Debates of Sept. 24th, 2020

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions.

First, he is right. Every time the Liberals run out of money, they make cuts to the health sector. They did it in the 1990s. In 1996, the Government of Canada had no more money. What did the Liberals do? They increased workers' taxes and cut investments in health. That is what the Liberals do every time. We can guess that they will do the exact same thing when there is no more money in the budget because of their irresponsible spending.

However, when Mr. Harper was in power, we eliminated the deficit accumulated during the global recession by increasing health transfers because we were better managers of public funds, we eliminated waste and we targeted funds sent directly to the provinces. Every year of the Harper government, we increased health spending. That is what we can do.

The only way to protect our social programs is to have a strong economy and to protect our finances.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be in this place addressing Parliament for the first time in many weeks. Of course, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, taking away the opportunity to do so. It is great to be back here and to see my colleagues on all sides of the aisle once again.

I do not think it is any secret that the Prime Minister, we all know, decided to prorogue Parliament because of his involvement in the WE Charity scandal. Following the words of the Governor General, there was absolutely nothing in the Prime Minister's address last night on prime time that could not have been announced in any normal press briefing or even here on the floor of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, of course, as many are saying, pulled the wool over the eyes of our network executives, claiming that it was not partisan politics but an address to the nation on COVID-19. We all know, after the fact, that the address was entirely political, providing further evidence that prorogation was all about distraction.

The nation was treated to the Liberal love for a whole bunch of words about nothing, proudly exclaiming that we are building back better. I think a more accurate slogan is building a better, or worse, bloated bureaucracy. I am sure that slogan did not run as well with focus groups.

The Prime Minister warned Canadians that we might not be able to gather for Thanksgiving dinner in just a few weeks. However, he did serve up his own turkey dinner last night, offering a throne speech overflowing with every failed Liberal promise of the last five years, and then some. Canadians love their turkey dinner, but they can only eat so much. Leftovers get tiresome after a while and they need to be thrown out. Like reheated turkey seven days later, Canadians are now telling themselves that maybe it is time to throw the Liberals out.

The throne speech contained a dizzying number of major policy commitments underwritten by ongoing deficits and debt. Indeed, the speech began with the proclamation that “This is not the time for austerity.” It seems to Liberals that anything short of massive federal spending and bureaucracy equals austerity. To quote the hon. member for Carleton on Twitter yesterday, “The truest statement in the Throne Speech was this one: 'We owe an immense debt...'”.

Recent polling suggests that more than half the country is quite concerned about the recent run-up of deficits and debt. Canadians are asking the government to balance support for emergency pandemic measures with fiscal responsibility, a task that the Liberal government is clearly not up for, opting rather to burden future generations with a massive deficit-financed expansion of government. The throne speech outlined, or actually failed to outline, how the Liberals plan on paying for their grand ideas, which we have heard many times before: simply tax the rich.

Let me be clear to everyone, including the wealthy, that they need to pay their fair share of taxes. The problem is that when taxes are raised substantially, people stop trying to earn the amount of money that is being overtaxed. The formula the Liberals like to use is that if they raise taxes at the top, they can then transfer them to the bottom. However, the Liberals tried that already. People might remember the government increased the top tax rate on Canada's wealthiest 1%. It just happened a few years ago.

What happened? According to The Globe and Mail, high-income earners in 2016 paid $4.6 billion less in federal taxes, despite Liberal pledges that the new top tax bracket would raise around $3 billion in additional revenue. That means a larger burden is taken from the middle to make up for what is lost. There is no other way to do it, other than what the Liberals were doing, which was deficit financing their promises. If they simply tax businesses more, jobs are shed and the costs, if they are able to survive, are then passed on to consumers, increasing the cost of living.

Whether people are rich or otherwise, there is a certain point where they will not stick around to be bled to death. This is not to mention that most predictions about taxing the rich by the left rarely account for the large change in behaviour. They also, by that measure, end up overestimating the tax revenue. Despite the easy target they are, it is not good when wealthy people leave a jurisdiction, province or country. When the tax rate is raised to a level that is too high, it leads to significant legal and illegal tax-avoidance strategies and lowers work effort, including labour force participation.

Liberals know they cannot balance the budget by increasing the top marginal tax rate, but they push those lines anyway. This is called the Tytler cycle by Lord Alexander Tytler. It works, or I should say does not work, by promising a growing number of gifts of largesse from the treasury, but not actually saying how they will be paid. If we think people are going to sit idly by and let the government take, take, take, we are absolutely unrealistic.

