Debates of March 9th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Documents on Economic Downturns

[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]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the provinces and territories play an administrative role in health care. However, we have given historical amounts of transfers in health care dollars to the provinces. We recognize that Canadians, no matter what region of the country they are in, expect the federal government to play a role in health care delivery.

On a daily basis, Canadians are following the news on the coronavirus situation. Would the member not agree that Ottawa needs to continue to work with the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of health care, and with other stakeholders, including first responders and so forth? I would like his thoughts on dealing with the coronavirus and the importance of all of us coming together, including first responders, provincial and federal governments and others.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the comments and question.

This is a unique situation. It is often said that we can make numbers say what we want. The parliamentary secretary is correct to say that federal government health transfers to the provinces have never been so high. If we consider demographic growth and the increased cost of health services, the federal government has never contributed so little to health in terms of percentage of GDP or health spending. The provinces are having to take on more and more of our health care spending. We have to pay closer attention to the data.

I would remind my colleague that under the initial agreement, Ottawa was supposed to cover half of our health care spending. Ottawa was supposed to match every dollar spent by Quebec. The provinces and Quebec are currently asking the federal government to cover 25% of our health care spending. In other words, we are asking Ottawa to spend $1 for every $3 we spend and we are not even getting that. That is why Quebec's Liberal health minister called this predatory federalism.

Coronavirus presents a real threat. Everyone has to work together to limit the spread of this virus as much as possible, at least until there is a vaccine, which should arrive in a few months.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Liberals and Conservatives have managed the economy for the wealthiest and the multinationals. However, when it comes to helping people in our ridings, that is completely different. We know that the average person is $200 away from insolvency. Therefore, I was very happy to hear conversations around housing and the transition that includes workers, because all we have heard today is the transition as it relates to corporations and those making the most in our country.

Would my friend opposite consider supporting a true, just transition for workers that includes health care, a place for people to live, medication and child care? Would the members support us in investing in people? Would they support our Motion No. 1, for a true, just transition for workers in a green new deal?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his question.

I unfortunately have not yet read through the entire motion. In general, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois tend to be progressive, meaning that we are in favour of a social democracy, redistribution of wealth and support for the less fortunate. However, our views differ when it comes to respect for jurisdictions. We do not want Ottawa to take away Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction over health, for example. If the motion includes respect for provincial jurisdictions, we expect compliance with the Sherbrooke declaration. We expect the motion to acknowledge the right to opt out with full compensation.

Since the world economy has been slowing down, I want to remind the House that it is important to crack down on tax havens. States have fewer resources and OECD countries, such as the United States and Canada, are in debt because corporations and the wealthy are finding more and more tax loopholes and are abusing them. We must take real action and make things that are immoral illegal. Take, for example, the Toronto banks that all have branches in the Caribbean. We need to do something about this.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will discuss our position on the motion and share some of my own thoughts on this request.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for access to information and ethics, emphasis on ethics, I think it is important to explain what I think this motion is really about.

First of all, as several people have said today, the Bloc Québécois obviously agrees with the motion that an order of the House do issue for any document prepared by any department, agency and Crown corporation since November 4, 2015. Obviously, documents produced by any department should be disclosed and available to all parliamentarians.

I am a new member of the 43rd Parliament, and I have a lot to learn, but I know there are fundamental things we must do to be transparent, open and easy to understand, not opaque. Information relevant to public opinion must be entirely accessible. Dialogue is a conversation between two or more people about a particular subject.

The Access to Information Act requires that, upon taking up their positions, ministers proactively publish briefing materials within 120 calendar days of their appointment. The title and reference number of memoranda prepared for ministers by a federal institution must be published within 30 calendar days. Briefing notes prepared for the appearance of a minister before Parliament must be published within 120 calendar days after that appearance.

At present, there is no policy that provides for the proactive disclosure of these documents. Individuals must make a request to have access to all these documents pursuant to the act. They must then obtain a response within 30 days, unless an extension is warranted by the circumstances.

With respect to proactive disclosure, the Access to Information Act provides for time frames that are generally much longer than the 30 days to act on a request. It authorizes institutions to not act on a request for documents when they have already been made public. The commissioner has no oversight over documents that require proactive publication, including the application of exceptions. That is a step backwards with respect to the current law.

