Debates of July 8th, 2020

Government Business No. 8

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Long Range Mountains.

This document is exceptional for the depth of gender-based analysis of a statement. I do not think I have ever seen something like annex one of this, for people watching this at home. It looks program by program, sector by sector, at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected women, so the gender-based assessment is clear.

I would say the answer is three things: child care, child care, child care. Women right now are at risk of being put back in the home because there is no one else to look after the kids, and we need child care.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a couple of the attitudes that the hon. member mentioned in her speech. Those are the need for creativity and the need to be positive.

When it comes to the need for creativity, I wish there was more creativity in terms of making sure that Parliament could have sat over the last three months, so that we could have had fulsome and regular debates, including private members' business and whatnot over this past number of months as this country faced an unprecedented crisis.

Certainly, when it comes to the attendance of members, I know a number of members who are not listed in the minutes as some of our other colleagues have mentioned, because they had to watch it on CPAC because of technical challenges. I wish that creativity could have been exercised in this place.

Specifically, to my hon. friend across the way, I think that unleashing that positive entrepreneurial spirit is absolutely key to a good recovery. I know there are many examples specifically within the energy sector in my constituency, such as cutting-edge environmental science that is moving our world-class energy industry forward, but we need a plan to move forward. Unfortunately, the fiscal update today did not outline a plan to move forward. It was simply about looking back.

I wonder if the member agrees with me about this: Over the last number of months, the 700-plus staff in the Department of Finance could have been working on a budget that, certainly, I would have been happy to sit this summer and debate, so that we as Canadians and as members of Parliament could see the plan for this country going forward, as opposed to a fiscal selfie that simply talks about the $350-some billion deeper in the red that we will be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot for giving me the perfect opportunity to say I cannot imagine how we could be sitting physically in this place without being a threat to the health of the people in our communities at home, and to our own health.

I do not understand why the Conservatives persist in saying that we could be sitting here. All we need, and I am begging the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to be the voice of reason within his caucus, is to be able to vote remotely. We are voting from home in British Columbia's legislature, which includes some very far-flung areas. We are voting remotely in British Columbia. Other countries are voting remotely.

If we could vote remotely, we could bring forward private members' bills. We could bring forward the bill that is languishing for reform to medical assistance in dying, which is desperately needed. We could be bringing forward the legislation we need for our climate accountability act. We are in this place, unable to pass something as simple as allowing the Government of Canada to have eyes on who receives the disability tax credit, because of a refusal to go with unanimous consent. We need to vote remotely in a pandemic. Not otherwise, but in a pandemic we need to function fully.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment and ask a few questions of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I was moved by the comments we heard from the member for Burnaby South, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in terms of building back better and our opportunity to do this.

One of the things that I noticed is that what we have right now is a global pandemic that will require a global response. We understand that we cannot stop the pandemic if we try to be insular within Canada.

I really did appreciate the comments that the member made, but I wonder if she would agree with me that we would love to see a recommitment to sustainable development goals. It is the high-level political forum at the United Nations, taking place virtually of course.

Would she agree that we should be reconfirming our commitment to the sustainable development goals, and whether we could have 1% of our COVID spending, just 1% of it, going to help those around the world who are suffering so much at this time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her leadership on the issues that relate to ending poverty globally.

I do wear this pin. For people who are wondering, the public health officer for the Province of Quebec wears it and people ask me if I got it from Quebec. These are the 17 sustainable development goals that Canada is committed to. We should recommit to them, and it is absolutely appropriate to say that our long-term goal should be to commit 0.7% of our GNI to overseas development assistance and that in this pandemic, 1% of COVID spending should and must go to meeting the sustainable development goals.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting statistic from the Surrey Board of Trade in British Columbia. Since the pandemic, B.C. has lost about 350,000 jobs, but of those, about 250,000 or about 72% represent people in precarious work.