Do not forget, whether people are wealthy, middle class or otherwise, if they are investing in anything such as stocks, real estate, whatever, it is done with after-tax dollars.

The left usually says it has a plan for the economy. It always has a plan and it always seems to be planning. However, what it really means is that it wants to have a bunch of bureaucrats and academics lay out a gaggle of endless government programs, in other words, central planning. If one plan fails, it will make another plan. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”

The Conservatives believe we need to cut taxes, ensure regulations are at a reasonable level and give people the freedom to judge on their own, to provide for their families, to give to charity, to protect the most vulnerable and basically give them the ability to do what is best in their situation. A one-size-fits-all situation does not work. We need freedom. We need the ability for choice.

That is why socialism always fails. There is no incentive to improve one's situation. Why would Canadians work extra hours? Why would a farmer get up at 5 a.m. to plow that field? Why does a trucker drive an extra kilometre? Why does a mechanic take an extra car in the shop at the end of the day? Why do people work a double shift? It is because people want things and things cost money.

Economic growth comes from people exchanging goods and services, for dollars in terms of employment or hours of the day in exchange for dollars. To continually grow a government, where does this money come from? If wealthy people are bad, if growth is bad, if the free market is bad, if individuals choosing between necessity and the trivial is bad, what tree does that money come from? In other words, if everything comes from government, who actually pays for government?

I will point to child care, which falls under my portfolio as the new shadow minister for families, children and social development.

I want to first thank the minister for his service to our country. Although we do not always agree on policy, I look forward to working with him to make life more affordable for Canadian families and to ensure those families get the support they need during these trying times.

Let us talk about the Liberals' child care commitment and their plan.

Let us start with the Liberals' plan. It was promised in 1993, so this is ongoing for anyone who actually believes they are finally going to get around to it.

Let us talk about child care. We want to ensure families have more money in their pockets so they are able to make a choice. We know that the one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best government institution is not going to work for a number of people. Is it going to work for shift workers? Probably not. Is it going to work for people who need variables in their situation? Probably not. People get what they are given whether they like it or not, or want it or not under this situation.

Our plan calls for freedom, the freedom for parents to make the choice that works best for them in their situation.

What the government is also doing is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction. We all know child care is a provincial jurisdiction. What will that do when the federal government tells the provinces and territories that this is what they will do or they will not get their money? It takes away competition.

We as Conservatives know that in many cases, whether it be the Internet or whatever, one of the best ways to fix a problem is competition. If Ottawa tells the provinces how to operate their child care services, how do we fix the problem? The rich will go outside the system and everyone else will take what they get. The Conservative plan encourages competition, which encourages more money back in the pockets of Canadians. We can actually gauge through competition. If what Manitoba is doing in child care works really well, maybe New Brunswick, with its few challenges, could take those best practices and incorporate them into its own provincial situation to improve the lives of those who need child care in its communities. More local and provincial control is what we are talking about in the child care conversation, rather than Ottawa telling the provinces what to do.

As we all know, the Liberals have been promising that since 1993, so the fact that we are expecting them to get it done now I find very hard to believe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his new responsibilities as the critic for family services.

I want to ask the member a question and touch on something. He talked about a promise that a previous Liberal government had made to deliver on a national child care program. The program was set up and it was signed by all 10 provinces. The plan was ready to go.

As we heard earlier, we ended up in an election. The Liberals lost power at that time. It went to the Conservatives. Then, two years later, the Conservatives completely cancelled that child care plan. They left the plan on the floor. Then there were another eight years where they could have brought something else forward.

I understand the member's criticism of the previous government for taking awhile to bring forward a plan, but does the former Conservative government not bear some responsibility for dropping the entire program, cancelling it and then not bringing anything else forward in its place?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member across the way back in this place.

I will address a couple of things. The deal that my friend was talking about took over 10 years to come up with in the first place, and we ran on a platform of giving more money back to people. Canadians will understand that we gave $100 to each child, to allow parents to have the choice in their lives, to better offset the cost of child care or whatever situation they had. Maybe a parent wanted to stay home to raise their children, to teach their children. That is the essence of freedom.

To my friend who says they might make another deal, well, the Liberals have been in power for five years already, and we still have not seen that deal. That is not to mention the fact that if we are talking about inter-provincial deals, we still have many issues regarding inter-provincial trade that have not been worked out. In many cases it is easier to do business with another country than it is with another province.

