Debates of Sept. 24th, 2020

Decorum

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

Mr. Speaker, with great respect for my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington, it is important we follow decorum, and there are rules in the House around props and displays. The Speaker has been clear about the appropriateness of that, including in a virtual context.

The member who is speaking is using a display that prominently shows her own name and her riding name in the framing of her shot. In my view, this constitutes a prop and is inappropriate. If a member were to speak in the House with a display like that, it would be inappropriate, and the Speaker has spoken clearly about this in the context of virtual sittings as well. There needs to be a clear and consistent standard established for these virtual sittings.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we have to respect that people are communicating from their constituency offices. In this case, the member is doing that. She is not displaying anything of a political or partisan nature. She is clearly sitting in a constituency office, which is an extension of the House of Commons as it is governed and regulated by the House of Commons and the administration of the Speaker's office.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank both hon. members for their interventions on this. Much like the last question that has arisen with regard to members participating from a location outside of the House of Commons, we are going to revisit and look at what specifically the directives have been in relation to dress protocol as well as the issue of what constitutes a prop. We understand what is clear here for the House and what kinds of boundaries might be in existence for members who are tuning in and/or participating from a location outside the House.

If it is acceptable to hon. members, I will take that under advisement and get back to the House as necessary in the time ahead, hopefully soon.

I thank hon. members for their interventions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I also have Terry Fox behind me in photographs and I hope the hon. member does not think those are props as well.

Since March, we have been fighting the pandemic. On yesterday's throne speech, the Prime Minister said that now was “not the time for austerity” and that the government “will have your back, whatever it takes” to keep people safe.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne laid out four broad pillars.

The first is “Protecting Canadians from COVID-19”. We recently invested $19 billion in the safe restart agreement as well as $2 billion in a safe return to class fund. We will support provinces to increase their testing capacity. Our government has a vaccine strategy because we know the best way to end this pandemic is with a safe and effective vaccine.

The second pillar is “Helping Canadians through the pandemic”. I have talked about some of the measures we took during the first wave of the pandemic. We must continue to support those Canadians who lost their jobs, so we will be reforming the EI system to bring it into the 21st century.

The pandemic has been called a “she-cession” because of the disproportionate impact on women. That is why we cannot let the decades-long gains that have been made be rolled back because of the virus.

In the last session of Parliament, as vice-chair of the status of women committee, we tabled a report on the economic security of women. The lack of access to high-quality, affordable child care was identified as the number one barrier to women's economic security. Women bear a disproportionate responsibility for the unpaid care of children. If we are to support women coming out of the pandemic, we must recognize the need for a national accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care system. We will be expanding the women's entrepreneurs strategy.

We will extend the Canadian emergency wage subsidy to next summer. Certain industries, like travel, hospitality and cultural industries have been devastated and we will be introducing further supports for these hard-hit sectors of the economy.

The third pillar is “Building back better”. The pandemic has brought to the forefront gaps in our social systems. We must never again be in a situation where the army needs to care for our seniors.

Some time ago, I wrote to the Minister of Seniors, calling for national standards for long-term care, and was pleased to see this commitment in the throne speech. While long-term care falls under provincial jurisdiction, we must take whatever action we can to support seniors. They deserve no less.

Canadians living with disability have also been hit hard during the pandemic. We will bring forward a disability inclusion plan, which will include a new Canadian disability benefit and a robust employment strategy.

We are fortunate in Canada to have a robust health care system. The missing piece in that system has always been pharmacare. As former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health, I was proud to work on this issue. We remain, as a government, committed to a universal national pharmacare program.

Kids are still being diagnosed with cancer and I will continue to work with people like Sick Kids' Dr. David Malkin and survivor Helena Kirk to ensure $30 million is directed to children's cancer research, as promised in our platform.