The commissioner recommends extending the scope of the legislation to ministers' offices, organizations that support Parliament and organizations that provide administrative support to the courts, with an exception to prevent any breach of parliamentary privilege and any violation of judicial independence.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics made the same recommendation in the previous Parliament, a few months ago, with an exception related to parliamentary duties.

Today we should be talking more about the urgent need to amend this legislation, which is flawed. Considering all these aspects, that is where we stand regarding this disclosure request. I will put it another way. Whether or not we are talking about legislation, I think this is really about transparency, plain and simple. Transparency is an attitude that ensures clarity, intelligibility, and complete accessibility to information relevant to public opinion. Once we achieve that, then dialogue can begin. I have heard the government talk about dialogue on several occasions recently.

I would therefore expect transparency to include initiating a genuine dialogue. Let's not forget that dialogue helps build trust and significantly enhances the level of discussion.

I would like to share an example that demonstrates the benefits of transparency. In the early 2000s, I was working for a wood processing company. It was a hundred-year-old company with over 200 employees. I was working for the chief communications officer. Although the company was privately, not publicly, owned, we made the decision to release all of the company's financial statements, good or bad, on a regular basis.

Everyone was surprised by the numbers. There were many different reactions. Some people could not believe that the economic situation could have such an impact on them. They thought that, if it continued, the company would really have to take action, and that could hurt them.

What was the outcome? The quality of the products shot up. This enabled the company to make up ground on sales and exports, which require higher quality in a market that is evolving significantly.

Because the company was transparent, all of its members were more aware of how they could be affected. There was no need to ask employees to maximize their efforts to overcome the obstacles created by the market downturn.

Alternatively, what happened when we presented results that were a little more positive? This reassured employees that the company was healthy and that their jobs were safe. It also improved productivity. Employees wanted things to continue to go well in the hopes that they would one day get a raise.

The Bloc Québécois works for taxpayers. We do not manage private funds.

Would it not be better to use a day like this to debate fundamental concerns and make the health, safety and prosperity of our fellow citizens central to our discussions and dialogue?

I do not even dare calculate how much it is costing us today, March 9, to debate a request that should be accepted by the government in any case.

For all of these reasons, I think that we should be debating more fundamental issues, namely the prosperity, collective well-being and sustainability of our industries.

In closing, I hope that today's motion and any other motion like it need never again be part of such an official request. I hope that, from now on, we will be able to work together on urgent and important issues. Otherwise, I might be inclined to think there are documents in the public interest that cannot be disclosed to parliamentarians.

It should come as no surprise to learn that the government lacks transparency and is hiding things from us. When that happens, it prevents all parliamentarians from working toward the common good, even though that is what we were elected to do.

[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]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister in particular has been very proactive on the issues of disclosing information and in transparency and accountability. We saw that even before he became Prime Minister, when we, as the third party in the chamber, advocated for proactive disclosure for all members of Parliament. Even though it was not mandated, it was mandated within our caucus to provide information with respect to our expenses.

The request before us is for the government to continue to provide information so members of Parliament, whether in the House or at standing committees, are in a better position to make decisions.

I am compelled to provide comment in response to the member saying that we need to get into the real meat of the issues, such as Canada's middle class and some of the industries that are so vitally important to our country and the well-being of our nation.

What would my colleague across the way see as the most outstanding issue the government is facing?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I think the government and all parliamentarians should address urgent and important issues. Every document that is in the public interest should automatically be disclosed so that everyone can see what we are doing. As I said earlier, when we have nothing to hide and we want to collaborate, then providing as much information as possible is the best way to enable dialogue and collaboration.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, for her passionate speech on the real issues we should be discussing in the House. I completely agree with her.

When we talk about economic downturns, we always forget average Canadians, the people who have been affected by years of inadequate government services and the underfunding of health and other areas. Government priorities are not necessarily in the best interest of average Canadians.