I think we can do better as we go forward, and I would like the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to comment on this. We can do better for them, not just for them individually but as people who represent a wasted resource in Canada. This is human energy that we are frittering away on work of relatively low value, and I am wondering what the member would see in the future that would lift these people up and lift all of Canada up along with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Fleetwood—Port Kells is absolutely right. We have talked about this before. What we accepted as normal in the past was not good enough. It was not good enough in terms of long-term care homes; it was not good enough in terms of people being left behind in our economy and falling through the cracks; and it was not good enough for people dealing with the opioid crisis.

Particularly for young people, who are now part of what is being called the gig economy, there is no job security and very precarious circumstances. One of the best ways to deal with this is guaranteed livable income. Everybody would then know they have enough for their bare maintenance needs in order to stay above the poverty line, and then they could earn income beyond that.

The world of work was going to change soon anyway because of artificial intelligence. The Canadian Labour Congress did a big study on this. We have to plan ahead for some rather large headwinds that we still have not faced. One of them is AI, the other is a climate emergency, and we continue to deal with the pandemic. That means that we need to create a social safety net that really would ensure that everybody is at least able to keep a roof over their heads and their kids fed. After that, they can keep working and figure out how to make money. Whether they are entrepreneurs, school teachers or front-line health care workers, they need to know that their situation is not so precarious that only one lost paycheque would mean that they would fall between the cracks.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised many issues. I want to pick up on long-term care, which is clearly an important issue as we think about how we can support people better. Sometimes we get caught in this dichotomy between private for-profit long-term care and the public provision of care, forgetting that a lot of services are delivered through private not-for-profits, which generally have so much more engagement in terms of volunteer hours and involvement in the community, which can produce very good outcomes.

However, we also have a problem, represented by the Delta Hospice, which is close to where the member maybe gets off the ferry going to Vancouver. The problem is that when there is a threat to the ability of institutions to exist according to their own values, to define the protection of their own conscience, that drives certain organizations out of participating in private not-for-profit care.

Would the member agree that we want to increase the involvement of private not-for-profits and that one way to do that is to ensure the protection of conscience for those who are volunteering their time and efforts in order to provide good long-term care for our seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more about the role played by private not-for-profits. There are wonderful care homes in my riding operated not by government agencies, but by non-profit societies.

I do agree that we need to protect the rights of conscience of individual workers. At the institutional level, it becomes far more difficult, and I think we will part company on the questions relating to some of the tangential but perhaps core elements of why he asked the question.

I agree that we need to look at non-profit, privately run health care facilities and really celebrate the work of the volunteers in those facilities.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired and the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.

Response by the Prime Minister

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I have a statement on the question of privilege raised today by the Leader of the Opposition concerning remarks made in committee of the whole.

I would like to return to the question of privilege raised earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition concerning allegedly misleading responses to questions. Allegations of this nature have been raised in the House in the past. The Speaker has sometimes found a prima facie question of privilege and at other times has found it was a matter of a dispute as to facts.

Today, however, the situation is somewhat particular in that the question of privilege was raised in the committee of the whole and the procedure for dealing with it is quite different than it is in the House.

What complicates this matter even further is that the work of the committee of the whole today and the work scheduled this summer are strictly governed by an order of the House that limits these proceedings and dictates that the committee must now rise. However, according to the same motion, the committee of the whole will meet again in two weeks.

Accordingly, with the indulgence of the hon. members, I propose to look further into this issue and return to the committee at the next meeting. I thank all members for their attention.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the “Economic and Fiscal Snapshot 2020”.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before the House adjourns, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the importance of today's sitting.

Though members may be accustomed to this hybrid format for the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, this is the first hybrid sitting of the House of Commons. While it is still in a limited format today, it is impressive to witness how this institution has adapted to meet the challenges of these exceptional times while still maintaining our important traditions, procedures and practices.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to and appreciation for the hard-working employees of the House Administration, the Parliamentary Protective Service and the interpretation team, who all worked hard to set up this special sitting.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 26, the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, July 22, at noon.

(The House adjourned at 4:51 p.m.)