I have heard loud and clear from Oakville North—Burlington residents that they support taking greater action on firearms. We have already banned military-style assault rifles and we will continue to implement our commitment to protect Canadians with red flag laws and strengthening measures to control the flow of illegal guns. I am hopeful that we can treat death by firearms as a public health issue.

During the pandemic, Halton Women's Place, SAVIS of Halton and Thrive Counselling stepped up to provide a safety net for those facing gender-based violence. We cannot build back better if all Canadians are not safe. We will accelerate investments in shelters and transitional housing and advance our national action plan on gender-based violence.

We will be investing in a vast array of infrastructure, including public transit, energy efficient retrofits and affordable housing.

We cannot lose focus on the other crisis we face: the climate crisis. Climate action will be at the cornerstone of our plan to support and create a million jobs across the country. Business owners and investors know that climate action is the key to future success.

We will make zero-emission vehicles more affordable. The news coming out of Unifor recently about EV production at Ford Canada in Oakville would indeed be great news for our community. This is an ideal opportunity to also invest in e-assist bikes as we look to support the move to electric vehicles.

We will ban single-use plastics next year and we will legislate Canada's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and immediately bring forward a plan to exceed our 2030 climate goal.

The fourth pillar is to stand up for who we are as Canadians.

I have been incredibly fortunate to work with the Minister of Indigenous Services and his team to support indigenous communities during the pandemic. Our historic investment in urban indigenous organizations like the Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council is something of which I am particularly proud. We have remained committed to walk the shared path to reconciliation by accelerating work on the National Action Plan in response to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls' calls for justice, making a number of new investments and implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, including introducing legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the end of the year.

During the pandemic, another issue came to the forefront. The violence inflicted on Chief Allan Adam and the deaths of Regis Korchinski-Paquet and Ejaz Choudry motivated many Canadians to demand police reform and an end to systemic racism in Canada.

We are at a moment when we can take concrete steps to end systemic racism that indigenous people, Black and racialized Canadians have lived with for too long. We will introduce legislation and make investments in the criminal justice system, from diversion and sentencing to rehabilitation and records.

Prior to prorogation, as a member of the public safety committee, we were studying systemic racism and policing and we heard that enhanced civilian oversight of our law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, was required. This, along with standards around the use of force and a shift to community-led policing, as well as declaring first nations policing an essential service, are all things we are committing to in the throne speech.

The throne speech sets out an ambitious plan for unprecedented times. Together, we can achieve these goals and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to deliver on this plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about Crown-indigenous relations, as well as other subjects in her speech.

A couple years ago I was at a trade show and a constituent told me something quite interesting. Apparently, with the construction of pipeline natural resource projects, it is possible to also bring in high-speed Internet access, greater broadband access, at the same time we are building that pipeline infrastructure. The constituent proposed to me that it would be great if the government worked with natural resource companies to support the development of pipeline projects and at the same time to use that opportunity to help supply greater broadband Internet access and the additional economic opportunities that would come with that.

In many cases, we have indigenous communities that want to move forward with natural resource projects and could also leverage those projects to gain vitally needed access to the Internet that would help them with all kinds of other economic and social opportunities.

Will the member agree that in cases where a majority of impacted indigenous communities support a project, the natural resource company should be able to move forward with that project and move forward with the associated economic opportunities as quickly as possible?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the member that infrastructure projects provide an excellent opportunity to bring internet into communities that otherwise do not have it. There are a number of infrastructure projects and that is something I have been working on since the pandemic started. Just down the street from me at Six Nations in the middle of an urban area, they lack Internet access and it is quite unacceptable.

We have made commitments to bringing broadband to the country and I am proud of that, but there are opportunities, whether through various infrastructure projects, to partner with the proponent in building that to include high-speed Internet in their development.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

I found yesterday's Speech from the Throne surprising. It contained only one single, brief mention of the forestry industry.

Earlier, my colleague raised the importance of transitioning to a greener economy and talked about transportation electrification. That is a good thing, but we know that unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on one's perspective—the Liberal government thinks that transportation electrification means supporting the auto industry.

