House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.

Topics

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to follow that very impressive intervention.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

It is a great honour for me to rise today and debate this motion on the floor with my colleagues, but I want to start by talking a bit about my staff that is serving the great constituents of Edmonton Centre. Edmonton Centre is an urban centre that has certainly been impacted by COVID, and the work that they have put forward is quite remarkable. Along with my responsibilities as shadow minister for small business and export promotion, I have the added burden of trying to work through the issues with small businesses and trying to help those small businesses that are struggling throughout the country.

I also want to talk about the people who have had to make adjustments in this very difficult time. I have a very personal story on that. I have a son, Garrett, who has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Garrett has been struggling through this difficult time with COVID, but he has managed to complete his masters in global security online. It proves to me that we can do remarkable things when we set our minds to it.

If Garrett were here today, he would tell members that I am his voice, and he believes I should be here debating legislation. He would tell me that is why I am here. That is what I should be doing: not serving on a committee, but debating legislation. That is important to him, and it is important to my constituents.

Conservatives have been calling for Parliament to get back in a full way to be able to debate legislation. Of course we want to do it in a healthy way, following all the particular guidelines.

This proposal by the Liberals is an improvement from what we heard before, but it still fails in that it does not allow us to debate legislation. With that, we miss other things. We miss opposition days. We miss emergency debates. We miss the opportunity to debate private members' bills, order publication of government documents and debate and vote on committee reports. We also do not have all the committees sitting, so it is not full Parliament: It is a committee.

On the notion of private members' bills, it is incredibly important for members here, and particularly for new members like me, to be able to put forward bills and have them be debated, which we have not been able to do. I happen to be one of the lucky people: I drew sixth in line.

The private member's bill that I put forward, if someone would like to look at it, is Bill C-229. It is a bill that we are really going to need as we come out of COVID, because we are going to have to generate enormous amounts of revenue in this country to try to get back on track. This bill repeals the restrictions on tankers off the coast of B.C. This is an incredibly important issue in my province and for the rest of Canada, because the resource industry in this country has helped to fuel a lot of the infrastructure, a lot of the things that we have come to enjoy and the lifestyle that we have come to enjoy.

There is another important private member's bill. It breaks my heart that we are not able to debate it and see it go through. It was from one of my colleagues who drew the number one spot. It is from the member for Calgary Confederation, on the establishment of a national organ and tissue donor registry in Canada. It is Bill C-210, and I am hoping my colleagues will support it, but we should be talking about it now.

We need tremendous oversight in these times, with what is going on with COVID. That oversight has to include watching the spending of the government. The Auditor General said he needs another $10 million to properly do his job, to make sure that he can audit and do performance audits on those things that are important to this country. We are not able to pass any legislation. The Auditor General should be doing his job, and that oversight is even more important now, because we have heard from the PBO suggesting that there could be $250-billion worth of debt.

In questioning the PBO at committee, the level of confidence on $250 billion is very low. I suspect it could be at a three or a four. It is not just about the money; it is about how the money is spent and being accountable to the taxpayers. That does not even talk about the increasing household debt. It does not talk about the increase in provincial debt and municipal debt.

We need to see a budget. We need to be able to debate a budget, given the stresses of the economy, with a budget that will give a go-forward plan. Currently we do not have a go-forward plan. We have a reaction to the issue, but we need a plan to be able to understand where we are going and how we are going to come out of this.

We need to be able to debate this economic recovery after this first wave of the pandemic. What will happen to investments in the country, both the investments that we have now and the investments that have gone out of the country.

We need to talk about the debt that people are taking on. Almost every program is debt, debt, deferral; debt, debt, deferral. It is hard for businesses. They are going to have a hard time recovering from this.

Small businesses, of which I have been hearing from thousands, are working hard just trying to keep the doors open. These programs for further debt and deferrals are going to hit hard in September. We should be debating these issues. We should be talking about legislation to help those businesses before that happens in the fall.

Another point that the Liberals have been quiet on includes the changes to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board regulations and especially for patients with cystic fibrosis. These changes incorporate new factors in determining whether a medicine is being or has been sold at excessive prices. The review board's changes would require patented drug manufacturers to significantly reduce their prices, a good thing, but making Canada a less attractive market to launch innovative therapies such as precision medicines that can alter the course of conditions such as cystic fibrosis.