I have a question for my colleague. Does she think that this government and the previous government have favoured large corporations and the rich over average Canadians?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

Earlier I was talking about what a day like today costs taxpayers, when people are hungry, looking for shelter, having a hard time paying their monthly bills and their rent, and so forth. The first thing I said when I arrived in Parliament was that if we wanted prosperity, we must each take a good look at ourselves. It is important to me to see that when there are urgent and important issues we have a comprehensive system. Far too often, some are neglected.

I want to be the first to stand up for the interests of the most vulnerable. We are talking about the middle class, but we are also talking about people living in extreme poverty and the very vulnerable. Having worked in industry as a businesswoman, I can fully understand that for some issues the priority has to be the economy. However, I hope that the 43rd Parliament can provide extremely effective direction to the work of the 338 parliamentarians.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a very dynamic member of Parliament, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. He will be taking the second half of this first round for the NDP.

There is no doubt the NDP will support this motion. What member of Parliament could actually stand in this House and say that he or she opposes transparency and getting this information out about what the government has prepared in terms of an economic downturn. No member of Parliament worth his or her salt would be opposed to that transparency.

As a number of other members have indicated, it is really unfortunate that it has to be an opposition day motion to compel the government to bring forward information that it should be presenting to parliamentarians anyhow. This should be part and parcel of Canadian democracy. Regardless of whether we are talking about a majority government or a minority government, the issue of transparency and full disclosure should be always present.

I am happy to see my Conservative colleagues have learned a lesson from the many years of the Harper government where there was no transparency and the Conservatives were not forthcoming on this kind of information. They appear to have learned their lesson. That is very good. Hopefully the Liberal government has now learned its lesson and the transparency that not just parliamentarians but all Canadians are entitled to will be brought forward.

When we talk about the economic downturn in terms of the preparation the Ministry of Finance or other ministries may have done, it is particularly relevant today when many people see the threat of COVID-19. In some countries we are seeing the spread of that disease in a very unfortunate and tragic way for many victims. We need to know what the economic impacts are and what the government has prepared in terms of an economic downturn that is linked to that virus.

I would like to talk about two other aspects of economic downturns. Regardless of whether we are talking about COVID-19, the fall in oil prices or anything else, there are two considerations that have to be front and centre in the deliberations of this Parliament.

When we talk about the economic downturn, we always forget to mention how it affects ordinary people. Over the past few years, Canadians' quality of life has diminished. There is no doubt about that. There have been cuts to services and today there is a gap in the services provided to the public.

In reality, the economic effects of this downturn have resulted in Canadian families having the highest level of debt among all industrialized countries. This debt is due to the federal government's lack of foresight. The effects of the economic downturn on the finances of ordinary families means that 50% of all Canadian families are $200 away from not being able to pay their monthly bills.

We need to look at those two elements and consider the fact that Canadians have the highest family debt load in industrialized countries and certainly the highest family debt load in Canada's history. At the same time, half of Canadian families are $200 away from insolvency in any given month. We have to wonder why, when we talk about economic downturns, we neglect the fact that Canadian families are worse off than they have been.

Over the last couple of decades, we have seen the deterioration in the quality of life of Canadians. There is the housing crisis where tens of thousands of Canadians do not even have a roof over their head. Nearly seven million Canadians do not have access to the medication that is so vital to keep them in good health and in many cases to keep them alive. Millions of Canadians do not have access to basic dental care.

The week before last, we talked in this House about the importance of having basic dental care rather than a tax cut for people with six-figure incomes. Even though the government voted against that, the reality is that it has touched a chord with the Canadian population. Last week, which was a riding week, people in my riding were talking to me about the importance of bringing basic dental care into Canada.

We see the deplorable state of indigenous communities because of the lack of investments made.

When it comes to the economic downturn we are talking about, whether it is for COVID-19 or any other reason, the reality is Canadians have felt for decades that they have not been the priority.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that $26 billion a year go into offshore tax havens. Wealthy and profitable corporations use them and basically take taxpayer dollars that should be invested for the benefit of all and, with impunity, put them overseas. We have seen massive handouts for the banking sector and handouts such as $12 million to Loblaws for a fridge. There have been many other cases of corporate welfare.

This simply indicates the extent to which the current government and the previous government lost their way in responding to the needs of Canadians. When we are talking about economic downturns, the priority has to be to put Canadian families first, to start investing in pharmacare, basic dental care and affordable housing, and make sure that indigenous communities finally get the investments they have been deprived of for decades. All of these things will help turn around the economic downturn that Canadian families have felt.