The two major pillars of the Canadian economy are Ontario's auto industry and Alberta's oil sands. There is no mention of forestry even though we know that the forestry industry likely has the greatest potential to fight greenhouse gas emissions. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to be clear that we are not subsidizing any sectors specifically. Certainly, with Ford of Canada, it was the union that said it will be switching over to electric vehicle use. Quite frankly, industry is leading this charge. Industry is moving toward a green economy because it knows that it can be financially viable for the future if it makes that change. These kinds of changes are being led by industry, making investments in their businesses to ensure that we are moving to a greener future and that we are seeing a green recovery. The government can support that as we move forward.

In terms of the forestry industry, it is important that we support all sectors of the Canadian economy.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard a lot of rhetoric about supporting the middle class, but I did not hear a lot of support for people who have been totally left out during this pandemic: disabled persons, among whom we have seen rates of suicide rise higher and higher. The $600 tax credit most people are unable to receive or have not received it, and there is no guaranteed livable income, which was Call for Justice 4.5 in the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls. I did not see much action on that.

Where do the people who are living most rough fit in? These are people with mental health issues or suffering from addictions who are not able to work and fall outside of the margins of this middle-class discussion that the Liberals keep holding up with such pride. Where do—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of members of our society mentioned in that, but I cannot cover all of them. I will speak to people living with disabilities in Canada. We certainly talked about bringing in a benefit for them but, in my opinion, more importantly, a robust employment strategy. Most of the people I have met who live with disabilities want to work, but their worth is not seen as much as other people's in our society. They are not hired and they are not paid. Working on an employment strategy is something I have been committed to for five years and I cannot say how happy I was, as were people I know who are living with disabilities and who want to work, to see the government taking action on that.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to address the House today in response to the Speech from the Throne.

I would like to begin by saluting my constituents in the riding of Hochelaga who have been through a tough couple of months during this unprecedented crisis. The people of Hochelaga have been—and continue to be—resilient, united and involved. I am proud to represent them in the House.

Yesterday our government presented a plan to build a stronger, more resilient Canada guided by the following principles: fighting the pandemic, supporting people and businesses, building back better, and standing up for who we are.

The first principle is the most important of all: saving lives. That is why we need to invest in the capacity of our health care systems right across the country. We must work with the provinces and territories to increase the capacity and speed of testing by looking at new technologies and tools to ensure they are safe and accessible. We must ensure that all Canadians have access to a vaccine as soon as possible, no matter where in Canada they live.

We also provided personal protective equipment and sent the Canadian Armed Forces into long-term care facilities. In Hochelaga, three of these facilities received key support from the military, and we are extremely grateful to them.

Thousands of workers across the country answered the call put out to Canadian manufacturers to produce personal protective equipment. In my riding, Coop Couturières Pop provided hospitals and organizations in Montreal East and the citizens of Hochelaga with thousands of face masks, as did PapaMasque.

I would also like to recognize the research work of the Montreal Heart Institute and the work done by the health and social services centre, the CIUSSS, in Montreal East, one of the epicentres of the pandemic in this country.

With the start of the second wave, we need to remain vigilant, increase our testing capacity, continue physical distancing and wear a mask to protect our more vulnerable populations, our loved ones and our colleagues so that we all remain healthy. Like many of you, I am looking forward to seeing my loved ones, like my brother, who is in a long-term care facility. I have not seen him since March. I am anxious to hold my two-month-old nephew, whom I have not yet met because of the pandemic.