The review board's changes affect private drug plans and patient access to new medicines for Canadians. These changes are currently on track to be implemented July 1. Already registration for new clinical trials have decreased by over 60%, from November 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020, because of these changes. These changes also affected the approval of new drugs, showing a drop of more than two-thirds.

One of the advocates to fight against these changes is Sandy. She lives in my riding. Her 14-year-old daughter, Laura, is battling cystic fibrosis. They, along with thousands of other Canadians, are fighting for access to a new drug called Trikafta, which has shown significant improvements in the lives of people suffering from cystic fibrosis by treating all cell levels and helping with lung performances. While other drugs in the past were treating symptoms, this actually improves lung performance and has been deemed the closest thing to a cure.

The parent company, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, has not yet applied to Health Canada because of the review board's regulatory changes, while it has been ready for approval in the U.S. market since last year. Canadians need access to this life-changing drug.

I want to acknowledge my colleague, the member for Parliament for Edmonton Riverbend, who has been working hard on this issue. These are the sorts of things we should be debating.

I ran for office and I came to this place to debate legislation. That is why I am here. That is what my constituents want me to do. They want me to serve them at home, but they also want me to serve them in this place and debate legislation. Let us get on with it. I know we can do it. I look forward to when we can actually debate legislation again.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with a mom from Saskatchewan who is fighting for her daughter's life. She set up Cassidy's Lemonade Stand. Cassidy's mom is pleading to get Trikafta approved because this drug will save her daughter's life. She was crying and begging to me on the phone. I know that a letter was sent to the health minister, and it is unfortunate to see how slow the process is for getting this drug approved. It is disappointing, but we will debate these things.

The member for Calgary Confederation had a bill, and the member for Edmonton Centre talked about it earlier. The member from Edmonton is number six on the list. It is disappointing to see the NDP vote with the Liberals to prevent private members' bills from being debated in this place.

I am wondering if there are other private members' bills or other business items that are missing out because we cannot debate. Does the member see a missed opportunity there?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, of course there are all kinds of things we could be debating. A private member's bill is just one of many things. There are numerous bills that are life-changing for people. That is why we come here. That is why members put in private members' bills. They want to debate them and want to see that they at least have a chance of becoming legislation. As we delay, the likelihood of this happening diminishes. We should get back to debating those sorts of things in the House.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say that small businesses are working hard to keep their doors open. I also heard the member say, in earlier comments, that businesses in his riding, such as hair salons, are looking for access to the Canada emergency business account that the government has put in place. As a reminder, these are $40,000 loans that are made available to small businesses interest free and guaranteed by the government, of which $10,000 is a grant if the remainder is reimbursed on time.

Is the member supportive of the changes we have made to the business account to make it more accessible, despite his comments about the deficit and the spending that our government is undertaking in response to the pandemic?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we have a program in place that can allow people to borrow more, but if the member had listened to my speech, she would know the issue is not the borrowing. Businesses do not have the capital to generate the revenue to repay the loans. Granted, they have no interest for two years and then eventually have a market interest rate, but that is not what businesses need. They need equity. They need the government to start modifying these programs so that there is greater accessibility. We have been hearing for weeks that there will be changes to allow people to use personal bank accounts, but those sorts of things have not yet happened.

Businesses need certainty and they need this to be timely. The delays that are happening with that program are hurting businesses.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed Conservative colleague for sharing his time with a Bloc member. Everything will be all right.

I would like to look back in time, because there was a time when things were done right. March 13 was our last day in the House. After that, the country was put on hold. This break turned our lives upside down, our personal lives, our collective lives and our lives as members of Parliament, as parliamentarians. However, we were able to adjust.

I heard my colleague from La Prairie say that solidarity was one of the greatest strengths we showed during this time. I agree with him on that. What is more, we hope that we will be able to continue to work in solidarity after the crisis.

We also had the opportunity to talk about things that we needed to do. One of the things that we had to do was to allow for an exception regarding our role in the House. The Bloc Québécois helped with that. We had to give the House exceptional powers. I would like to remind my colleagues that, from an economic perspective, the current crisis is as significant as the Second World War. That is no small thing.

I thank the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his kind words about my previous career as a nurse.

With respect to health, we are dealing with a virus that we do not yet fully understand. That is why public health officials are asking the public to be cautious about reopening. We must keep this in mind, because it would be irresponsible not to do so.