There is another element and this is a key one. The issue of climate change has had a profound impact on our economy. Two weeks ago, the Insurance Bureau of Canada came to the finance committee and talked about $5 billion a year in insured liabilities and another $5 billion in economic costs. That is a $10-billion price tag for climate change, and that is growing. As members know, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is talking about that rising to $45 billion a year over the next couple of decades.

When we talk about economic downturns, the importance of making that shift to put in place the transition to ensure workers are taken care of and investments in clean energy are in place is more critical than we could possibly imagine in our nation's history. Instead, we have a government that is spending over $17 billion to subsidize the Trans Mountain pipeline debacle, something that does not have a business case. The pipeline simply could not be built by the private sector, so the government took it over and is now hemorrhaging money for Trans Mountain. At $17.1 billion, it is a money-losing project. Over $100 million was lost last year. When I asked the finance minister at the finance committee at what point the government was going to stop throwing money at Trans Mountain, whether it was $25 billion, $30 billion or if the sky was the limit, he could not reply.

At a time when we see the economic impacts, the downturn related to climate change, and it is crucial to make those investments into clean energy and transition our economy, we instead see the current government, like the previous government, throwing money at the oil and gas lobbyists. It seems to have a limitless capacity of putting in place oil and gas subsidies instead of cutting back and curtailing those subsidies and putting them into clean energy, where I know energy workers in Alberta would want to see those investments. I know when we talk about the 100,000 capped oil wells in Alberta and Saskatchewan and the tremendous potential for geothermal energy, they would want to see those investments. Instead, we see the government hemorrhaging tens of billions of dollars to provide support for Trans Mountain.

These are the issues when we talk about the economic downturn. We need to start making these investments to transition now, as the economic downturn related to climate change hits us. We need to start reinvesting in families to ensure that families are no longer left behind. That is the motive behind the green new deal motion, private member's Motion No. 1, that is before Parliament, which we hope to bring to a vote at some point this year.

These are the kinds of things that will make a difference in the lives of families and protect our country and our planet. I certainly hope that the impacts of climate change and the economic downturn that is related to them are taken seriously by all members of Parliament.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I have heard that member talk many times against the Trans Mountain pipeline and the $7.8 billion that the government is spending. The government is spending for many reasons. One is jobs, but it is really to create another export market for Canada's natural resource products.

I want to tell the member the economics behind this spending. There is a thing called the Alberta discount. The oil market discounts Canadian oil because we have no alternative but to sell to the United States. That amounts to 15% to 28% of the price per barrel of oil.

The pipeline would be safer and better for the environment, but if we could get rid of that Alberta discount, it would mean $587 billion per year to Canadians. We lose $1.8 billion a day in this country because of the Alberta discount, yet that member constantly talks against a pipeline that would allow us to get proper market prices for our oil. Come on.

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

Where to start, Madam Speaker?

First, I come from the oil industry. I worked at the Shellburn oil refinery, which is now closed, and that is the real problem. It is not just that the member's figures are completely bogus. It is not $7.6 billion; the cost of Trans Mountain is now close to $13 billion, and climbing. The member should update his figures.

The reality is the discounted price does not apply to integrated companies. Suncor, Esso and Husky upgrade and refine their oil products here in Canada and benefit from that differential, and that is the issue. We are talking about largely supporting companies that refuse to upgrade and refine their oil products in Canada, and many of them, if not most of them, are foreign owned.

What we are doing is subsidizing, in a massive, unprecedented way, oil and gas executives who know full well that Trans Mountain has no business case. The increase in costs means that even shippers will have to be subsidized.

I am ready to have that debate with the member for Malpeque anytime. I respect him a lot, but the reality is that his figures do not hold up.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased that my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby drew attention to the fact that insurance companies are now using climate change as a reason to increase premiums. In fact, they are going to capitalize off that.

My question pertains to a subject that my colleague from Malpeque and I were discussing in Toronto at the PDAC meeting. I has to do with clean, new, emission-free energy. It is actually a modification of an existing type of energy. I am referring to small modular reactors and microreactors. They could be used in the Arctic instead of diesel fuel. The member for Malpeque was saying that it would take a lot of trucks off the road if we could install a microreactor or small modular reactor at his french fry plant.