The second foundation of our plan is to support people and businesses in the coming months, as we have been doing since the beginning of the crisis. Our government’s responsibility was to ensure a social and economic safety net for Canadians. That is what we did. The Canada emergency response benefit helped 9 million people to keep a roof over their heads, as well as food on their table, and to stay home to take care of their families. Now, we must support those who would traditionally not qualify for EI and put in place the Canada recovery benefit.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy helped more than 3 million people remain in or return to the job market. Now, in response to the economic impact, our government is working to create more than a million jobs. To this end, the Canada emergency wage subsidy will be extended until next summer, which is excellent news. For months now, many entrepreneurs have been taking advantage of the subsidy, including the Bellon Prestige Group, Lantic, La Vie en Rose and Restaurant Cabotins, as have essential organizations such as the Fondation des aveugles du Québec, Centre communautaire Hochelaga and Pavillon d'éducation communautaire. They were all able to continue their activities thanks to the CEWS.

Businesses play a key role in our economy. The government is going to extend both the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account. This program has helped many businesses in Hochelaga, including FMR Costumes, which got a helping hand to get through this crisis.

The business credit availability program will be improved, and we will bring in additional financial measures for the hardest-hit sectors, such as the travel, tourism and cultural industries.

Women have been severely affected by this pandemic, as they have had to take care of children while working at home, have been exposed to increased risks as health care workers, or have faced an increased risk of domestic violence compounded by the lockdown. This pandemic has had psychological, economic and physical impacts on women, and especially single mothers. Nevertheless, we women have worked too hard to earn our place in the workforce. We cannot take a step backwards.

That is why the government will create an action plan for women in the economy to help more women get back into the work force. The implementation of child care services will also help in this regard. Learning from Quebec's child care model, we will invest in child care and draw on the innovative measures developed in Quebec. The economic recovery must be feminist.

The vitality of our culture, our creators and our arts community is essential. We will take action to ensure that digital giants' revenue is shared more fairly, because it is more important than ever that we require them to contribute to the creation, production and distribution of Canadian, Quebec and francophone content. The cultural organizations in my riding, such as Théâtre Denise-Pelletier and Les Foutoukours, as well as hundreds of artists and creators, are waiting for government support and for a real contribution from digital giants.

The third foundation is to create a stronger, more resilient Canada by supporting strong economic growth and building safe communities for everyone, including the most vulnerable.

Seniors were particularly hard hit by the pandemic, and that is why we are committed to increasing old age security and the Canada pension plan survivor's benefit. The government must help Canadians like Mrs. St-Arnaud, a 97-year-old Hochelaga resident who recently thanked me for the $500 cheque she had received. She said that the money was really helping people get by.

To support Canadians with disabilities, we will bring forward a disability inclusion plan with a new benefit and an employment strategy aimed directly at Canadians like Michel, a blind man in my riding who has been job searching for months, and Mrs. Auger, who is in a wheelchair and is having a hard time making ends meet.

We will also work with communities to invest in all types of infrastructure, including public transit, clean energy and affordable housing. I am very pleased that the federal government and the Quebec government have reached an agreement in principle on housing investments. This is excellent news for Quebeckers and for the people of Hochelaga, who will benefit from investments in affordable housing.

Homelessness is an especially serious issue in my riding. Right now, Notre-Dame Street hosts the largest homeless encampment in Montreal. The residents are all worried about the coming winter. It is essential that we all work together to make sure that everyone has a roof over their heads.

I would like to highlight the recently announced $1-billion rapid housing initiative to create new affordable housing, as well as the funding for temporary emergency shelters for the homeless at the Hochelaga YMCA as part of “Reaching Home: Canada's Homelessness Strategy”.

When it comes to climate change, we all need to realize that it is happening now. We will introduce legislation to help us reach our goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 by helping to deliver more transit and active transit options. Transit infrastructure is a cornerstone of development in eastern Montreal. It is essential for the people of Hochelaga and for its economic recovery. Our government has already announced $1.3 billion for the long-awaited blue line. Our government has also committed to creating more green space in urban centres. More than 25 million sites are available in eastern Montreal, including Hochelaga.