That said, the government has brought in emergency measures. The Canada emergency response benefit had its problems at first, but then it became inclusive. The Canada emergency response benefit was intended primarily to address a flaw in the social safety net, a flaw in the employment insurance system. We realized that the EI system could not provide for the eight million workers who lost their jobs.

There is also the Canada emergency student benefit. We called for it because some students had fallen through the cracks. This benefit is more recent. The Bloc Québécois demanded that these support measures, which benefit workers and students alike, come with work incentives. We saw this coming.

I also want to point out that, on April 29, if I remember correctly, we were promised that we could keep doing our work as usual. That promise was broken.

The emergency wage subsidy started out at 10%, but we worked hard to push it to 75% and to make the rules more flexible so that more businesses could get it. We need to keep people employed for a strong recovery.

We never thought that the scope of the benefit would be expanded. When you eat your Smarties, you usually eat the red ones last. In this case, the Reds are eating first.

I find it disappointing and even indecent that wage subsidies meant to help businesses will be propping up partisan salaries.

At this point, I find it deplorable that no solutions have been found. People can no longer put their lives on hold and remain in lockdown. People need to “open up”.

Besides, our society is already doing it. It has begun in every province, and I would even say it was happening during the crisis, because we had Zoom.

Incidentally, Zoom is the first thing I would like to get away from.

Chambers of commerce and the municipalities had to respond to the crisis. Right away we saw people mobilizing to come up with solutions to address gaps and trying to think ahead, because everyone knew this situation would not last forever and one day the recovery would begin.

That is where we are in the House. If we want to think about the “now” and the “after”, we must take back our power to legislate. I will give some examples. One of my colleagues talked about this earlier, but I want to talk about the environment.

If we can envision a green, sustainable recovery, we also have to consider—and I will talk about workers because that has been my field all my life—how this transition can also be done for the workers. This is crucial, and it will require legislation.

The Canada emergency response benefit will end. Our federal employment insurance program as we know it will not be able to respond to everyone when the CERB ends because it leaves behind primarily women, who are most likely to hold atypical and part-time jobs and who are therefore excluded, because workers in the seasonal industry are currently in the EI spring gap when pilot projects were ending on May 20 but for which there is still no answer, and so forth.

We are talking about sick leave. If there is one measure that people needed before and we could put in place it is special sickness benefits, which are only 15 weeks and should increase to 52 weeks.

For that we need a Parliament that legislates. We are going to need permanent, lasting and predictable measures if we want to avoid another wave, another pandemic. Some are already saying that there is going to be another wave in the fall. We hope not. There also may not be one, but we have to be able to prevent it. We cannot do that just by asking questions, by wondering what works and what does not and how we might react.

I want to talk about what is happening with businesses. We are seeing more and more bankruptcies. More and more businesses will not be able to survive and are filing for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

What happens to the pension plans, to workers' nest eggs? On top of losing their jobs and earning wages well below the value of their work, they are at risk of losing their nest eggs if we do not protect pension funds.

There are many things we should have been debating, but instead, the Prime Minister decided to be opportunistic by touting the 10 days of sick leave—which we certainly support—knowing full well that this requires amendments to each of the provinces' laws. It is impossible to impose this, and he was bound to get agreement.

This makes me angry, not because this is not an important issue, but because it does not fit in with what we should have been doing today in the House. We should be deciding that we can and must resume work in Parliament because we have a duty to implement long-lasting, sustainable and predictable legislative measures. We cannot take a piecemeal approach.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her inspiring speech.

I am going to go back to something she said just to expand on it a little.

My colleague stated that she detests Zoom meetings. There may be a second wave and we do not know what the future holds. There may even be a case of COVID-19 in Parliament one day, which would force us to actually physically close Parliament. We do not yet know.

She also spoke about very important bills that we could have debated.

Although she hates virtual meetings, I would like to know what she thinks of a hybrid-format Parliament where we could have debates both in person and virtually.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, it was truly heartfelt.

Our role as members is also to take care of others. The political role also entails getting together with people, being with them and socializing. How many events and presentations have we had to cancel? We now have to meet on Zoom. I completely agree that we need a hybrid format where electronic means are available. That is also something that we have to provide for and put in place because it is very likely that this will last much longer than what we would like. We will take whatever time is necessary before being physically present in the House, which is impossible to do right now with 338 members.