Since the member who just spoke would like to see a clean, emission-free environment, would he be willing to ensure that small modular reactors and microreactors will come to market very soon?

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

Madam Speaker, I have always enjoyed working with that member.

As the member points out, the reality is that over 600 northern indigenous communities and isolated communities rely on diesel being flown in, and anyone who has travelled through the north has seen the toxic waste dumps that have developed a kilometre or two from a village or a community as a result. The high cost of flying in that diesel fuel and then the high cost of disposing of it mean that we need to make it an imperative to transition to clean energy, which I would prefer, and thereby ensure that with clean energy development, those communities would develop their own grids and be able to provide for the economic development that comes with clean energy. It will take federal government leadership to make sure those 600 communities can transition to clean energy.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on this motion before the House.

As members have heard, New Democrats are supporting this motion, which calls on the government to ensure that the House receives tabled documents when there are warnings about economic downturns or potential impacts on the fiscal framework of the government, or when it gets advice or recommendations on how to deal with them.

The timing of this motion could not be more appropriate. Today we have seen the biggest drop in the TSX since 1987, and oil prices have dropped about 30%. We are seeing the impact on Canada of concerns about COVID-19, the coronavirus that is spreading globally, and the uncertainty that it is bringing. We know, when we see oil prices plummet like this, that the result will be the loss of thousands of jobs in the energy sector. It is going to impact families and communities in Alberta and across this country, because people commute to the oil sands to work there. This is going to have an impact on those who are vulnerable right now and struggling to get by. We know that household debt is skyrocketing, that 50% of Canadians are within $200 of becoming insolvent. This will quickly have an impact on those people.

In my riding alone, 10,000 jobs are reliant on tourism. As we can imagine, people are very concerned about travel and tourism being affected by this global crisis.

I am deeply concerned about the most vulnerable, such as those who cannot afford a place to live. The government has made a commitment to house 50% of the homeless in the next 10 years. Clearly, that is not good enough. There are people who cannot afford medicine and have to make a choice between whether they will pay rent or eat or fill their prescriptions. There are people who cannot get jobs because they are missing teeth or living in chronic pain because of dental work they require, and the government still has not delivered on a plan to help these very vulnerable people, as well as everyday Canadians who are working hard to make ends meet.

We are seeing housing costs skyrocket. It is impacting people in our communities and it is impacting the business community. There are six chambers of commerce in my riding, and the number one concern of every one of those chambers is affordable housing. It is limiting growth and making it difficult for even small business owners to find places to live. The government has not delivered on these very important concerns that people have been bringing forward and that we have been relaying here to Ottawa.

We have a climate crisis. The IPCC has called on all governments across this incredible planet that we share to reduce global emissions by 40% by 2030, and the government still does not have a plan to meet that important threshold. We have 12 years to do it, but we have not seen action.

We have not built the resiliency to diversify our economy, to protect us when commodity prices crash in the way we are seeing today. Here we are, at a time when the wealthy, CEOs and big corporations get bailouts. Loblaws received $12 million in its bailout and Mastercard received $50 million. In the meantime, Mastercard is still charging small business people some of the highest merchant fees in the world. The government has proposed a 1.4% voluntary rate for interchange fees, whereas in Europe it is 0.5% and in Australia it is 0.3%. The government is constantly protecting big corporations, maintaining the CEO stock option loophole and supporting tax havens, which is an economic leakage of $26 billion a year that could pay for an affordable dental care plan for Canadians.

We know the government has maintained the same health care transfers that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives put forward, which is leading to chronic underfunding of our health care system. There is overcrowding in our hospitals. Rural communities are unable to attract doctors or invest in primary health networks, things that are absolutely critical to make our health care system more efficient and to serve Canadians.

As we see the government fail to deliver on these transfers, it really does affect the most vulnerable, especially seniors or people with compromised health. Now we have a crisis upon us. With the coronavirus fast approaching our country, our health care system is not prepared to deal with it in the way we should be able to. This is something that could have been mitigated had we not been doing corporate giveaways and helping the wealthy move their money out of this country.