The last foundation is to continue to stand up for who we are, to stand up for our official languages and francophone minorities outside Quebec. For the first time, a federal government is recognizing that French is in the minority in Canada and that French is losing ground in Quebec. We must take action and commit to strengthening the Official Languages Act, taking into consideration the unique reality of French.

We know that addressing systemic racism requires progress and reforms to be made throughout the policing and justice systems. It is time for things to change.

Finally, immigration remains a driver of Canada’s economic growth. Canada must become a destination for talent and jobs.

I would like to highlight the extraordinary efforts of our guardian angels. We have announced measures to grant them permanent residency.

We have presented a Speech from the Throne that sets out and shows what we intend to do for Quebeckers and Canadians. We are in the throes of an unprecedented crisis that has turned all our lives upside down, and we will continue to address it. We must remain vigilant, united and committed in the face of this pandemic.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on August 18, the Prime Minister announced the prorogation of Parliament and at that time cited that it was to help families, businesses and individuals and to relaunch our economy. The reality is that businesses, large and small, are barely hanging on. Tara, in my riding, owns a small business. Her revenue completely dropped, yet she had to pay her full commercial rent as she was not eligible for the commercial rent assistance because her landlord would not apply for it. MG, in my riding, also was not eligible because his revenue only dropped 68% not 70%.

When listening to the throne speech yesterday, there was nothing addressing any of these issues and it was extremely disappointing for business owners, in particular small business owners. Therefore, my question for the member today is this. What is the government doing to address this issue? It has been brought up many times and was not in the throne speech. What is the government doing to give business owners like Tara and MG hope and certainty?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

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

Personally, I believe it is important to remember that the government did what it had to do. It put a social and economic safety net in place during the pandemic. Had we not done that, we would not have the foundation required to go ahead with the economic recovery. Every day, I see companies in my riding being saved by the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. They were able to continue offering their services because we took the necessary measures.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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

She will not be surprised to hear that her statement about the government continuing to welcome newcomers and support family reunification piqued my interest. During the crisis, immigration file processing slowed down. At first, that made sense: there was a pandemic, after all. Even so, it exposed the fact that processing times are very long right now and that the system needs more funding to speed up processing times and eliminate the backlog.

Many people want to see their family members, but they cannot because their sponsorship applications have been waiting for a long time. In some cases, people have their confirmation of permanent residence but cannot return to their country to take care of their families because they do not have a permanent resident card. That is an administrative process that is now taking months to complete, unfortunately.

My question is simple: Does the member believe, as I do, that more money should be invested in immigration?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for her question.

The pandemic has shown that we indeed have a great capacity for immigration, the ability to readjust in dealing with this pandemic and to take action. Even though the borders were closed, even though Government of Canada services were not available in other countries, we reinvented ourselves. For the first time, we managed to receive a number of files, some of which were received digitally. We reinvented ourselves in order to deal with immigration applications. It goes without saying that immigration remains a key part of our economic recovery.

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

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

Unfortunately, Immigration Canada is practically paralyzed as a department. Hundreds of cases of family reunification have been waiting for months, and this has resulted in very serious human tragedies.

Not only do the tech giants need to contribute in terms of national and local cultural production, but they must also contribute financially. In the last election campaign, the Liberals promised that they would make the tech giants pay taxes in Canada, then suddenly that all disappeared. I do not want to hear the member say the government plans to create a fair tax environment, because to me that means they will not have to pay taxes.

Will the member commit to working to ensure that the tech giants pay taxes, just as every other company in Canada must do?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this question, which is crucial to our creators and to the production and distribution of domestic content in French. This will happen through serious contributions by the tech giants to our national production.

I am committed to being an ally and to defending this issue, which, I think, is vitally important to our cultural identity.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

It is great to see you back in person, Mr. Speaker. It has been far too long and so much has changed. For one, you are the proud owner of another $10,000 of debt. Yes, that is the per capita share of every man, woman and child in Canada. A $380-billion deficit this year for 38 million Canadians equals $10,000 per Canadian or $40,000 for a family of four. I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I have not met a lot of people who will tell me that their family has received $40,000 in COVID relief benefits.