We must allow this, and we could have been proactive in asking that it be worked on. I will be very pleased if we have both.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Regarding one of the last points she raised, I have to say that one of the things I like best about being a politician is going door to door. I have a feeling people might not be too keen to open their doors and shake our hands. We will have to rethink how we do a lot of things.

Regarding how we do things, I am having a hard time understanding the Bloc Québécois's stance, which seems kind of contradictory at the moment. We are indeed legislators. That is our role, and we want to debate legislation, but because there is no safe way to vote on legislation, what is the point of debating it if we cannot vote?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, we must plan for that. Already, in the House, we thought that virtual meetings were impossible. I remember the debates. We could not conceive of doing it virtually. We thought the world would be turned upside down and the technology would not work. Now we see that it is possible. We therefore must plan for that kind of voting, and we are open to electronic voting.

We cannot do so if we do not change how we vote, which could involve some kind of hybrid Parliament. It will be impossible to conceive of any kind of recovery if we do not give ourselves the ability to act using our legislative power. We must therefore work on this.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, in another life, my colleague was a nurse, and my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert just paid her a beautiful tribute. At least she knows what it is like for people on the front lines. She knows the needs, or what the needs were in the past, and I do not think much has changed.

She must surely agree that health is a provincial jurisdiction. I heard an NDP member earlier say that the pandemic knows no jurisdictions, but it seems to me that the federal government is the one that knows no jurisdictions, as it encroaches on Quebec's jurisdictions.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government should use this crisis as an opportunity to increase health transfers to Quebec and the provinces?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. That should have been done long ago.

I was a nurse in my previous life, and I also took part in a number of commissions of inquiry on health care systems, in my province, Quebec, and also across Canada. I can even say, since I am a young person with experience, that I presented a brief to the the Romanow commission, the last major commission of inquiry in Canada.

Even then, a minimum threshold of 25% was recommended. Above all, the three factors recommended were stability, sustainability and predictability. However, health transfers have been reduced. We are below the 25% and we have already been below 20%. To meet health care and social services needs in each province, it is imperative that Canadian health transfers be increased by 6%.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford.

I would like to begin by thanking the people with whom I work in my riding office, namely Célia, Caroline, Joël and Daniel. They have all been doing an extraordinary job since the pandemic began. They are there to listen to and comfort people. They are also trying to sort out the mishmash of measures that are announced day after day, when, in the end, the measures take effect two or three weeks later.

It is not always easy to respond to our constituents. The riding of Repentigny, like all ridings, has many industries that were quickly affected by the pandemic. In Repentigny, there are a lot of SMEs. That is why fixed costs are a problem. The government has not made any improvements yet, despite all of the proposals we made.

Repentigny is a riding that has areas that are largely agricultural. There again, very little new money was distributed.

It is a riding rich in culture. It is home to major institutions such as the Théâtre Hector-Charland, the Centre d'arts Diane-Dufresne, and Aramusique, which disseminate culture. What is going on with culture right now? Some measures were announced in the last budget, but since we cannot discuss them right now, those amounts may not be protected.

I am obviously going to talk about the environment because the environmental destruction that we are currently seeing is also destroying the systems that support us and keep us alive. We are destroying these systems and life on earth, including human life. That is what is currently happening.

The environment cannot be subject to political compromise. The cause of the pandemic is debatable. However, a growing body of research is showing that the majority of infectious diseases are transmitted from animal to man and vice versa. That was the case with Ebola, avian flu, SARS and probably this new coronavirus. This is happening because we are interfering with biodiversity and natural habitats and because of unchecked urban sprawl, intensive animal husbandry and poaching. Environmentalists have long condemned these practices.

Some are also saying that we have no way of knowing what viruses will be uncovered when global warming melts the permafrost. We cannot see the forest for the trees. The impact of the immediate effects of the virus tends to eclipse the much more profound and lasting environmental problems that are not unrelated to our current crisis. Governments were quick to impose draconian measures to combat the novel coronavirus. I cannot wait to see whether, after the crisis, they will be just as quick to bring in measures to combat climate change.

We know that many biologists predict that there will be more pandemics in the future given our relationship with wildlife, the overcrowding of livestock in farms and so on. We might want to start by acknowledging that and then being proactive. This crisis is related to climate change, the collapse of biodiversity, and the rise in extreme events. The outlook is grim. Human and animal health as well as that of our ecosystems and the economy go hand in hand.

