE, who have been trying to figure out how we pay for this, how we fund it and how we go forward. I just want to stop and acknowledge everyone's hard work, and I want to thank the Minister of Finance for hers.

On where we are now and what needs to be done better, certainly I am very pleased to see that we may in fact, at long last, and as the Minister of Finance's speech noted there has been a generation waiting, have decent child care. Maybe due to the fact that the Minister of Finance has had to stay home and take care of her own sick children, we might in fact finally get proper support in this country for early learning and child care. We are told we could see something in budget 2021. We will not be satisfied with less than a full program for child care for Canadians. I am feeling more optimistic than I did before I heard the speech.

I am pleased that we saw recognition in the speech of the huge amount of work that needs to be done on reconciliation, a reference to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry and to meeting some of those calls for action is important. We need to meet all the calls for action.

We certainly are looking at improvements in contact tracing and testing. We need to do more and do better. At-home testing would be great. Quicker results would be great. I note this on the vaccine front, and this is offered in the spirit of collaborative and practical thinking about where we are on vaccines. Angus Reid polling tells us that 39% of Canadians say they want the vaccine as soon as it is ready, and 38% say they would like to wait and see. People want to make sure that it is tested and safe and can be used safely.

I would like to encourage the government to think about vaccines in relation to making sure that we all agree who the front-line workers are and who needs to get it first, and that we recognize it would not be a really wise global course for Canada to hog all the vaccines so that every Canadian is vaccinated before, say, front-line health care workers in other countries.

We need to take a sensible approach and make sure the vaccine is rolled out, and that those who are on the front lines get it first and that we recognize that we are all working together to ensure safety and reliability in the vaccines that are delivered. I hear concerns from my constituents on both sides of this, those who want it quickly and those who want to make sure it is tested properly.

I am very encouraged to hear more for youth in this budget. We let our youth down badly last summer. We need to increase the number of summer jobs, as is promised in this speech. My hon. colleague, the member for Fredericton asked in the House, just a few days ago, whether the government would agree that we should at least eliminate interest charges on student debt. It is very encouraging to see that will be done for one year, but let us keep doing it. Let us work towards abolishing tuition and giving our kids a good start in life without emerging with massive student debts, which unfortunately remains the case for so many of our young people. We can do better for our youth.

I was also really pleased to see the references to more pharmacare development, but it is very slow. We need to see a full pharmacare plan and we need to see it soon.

It was encouraging to see a recognition of the natural course of market share between fossil fuels and renewables. The economic statement notes the shift that was occurring before COVID hit. We were already seeing a massive shift of investment away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy.

This economic statement confirms that shift is happening, that the oil sector is not likely to recover and that the share of renewable energy, as affordable and reliable, is only going to increase. This is good and encouraging news and should underpin where we go when we look at measures related to climate.

I turn my attention now to the other emergency: the climate emergency. Since COVID hit, there have been more than 100 climate disasters that have collectively claimed 410,000 lives around the world. In that time roughly 1.4 million have died from COVID, but the climate disasters and the climate emergency will continue apace, and there is no vaccine against a climate emergency. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and do so very quickly.

I was encouraged to see so much that really emerges from green strategy and Green Party policy, but really I am optimistic when I see the commitment to eco-energy retrofits for homes. This is described as being for homes, and we need to extend the commitment to all buildings. We need to make sure that commercial and institutional buildings can also make these investments in energy efficiency retrofits. They cost less per dollar of carbon averted, and they create more jobs right across the country in all the skilled trades: carpentry, electrical and insulation. It is a fantastic way to invest that builds our economies back at the local level, also helping local hardware and building supply stores. All the elements of eco-energy retrofits build our local economies.

I was very encouraged to see better infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles. I say yes to tree planting, to making sure that we are planting indigenous species and to getting into those areas that have been burned off by forest fires and not recovering because the fires burned so hot: areas like the Thompson River valley and the Fraser. We have seen so many. The Elephant Hill fire area in British Columbia, for example, is still not recovering years later. We need to plant trees in those areas as part of our strategy to recover and protect our wild salmon. These things are interconnected, and it is a very important way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. I hope that in the budget we will also see indigenous peoples referenced as part of tree-planting strategies. Let us also make sure the indigenous guardians program is expanded and properly funded.

I am very encouraged to see that peat, grasslands and other nature-based solutions to the climate crisis are being referenced here. For the first time it looks like there is going to be substantial money, but it does not look like enough. However, farmers are a big part of the climate solution. Regenerative management of our soil, and making sure there is crop cover all the time so the soil does not blow away, are actually significant parts of carbon sequestration, and should be properly funded as a way that helps our farming community at the same time as it reduces greenhouse gases. It is good to see nature-based solutions playing a role where the government appears to be going for the future of climate action.

Public transit is terribly important. I must note that the early reaction from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to this economic statement is that it is disappointed there was not enough for its budget planning at the municipal level right across Canada. I have flagged that for the minister and for the government to make sure the Federation of Canadian municipalities is brought in as a very close partner. It has solid data, and I have always been impressed with its work. Partnering with municipalities has served many federal governments very well, going back to Stephen Harper's government in 2008. Its infrastructure programs were rolled out thanks to our municipal order of government. We can do more there.

I want to raise a concern. Almost every reference to public transit that I have seen, including in this financial statement, focuses on urban public transit. We have a crisis in Canada, flagged in the report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, of a lack of public transportation to get from A to B in rural areas. The loss of Greyhound, the loss of Saskatchewan bus services and the loss of bus service throughout the Maritimes for areas that are more remote is a real crisis.

I hope that as we are building back better, the budget, whenever it comes out in 2021, has funding to ensure that people in remote areas have access to affordable, safe public transit so that young indigenous women and girls do not have to hitchhike and seniors do not have to get behind the wheel of a car when they do not want to drive at night because there is no other way to get from A to B. We can do better.