In fact, even if people received the CERB for a full 16 weeks, it works out to $8,000, and the majority of Canadians did not even receive that CERB. Although their mortgages are $40,000 bigger, they do not have 40 thousand dollars' worth of benefits to show for it. That is so often the case with trickle-down government. The hard-working taxpayer has to climb the bureaucratic mountain with a big bucket of water on his back, that water is then poured into the federal bureaucracy. It is sloshed around down to provincial and municipal bureaucracies and then given on to other delivery bodies. Just as he gets back to the bottom of that bureaucratic mountain, there are a few drops that trickle down back into that bucket he so laboriously took to the top of the hill in the first place.

The government will tell that taxpayer and all Canadians that we are in a crisis, thus justifying a deficit of this magnitude. It is true, we do have a crisis. We will put aside for a moment the fact that the government made the crisis worse by allowing tens of thousands of people from the most infected regions of the world to come into the country after military intelligence warned it of the danger. We will ignore the fact that many of the programs the government designed since that time punished businesses for reopening and punished workers for working. We will ignore all of those failings and grant that indeed this is a crisis, but it is not our first crisis.

Indeed we have fought world wars and had the Great Depression and the great recession. How does this deficit compare to those deficits? It would not be fair just to point out that our $380-billion deficit is seven times the previous all-time record, because that does not adjust for GDP and inflation. To be fair, let us compare the deficit as a share of GDP in inflation-adjusted terms.

This year, the federal deficit is 17% of GDP. To compare, in the worst year of World War I, it was 8% of GDP; in the worst year of the Great Depression, it was 6% of GDP; and in the worst year of the great global recession, it was 4% of GDP. To put it in perspective, our deficit today is twice what it was in World War I, three times what it was in the Great Depression and four times what it was in the great global recession, all adjusted for the economy and inflation.

Only once in our history has the deficit been bigger as a share of our economy, and that was in 1943 when the government was selling bonds to its people so that it could fight Hitler, Mussolini and Imperial Japan. The government put those dollars to work to win the war, and yes there was a deficit of 23% of GDP that year, but do members know what was different? When our soldiers came back from battle, one might have expected that, exhausted and heartbroken from loss, they would want to take a prolonged vacation and put it on the national credit card and let future generations pay the bill, but they did exactly the opposite.

Do people know how long it took our grandparents to balance the budget after they came back from the war? It took them one year, and within two years they were running the largest budget surplus in Canadian history, 5% of GDP, which is the equivalent of $120 billion in today's relative terms. They fought for our freedom and then they fought for our finances.

Imagine if we had a government today with even a modicum of the integrity, respect and honour that our grandparents had those many years ago. Would we not be in much better shape?

However, here we are today with a Prime Minister who not only effortlessly and carelessly spends our money, but tells us that money is not even a real thing anymore. Yesterday, in his bizarre address to the nation, he told us that spending more actually costs less. I am not joking. Members can look it up. That is what he actually said: Spending more money costs less. Clearly, things now mean the opposite of what they say. This is not 1947. This is 1984, and we have a government engaged in doublespeak about the meaning of money.

The Liberals tell us that we can afford all of this debt because interests rates are low, and they are right: Interest rates are incredibly low, stoked by the fact that central banks are producing an unprecedented amount of fake money through keystrokes at their bureaus. However, those rates are not going to be low forever. Unless we believe that the debt will be paid off before the rates rise, we have to believe that we will have trouble down the road. The government is not planning to pay back the debt, ever. In fact, its own projections suggest that the debt will grow every year forever. Are they really expecting us to believe that never in the future will we return to normal interest rates?

Let me put it into perspective. This year, the effective interest rate across all of our debt will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2%. That is not the bond yield today but the average across the entire stock of federal debt. It is about 2%. The average over the last two decades is 5%. Do members know what the difference is between 5% and 2%?