The government is forming a post-crisis and economic recovery committee. It is made up of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Infrastructure, formerly minister of environment, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, given his knowledge and experience in the matter. What is this? How is it that the Minister of Natural Resources is not included?

Eventually they will reach an impasse. Who will win? Who will get the final word?

The Bloc Québécois has taken the green recovery seriously. We see the environment as a holistic issue with connections to all the other issues. We have already had a few Zoom meetings about that.

Whatever happened to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? It has stopped meeting. It is not there anymore, and not for lack of asking. The Bloc has asked for it.

It is being said that oil companies lobbied the government particularly hard in April. That is what I read in the Hill Times. Do the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the government realize how important it is to fight climate change, or are they going to pay more attention to oil lobbyists than to science?

During the lockdown, we heard some great things and some positive news about the environment. For example, the canals in Venice ran clear; the mountains were visible in Wuhan; the Acropolis rose crystal-clear above the sea in Athens, Greece; city air was less polluted. This is all likely to be short-lived, however. Less pollution for the time being will not slow down the climate crisis. As all the experts say, a temporary reduction in emissions does not matter nearly as much as an ongoing, sustainable reduction.

What will make a difference is the recovery plan. Will we move towards a green recovery or a brown recovery? In all the newspapers, many studies and articles have been published calling for a green recovery. Apparently, in 2020, greenhouse gas emissions have dropped by 4%. However, they need to drop by 7% in order to meet the Paris targets. I am not saying we should stay confined for a year. Measures can be taken, and there are things we can do before the end of the year.

A research scientist with Environment Canada reminds us that air pollution in Canada's big cities has dropped by roughly a third since the pandemic began. It is great that we are breathing cleaner air. Health and the environment and closely linked. According to Health Canada, 14,000 Canadians die prematurely because of pollution. Globally, that translates to millions of premature deaths because of pollution.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement and the Canadian Medical Association have joined 40 million health care professionals from 90 countries in calling for public health and the environment to be at the heart of the economic recovery. Will anyone listen? I am very eager to see what the government's recovery plan is.

There is also the economy. The managing director of the World Economic Forum said:

We now have a unique opportunity to use this crisis to do things differently and build back better economies that are more sustainable, resilient and inclusive.

Here are some ideas of what we can do. We can increase the carbon tax. Yes, I said it. We can penalize long-distance imports by companies that are not good environmental stewards. We should provide support to develop compostable containers and packaging, limit the use of fossil fuels, implement energy retrofit incentive programs, improve insulation in buildings, build public transit infrastructure, share assets, and provide support for low-carbon infrastructure. There are more. This is but a short list.

It is true that the pandemic has created a crisis. Now it is time to be accountable, and that is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this motion. We want to be able to have a more robust discussion about what will happen in the economic recovery. Will it be green or brown? I repeat, we want to have a more robust discussion on the promises that were not kept and all the environmental issues. We want to be able to move motions, draft laws and hold the government to account. The formula being discussed here will only limit our members and our interventions.

This is the 21st century. We should find a formula that lets everyone participate and advocate for issues, ask questions, get answers and introduce bills.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the bills that, sadly, we will not have an opportunity to discuss because the House will, for all intents and purposes, be shut down and restricted only to question period.

Just as an aside, I would like to respond to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. We already have the in-person sitting set-up, which allows for some voting. That is in place until we come up with an alternative. That is something that could have been done.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on private members' bills and have her go over what the Bloc Québécois had on its environmental legislation agenda.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

One of the first 10 bills the Bloc Québécois would like to debate is by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. Her bill would force the government to respect its Paris commitments and therefore adhere to its greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is an interesting bill that includes accountability. If the government fails to meet its targets, it has to explain what steps it will take. That means we can track changes in our fight against greenhouse gas emissions year over year, and that would give Parliament a chance to debate it.

Another bill that we put forward deals with jurisdiction. The federal government's areas of jurisdiction give it priority over what happens in the provinces, particularly when it comes to the environment.

A private company in Limoilou refused to talk to an environmental inspector from the Government of Quebec on the pretext that the environment was an area of federal jurisdiction and that the inspector had no right to be there. This company was responsible for the red dust that was settling all over Limoilou, on window sills and balconies. The case spent a lot of time winding through various courts before ending up before the Supreme Court, which refused to consider the case, thereby maintaining the most recent previous ruling, which gave Ottawa priority in environmental matters.