I was pleased to see the references to the interties for our electricity grid. It is important, as the financial statement points out, that we get off coal and decarbonize our electricity grid. However, just as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith mentioned, the statement does not mention that shifting from coal to burn fracked gas to produce electricity does not produce major savings in greenhouse gases. It is a wash. We must therefore ban fracking and stop thinking that fracked natural gas plays any role in a solution to the climate crisis.

The financial statement also mentions nuclear reactors, or the so-called small and medium reactors that exist on paper. They are a proposal, a marketing strategy, for a dying industry. Do not put good money after bad. We have wasted billions of dollars in this country on a failed nuclear reactor strategy. Calling them small and modular does not make them a good place to put money.

We should invest in things that, per dollar invested, reduce the most greenhouse gases and create the most jobs. We need to keep that in mind along with the shortest amount of time between investment and return. If we keep those three things in mind, we will not need to put any money in nuclear at all, particularly in something that is a design project on paper and does not exist in reality.

What else do we need in the next budget? This has been flagged by a number of colleagues from different parties, and particularly the New Democrats and Greens have mentioned it before: We need to increase revenue flows. I applaud the minister for putting forward that we are going to need at least a three-year economic stimulus package to bring back our economy.

Come on; let us bring in a wealth tax. The billionaires have made $53 billion since the pandemic started. Let us tax that wealth and make sure that Canadians can afford our pharmacare plans, our child care plans and our dental care plans for low-income Canadians, and afford helping our students and taking care of our seniors. We need to have a wealth tax.

I flagged that we need to have a guaranteed livable income. This is referenced in the statement, by the way, I think at page 79. There is reference to the fact that many front-line health care workers are of low income and in precarious jobs. That is just not good enough. Essential workers have been working hard and risking their lives in long-term care homes. These front-line workers are paid so low it is just a scandal.

Let us look at guaranteed livable income so that we know no one falls below the poverty line and that every worker in Canada keeps what they earn on top of their guaranteed livable income so they do not face insecurity, such as housing insecurity and health care insecurity, and are protected. We need to look at guaranteed livable income and bring it into being, along with pharmacare and child care. We need to ensure that housing is a right and every Canadian has a roof over their head.

We need to look at doing more in taxing the digital giants. What the Minister of Finance said is encouraging, but as other colleagues have noted, if they are not paying their taxes, just GST and HST, for more than year, it is not good enough. We need to start regulating and taxing the digital giants, whether it is Airbnb, Amazon or Google, that are threatening existing Canadian industries, whether they are the small businesses up and down the main streets of our towns or our newspapers and broadcasters. We are starting to recognize the threat, but there is more we must do.

I noted something amusing in the questions and answers. My colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, asked the leader of the official opposition if he had any thoughts on the government's move toward clean, green energy. The leader of the official opposition responded, which I guess makes the Conservatives' position clear, that he is really proud of the Keystone pipeline.

Let me get to this question of fossil fuels and how we are funding them. It is more than time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. Stephen Harper promised to stop subsidizing fossil fuels in 2009, and the Liberals promised it again in their platform in 2015. However, fossil fuel subsidies have gone up.

One way of ignoring that reality is to have trouble defining what a fossil fuel subsidy is. Finance Canada told the Auditor General it was not sure how we would define it. Here is how we define it. Any time we put public money into producing energy out of fossil fuels and expanding that resource, we are subsidizing fossil fuels which means stop subsidizing fracking. Stop subsidizing LNG, which is being subsidized by the federal and British Columbia governments by the way. Stop spending money on pipelines. The Trans Mountain pipeline is 100% owned by the people of Canada. The minimum expenditure that is now committed is $12 billion. It could be far more than that as my friend from New Westminster—Burnaby has noted. Cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. We will still own the existing pipeline. It was a waste of money to buy it, but it is operating and brings crude into Burnaby for the last remaining refinery. There is no problem with that. It will be phased out over time, but stop putting public money into expanding greenhouse gases and for heaven's sakes, Prime Minister, pick up the phone, call President-Elect Joe Biden and say “Good for you for cancelling Keystone. It is a good idea. What can we do to put our heads together? We were very pleased to see a border adjustment tax on carbon. Let us put together a continental package of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico together saying we are going to carbon price and we are going to have a border adjustment to protect us from imports from countries that are not pricing carbon properly.”

We have an incredible opportunity with an incoming U.S. administration, having appointed John Kerry as their climate czar. This appears to be a government that is serious. They are already ahead of us in reducing greenhouse gases even after four years of Trump. That is how poorly we have been performing. Let us seize the opportunity to call President-Elect Joe Biden and say we are with him, let us cancel all the fossil fuel subsidies and let us have both countries ban fracking because fracked natural gas produces methane and that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. If we are going to preserve a livable world for our kids, we have to keep both issues on the front burner.

I will be digging into this report as I know the party leader and members of our caucus, the members for Fredericton and Nanaimo—Ladysmith will be working through all of the details in this very detailed document. I am encouraged by much of what we see. I think we will be increasingly clear on what is missing. Please, let us make this the turning point it really can be. Post-COVID, Canada can emerge as a country that actually gets our act together, where our productivity index goes up, where our competitiveness goes up, where our job creation goes up, because we will not be wasting any more money in dying industries that not only are dying, but threaten us.

We have to put our kids and our recovery at the heart of everything we do as a nation, climate emergency and fairness in the world, eliminating poverty in Canada, eliminating racism in Canada and taking a stand globally so that we help around the world delivering on all the sustainable development goals. We can do this. We have a really amazing opportunity. I plead with all of my colleagues to think of this as a moment where we stop thinking about question period as how can I make the other guy look bad, but how do we together make Canada look good.