We know that the Conservatives continue to cut services, so we are concerned. When we talk about an economic plan, what does that economic plan look like for maintaining services and helping those who are struggling to make ends meet? New Democrats are looking for a plan with real transition. We are talking about the health care system, and this is the government's opportunity to beef up transfers to the provinces so that we can be better prepared when a crisis like the coronavirus hits our country.

We need a pharmacare plan. New Democrats put forward the costing of our pharmacare plan and showed how it would actually save money in the end and ensure that people would not have to make those difficult choices.

We also put forward a proposal in the House for a dental care plan, which the Liberals defeated. The plan would have limited the middle-class tax break for those who earn over $90,000 so that anyone earning less than $90,000 would receive the dental care they need. What an opportunity this would have been. It would have been good for the GDP. It would have taken the pressure off the small business community that is buying private insurance for its employees and is unable to afford it. It would have ensured that there would be fewer lost days in the workplace and that employers were taking care of their number one asset, their employees. We know that these are critical opportunities for investment.

We hear a lot about the housing crisis. Yesterday, on my way to Ottawa, I was at the gas bar and ran into my good friend Thomas. Thomas has been homeless for almost a year. He has told me that there is just nowhere to live and that he is unable to get a good job. Thomas is indigenous, and the government still does not have an indigenous urban housing strategy or a rural housing strategy for indigenous people.

Everyday people in my riding who are working two or three jobs cannot find a place to live. Single parents are especially vulnerable. The government talks about its housing plan, but it is being delayed. The housing plan should be front-ended, not back-ended. New Democrats are calling on the government to speed up its investments when it comes to helping the most vulnerable.

As for clean energy, right now is the opportunity for the government to come out with an emergency package for Canadians to deal with the drop in commodity prices and invest in a future for Canadians by investing in clean energy and a climate bank, as we proposed in our campaign. The government could invest into a climate bank and into clean energy across the country, especially in areas that will be hit the hardest by the drop in oil prices.

In my riding, constituents are desperate for salmon restoration funds. The government needs to invest in the future and ensure we bring our salmon back to abundance, which is key to our economy and food security. It is also key to our ecosystem and culture. Port Alberni, which is the only deep sea port on the west coast of Vancouver Island, is looking for a floating dry dock. An investment like this would help alleviate the pressure on floating dry dock space, which is clearly needed between Oregon and Alaska. It is an opportunity to create jobs.

My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby talked about indigenous communities that are bringing diesel into their communities. There is a community called Hesquiath that has been working with the government, but the process has been dragged out. This is the time to invest in communities like Hesquiath so they can get off diesel and operate on clean energy. These communities are waiting for these important strategic investments.

With regard to firefighting capacity, we know that firefighting season is coming upon us. We need to invest in firefighting capacity so that we can attack these issues when fires come up across our country. We need a strategic plan. There is a great company in my riding called Coulson Aviation, and the government has done some great work with it, but this is an opportunity for us to expand that work.

We need a plan right now to deal with the crisis at hand. New Democrats are calling on the government to do the right thing and come out with an emergency aid package that is going to benefit Canadians.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting when we hear the Conservatives saying we are doing too much, we are spending too much and we have to take control of the deficit. On the other hand, my New Democrat friends take the opposite approach, that we should be spending billions and billions more in areas such as health care.

I like to believe that we have been very successful in terms of focusing our attention on Canada's middle class. Examples of that would include lifting thousands of children out of poverty, lifting thousands of seniors out of poverty and putting hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of Canada's middle class, thereby increasing the disposable income that helps build Canada's economy.

The New Democrats seem to be focusing a great deal today on the dental plan. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on why, in the last few years when they were the official opposition, I very rarely heard that. Is it safe to say it is because we are moving forward on pharmacare, and now the NDP is wanting to see the expansion?

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have moved as far on pharmacare as they did when they put out the red book in 1993. They have made no gains. We are talking about pharmacare because they still have not addressed it. People are still not able to fill their prescriptions when they need them. We are talking about dental care because it makes sense.