[An hon. member]

It's 3%.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Someone said 3%, and they would almost be right. Five per cent is more than double 2%. It is an increase of over 100%. In fact, it is a massive increase and a massive change in our budget picture. When we more than double the interest rate applying to over $1 trillion of debt, we massively increase the amount of money diverted from social programs into the hands of wealthy and greedy bondholders, those people who lend us the money. They are not a charity; they are in it for profit.

Let us calculate what every point of increase would cost. It is very simple. At $1 trillion of debt, it is about $10 billion in new annual costs for the taxpayer every time interest rates go up by just one percentage point. Therefore, if they went up three percentage points to the normal average over the course of the medium term, which is four or five years, we would be paying an extra $30 billion a year to service our debt. That is almost what we collect in GST revenues. Imagine the government, in its back pocket, keeping open the prospect of doubling the GST to pay for the cost associated with interest rates returning merely to their normal average levels. That is the risk the Liberals are taking with our future.

What could we do differently? The answer is jobs, jobs, jobs. The only way to tackle this massive debt beast that our current government is creating is by returning our mighty workers to their jobs. Right now, we have a million missing jobs relative to the number of people who were working in February before COVID began. We now have the highest unemployment rate in the G7. Our unemployment rate, at over 10%, is three percentage points higher than the OECD average.

We need a plan to unleash the free market system to hire people back. Get out of the way and let our mines, plants and factories come roaring back to life. Why do we not let our steelworkers and trade workers build pipelines that will create jobs in the energy sector in the west and in the refining sector in the east?

Get out of the way of small businesses by cutting red tape and lowering taxes on those entrepreneurs, so that they can bring our main streets buzzing back to life. It is only through a bigger and broader economy that we can pay the prodigious costs, associated with this government, to continue to put food on the table and provide for our vital social safety net.

That is the plan, and that is what we must do.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you virtually. I want to thank you and the entire staff for their work to make sure that parliamentarians outside of Ottawa can be a part of this.

I would like to thank the member for Carleton for his speech. He is very eloquent. I always make sure that I point that out as he is very strong on his feet. I have a couple of questions for him.

Economists around the world and in Canada have justified the spending that the Government of Canada has done. Indeed, at the height of the pandemic the member and his own party were pushing our government to do even more. How can he square the fact that our government has responded when the Conservatives were asking for more?

It is funny. I told my constituents that this would be how the Conservatives would play ball. They will ask us to do more, but six months later will say we have spent too much.

What program would the member for Carleton cut? Which program that we have introduced would he not have supported?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his election to this place.

Let me start off by saying that we would not have done bigger, we would have done better. We would have, for example, created an income replacement program that rewarded people for going back to work rather than punishing them for it.

These guys created a program that kicked people off the CERB the second they earned a dollar more than $1,000. If a person commits the crime of working nine days for minimum wage, under the Liberal government he or she would be kicked from the CERB to the curb. How many people were prevented from getting back to work by that punitive, anti-work policy?

Then the government punished businesses for recuperating lost revenues by kicking them off rent and wage subsidies. All of that suppressed revenue and prevented our businesses and our workers from getting back on their feet. If it had been done differently, it would have significantly reduced the deficit cost.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague, who, as we can see, is passionate about balancing the budget.

Unfortunately, when it came time to balance its budget, the Canadian government far too often did so by cutting transfer payments to the provinces. That was the case in 1996 and in 1997, to the tune of $2.5 billion. I remember it well. It did the same thing in 1997 and 1998 by cutting $2.5 billion in transfer payments to the provinces, especially in health.

We know that getting out of this crisis will be tough. I have two quick questions for my colleague.

Does he agree with the rather shameful strategy of reducing transfer payments to the provinces to balance the budget?

Does he agree with the request from all the provincial premiers to increase health transfers to 35%?