Quebec therefore has no power in this area because it has been stripped of its authority to defend the environment for the sake of the health of Limoilou residents, and this situation applies to the entire province.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which clearly demonstrated her interest in and passion for defending the environment. I obviously share that interest, since I was the NDP critic on that file for many years.

What is more, I really like her bill on the Paris targets and the need to table annual reports in that regard. I tabled the same bill in June 2019, before the last election. It is a very good bill.

As for House procedures, I think we need to acknowledge that we cannot continue to function with the maximum number of members currently authorized to debate and vote in the House, specifically 10% of the total number. That is discriminatory towards the other 90% of our colleagues, mainly those who live in remote areas and have a hard time getting here.

We need to find other solutions. I think the motion moved today allows us to continue to hold the government to account while tasking the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with coming up with a way to have hybrid debates that meet public health guidelines, as well as secure hybrid voting. That solution does not exist at this time. We are therefore at an impasse, and we will have to have to wait for the committee's report to see how we should proceed.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.

At one point, we were told that we could not have video conferences or virtual sittings of Parliament or the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. However, all that was implemented quickly. I do not see why we would still need God knows how much time to implement something else. We have already managed to do it, and it went well. We got everything together in a short amount of time, and we got to question the minister for five minutes.

This is the 21st century. We should be able to do what is needed. Britain has developed a hybrid Parliament, and other countries have done so as well. I think they can vote, and they found solutions. Do we really need to delay all that even further instead of speaking out right now, instead of being able to ask questions right now and voice our concerns, especially about the economic recovery?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I may be a bit more brief than some of my more eloquent colleagues, but I still wanted to add my two cents to conclude this important debate.

I would like add my voice to those of my colleagues who said that they have been working harder since the beginning of the crisis, and I, too, would like to thank my assistants: Ruth, Sandra, Maxime and Arnaud. Like me, they are listening to the people of Shefford.

This is already my fourth visit to Parliament since the beginning of the crisis. I came here mainly to debate improving seniors' purchasing power, but I was also able to support my colleagues who came to talk about additional targeted help for sectors that are still greatly in need of assistance, including the agricultural industry, which is so important in my riding; research; science; and tourism, which is at the heart of Shefford. In short, I think I managed to convey my requests to the government. However, if the government was unable to keep its word, that is a sad reality for our democracy.

I will therefore address three concerns in my short speech today. I will talk about seniors, women and others who have been forgotten in this pandemic.

While everyone else is talking about lifting restrictions and a very gradual return to normal, the situation remains tragic for many seniors who are still dying in conditions unworthy of a developed nation. The stories we have heard from people working in long-term care centres are shocking and appalling. I feel I have to say it again: The government should have done more for seniors who are isolated at home. The government should have extended measures to help seniors and used the crisis to keep its election promise to increase old age security benefits and enhance the guaranteed income supplement.

It is true that measures were implemented for seniors, but at the eleventh hour. The financial assistance that we asked for many times finally arrived. It was needed, but it fell short and too many questions remain unanswered. The old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement were increased, but only temporarily. Seniors' needs, however, are not temporary. Far too many seniors have lived in inexcusably precarious conditions since before the COVID-19 crisis. What is more, the cost of groceries, medications and housing continues to increase. Many people are receiving the $2,000 Canada emergency response benefit. However, in some municipalities and larger cities, this is not even enough for adequate housing. I am giving a nod to my friend Denis Trudel, as I am taking up this fight with him. It is a problem in my riding of Shefford.

While the government clearly indicated that the increase is only temporary, we do not yet know exactly when it will start, when it will end and under what conditions it will be extended. This is all important information that a responsible government should have provided a long time ago.

All these unknowns are sources of additional stress that our seniors really do not need right now, and things that the government could easily avoid. It was, however, a very legitimate condition for work to continue, especially since the Liberals had committed to this in a motion.

The current assistance is not only imperfect, but also insufficient. Despite our repeated requests, the government's inaction on the health transfers file is damaging and will continue to be damaging. The situation has become sadly ironic. Quebec was supposed to receive money from the federal government that would have allowed it to take better care of its seniors before the pandemic. Increasing health transfers is a unanimous request made by Quebec and the provinces.