In the first middle-class tax break that the Liberals introduced, people who earned $45,000 a year or less got nothing, while those who earned over $100,000 got $700. It did not make sense. It did not help the people the member is talking about.

Right now, the Liberals have a golden opportunity to invest in the transition to clean energy, to a future that works for everybody, to invest in people. We know that when we invest in health care, it saves the health care system in the long term. When we invest in housing, it saves money.

Therefore, we are asking the Liberals to make these critical investments instead of allowing their friends to move money offshore into tax havens, allowing CEO stock option loopholes or bailing out their corporate friends.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that some of the asks in my colleague's speech were honourable. We need to obviously provide funding for some of the things where we have gaps in this country. There is a disconnect. We know that a segment of our economy, 15% of our economy, is driven by the oil and gas sector, coast to coast to coast.

How can the member and his party ask for more and more, yet continually side with the government to try to derail our energy sector?

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

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague comes from Alberta, which we know is being hardest hit right now with the drop in oil prices. What is derailing the oil economy and the oil sector right now is the global economy first and foremost.

We talk about the investments that the government is continuing to put in oil and gas, whether it be its failed business plan and model for the TMX pipeline or constant oil subsidies. The opportunity should be to use that money in transition to invest in clean energy, and to continue to support Alberta as a powerhouse in the Canadian economy. This is an opportunity right now to make strategic record investments in clean energy.

The member will find that, on this side of the House, even someone from coastal British Columbia would genuinely support targeting those investments in areas that are going to most feel this downturn in the oil economy, but investments that are turned toward the future so that we are not so vulnerable, especially for the communities he comes from. I really appreciate the member's passion, his concern and absolutely his standing up for his community and his province.

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

Madam Speaker, when we have economic downturns we know the most disadvantaged and those who are in precarious work often get hurt first and hurt hardest. I would like my colleague to explain to the House why it is so important that we get this information from the government. It would allow us, as members of Parliament, to make an analysis of what the department has recommended and how well the government programs are responding to the crisis at hand.

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

Madam Speaker it is important, especially in times like this, to be able to ensure that the House of Commons and parliamentarians have a chance to put scrutiny on the government's plans, to have transparency and to foster the necessary dialogue so that we can improve on the government's plans to bring forward voices from every corner of this country.

It is absolutely essential that the government relays this information to the House for debate so we can have that opportunity to dissect the information the Liberals are bringing forward and make sure that we have a plan for all Canadians.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from the eastern Ontario riding of Carleton.

This motion is about lost opportunity. The finance minister has squandered the healthy treasury that was left to him by the previous Conservative government and the balanced budget that came with our prudent management of public finances. A balanced budget is not an aspirational goal for the next century. It is something that Canadians expect in this decade or before.

An absolute vacuum of leadership exists in the Liberal Party today. Canadians have yet to hear a coherent question period response from the Prime Minister since his party lost the popular vote in the last election, which is the same arrogant approach the Prime Minister took before the election. Canadians deserve better.

Canadians are now asking whether Canada is broken. The answer I am hearing from Canadians from all walks of life is yes. The failed, divisive policies of the current government are breaking Canada apart and there is no doubt that, with the events of late, Canada is at a turning point. During a recent question period, my colleague from Alberta politely asked if the Prime Minister wanted to keep Alberta in Canada. Canadians are still waiting for an answer.

Can we move forward in this changing world of 2020, awash in manufactured fears about the weather and phony policies like carbon taxes, which do nothing to help the environment but do everything to raise taxes to reward Liberal Party favourites?

Can we overcome the economic, social and political unrest the government has created by making promises to indigenous Canadians and giving an aboriginal woman a prominent seat at the cabinet table only to purge her from the Liberal Party for standing up for the rule of law in Canada? The fired former justice minister passed the democracy test with flying colours. The Prime Minister failed Canadians miserably with his treatment of a strong woman.

Happy International Women's Day, Mr. Prime Minister.

That is a powerful message the groper sent to women and aboriginals. Actions speak louder than words. Canadians—

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

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer rises on a point of order.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe it is against the rules of the House to refer to other hon. members in any disparaging terms. I think if the speaker were to take a look at the record, she would find that she had referred to an hon. member as a “groper”.

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

Does the hon. member wish to withdraw her wording?