Internet access is another thing the Bloc Québécois has been calling for since long before COVID-19. This is even more important now, and it just might be enough to make the government want to follow our advice quicker.

First, if the Internet had been deemed an essential service when the Bloc raised this concern, that would have allowed seniors to break the isolation they feel in normal times, but even more so these days. The Internet is necessary for the small things in life, such as staying in touch with loved ones, the new trend of tele-parenting. The Internet has also allowed some to say their final goodbyes via video call, while many people are dying these days without being able to say goodbye to their loved ones.

There is also the whole issue of the closure of Service Canada offices, which happened back home in Granby, leaving several people to fend for themselves when they have to navigate the different measures being offered. Illiteracy, connectivity problems and lack of money to gain access to technological tools are just a few examples of the problems people without help are facing.

This crisis is exposing our collective failures by disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable; in fact, that might just be the nature of crises. I hope that, like me, you will think about the living conditions of our seniors, but we must also talk about other inequalities.

During this pandemic, we realize that it is much harder for people with a low income to protect their health by physical distancing and self-isolation.

I will now talk about the different, perhaps more subtle, but equally worrisome situations that women are in.

The structural disadvantages in our workplaces mean that women are more likely to work in essential services, putting their health at risk to ensure our survival. For example, I am talking about orderlies, nurses, and I want to give a shout-out to my colleague Louise, nursing assistants and doctors. Women are more likely to be employed part time and are more vulnerable to the crisis. Many of them are refugees. My colleague Christine Normandin moved a motion about this.

Women are more likely than men to be unemployed in recent—

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne on a point of order.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

I would just like to mention to my colleague opposite that we cannot use members' names in the House.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Members should indeed refrain from naming their colleagues. They can refer to them by their riding name or by their title in the case of a parliamentary secretary or minister. I thank the member for Shefford for not repeating this mistake.

The hon. member for Shefford.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will not do it again.

As a result of systemic disadvantages, women have not had access to the help they deserve. It is necessary to be aware of the realities women face and the injustices in our society to see what I am talking about, not to mention all the victims of domestic violence who are confined to their homes.

That is why we also hope to provide funding to organizations working to meet the increased demand. The funding would have to be provided through the Canada social transfer, or CST, so that it can be administered directly by the provinces, since this falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and Quebec. What is more, the provinces and Quebec are in the best position to identify these women's needs and allocate the funding more efficiently.

The gender-based analysis plus helps document these injustices, and that is why we hope it will be applied in each component of the government's response to this crisis.

In closing, I would not want to forget the cases that are falling through the cracks. For example, tourism operators in my riding could use more assistance for fixed costs, and businesses in Shefford could have benefited from a CESB that provided more incentive for students to work. That would have helped a lot of employers replace employees while they are on summer vacation or even fill positions created under the Canada summer jobs program, for example. That is a big puzzle. Unfortunately, I am also thinking about a young man with autism who does not qualify for any program and is wondering what he will be able to do this summer.

In closing, the crisis has brought to light our collective failures, but it also provides an opportunity to build back better. We need to seize this opportunity. We should be outraged about our failures, and that outrage should push us to build a decidedly greener post-COVID-19 society, using money taken from tax havens so that everyone pays their fair share, and most importantly, a society that stands in greater solidarity with seniors, women, workers, business owners, artists, farmers, the less fortunate and others.

Let's take action.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Shefford talked about women and the systemic inequalities that persist to this day. Just yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources celebrated the second anniversary of the Equal by 30 campaign, which was launched in partnership with the Government of Sweden in May 2018.

Right now, just 23% of employees and 18% of executives in the clean energy sector are women. That is less than in other sectors. I wonder if Canada would like to show some leadership. Research proves that putting women in charge of companies is good for everyone.

What should the Government of Canada do to give women a better chance, especially during a crisis? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which hits home for me.

I hope that the Standing Committee on Status of Women will be able to resume one day. This is one of the committees that is not expected to resume work in the short term. I had already started talking with my colleagues on the committee about increasing women's participation in businesses and on boards of directors and about getting women out of the cycle of poverty. That is also what it is about, and these are important issues. When we talk about post-crisis resources and when we talk about all of the committees and all of the measures that will be taken after the crisis, we will have to take gender equality into consideration.