How we are going to work this out is going to take many years. On Power and Politics last night, the minister himself said it is going to take years to get this sorted out. People need help now.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague and friend from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, let me add my congratulations on his recent ascension within his party ranks.

I will pick up on something the member for Carleton said, which the member referenced in his speech. He was using statistics of deficit to GDP ratio. It is certainly much more common to use statistics, as I am sure the member will agree, of debt to GDP ratio, deficits being more temporary. As the parliamentary budget office has reported, when we look at World War II figures, the economy recovered quite quickly.

Let us look at debt to GDP ratio. We went into this pandemic at about 30% debt to GDP ratio, much better than any other country in the G7. It is predicted that we will be at about 38% by the end of this. In 1995, we had 66% debt to GDP ratio.

I do not want to scare Canadians into a kind of sticker shock, thinking that our kids are going to pay for this. That is not true. I think we need to actually look at the world. All the major economies in the world have their central banks doing the same thing.

I am going to stop there and ask my hon. colleague for a comment on whether we could reference history more precisely so as not to alarm people.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I have a couple of things to say.

The current government has no plan to bring the books to balance. It has spending in perpetuity. It is going to go on forever. This is what happens when money continues to be printed, as the Bank of Canada has done in many cases, and the debt continues to be racked up, then the currency or the economy will be debauched, and probably both at the same time. If investors lose confidence and stop buying our debt, inflation will start to rise, and the Canadian dollar will drop. The Bank of Canada would then be forced to increase interest rates, and access to credit would shrink.

That is why Conservatives talk about balancing the budget, reigning in spending, controlling the costs of bureaucracy, and allowing services to be given to the people at a reasonable cost at the most effective measure. The most effective measure is allowing people more choice in their lives with more money in their pockets, and not funnelling their money to government, allowing it to go around in a cotton candy machine, going to the provinces, municipalities and to the end user, which is the taxpayer.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey—Newton.

I am delighted to rise after a long period of time out of the House and I want to honestly say that I missed everyone.

Canada has never faced a more serious public health crisis. We know that for folks who were already slipping through the cracks, for those who were already struggling, life is much harder. In my lifetime, I do not remember a period filled with more uncertainty, but despite this, I am certain about one thing for Canadians. It is that our government will continue to have people's back. As people stayed at home and looked out for friends and family or volunteered to fight the pandemic in their community, people have been doing their part and we will do ours.

I know that volunteers, community groups and non-profits across my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour stepped up and did what they could to help out our community. Volunteers like the late Rod Dickson, who volunteered with the Kinsmen for over 40 years, an incredible community volunteer and someone we could rely on in times like these. Organizations like Feed Nova Scotia, Meals on Wheels, the North Grove, the Alzheimer Society of Nova Scotia, Boys and Girls Clubs, Dartmouth Seniors Service Centre, Square Roots, Margaret's House, Kiwanis and the list goes on. The compassionate support that they and so many organizations continue to provide throughout this pandemic has improved so many lives in our community. I want to thank them for all that they do.

Over the past six months life has been particularly difficult for Nova Scotians. We have faced a lot of loss. We have been angry, hurt, filled with heartache, but despite all of this, none of these events broke our collective spirit. We continue to support one another and this is exactly how we must face this crisis as a country. We are strong. We are compassionate. We are resilient. As we look towards addressing the challenges of today, we must recognize the incredible opportunity we have to build a more fair and equitable Canada, a cleaner and greener Canada, a stronger and more resilient Canada.

As we do everything we can to protect Canadians, companies have stepped up to produce PPE. From Dartmouth's United Sign producing face shields to Stanfield's in Truro, Nova Scotia manufacturing medical gowns, so many have stepped up to help us as we continue to build Canada's supply. Scientists and researchers at home in Dartmouth and across Canada are working on everything from rapid COVID-19 tests to vaccine candidates. Our government is working hard on our vaccine strategy to ensure that all Canadians will be able to get a vaccine once ready.

Before our government introduced the Canada emergency response benefit, I remember the fear when folks at home of all financial means lost their jobs and did not know how they would make ends meet. Whether they worked reception at a hair salon, or an airline pilot or an entrepreneur, the uncertainty was frightening. Many did not qualify for employment insurance. We knew that this was not the time for austerity. Canadians needed their government to shoulder the burden so that they could pay their rent, pay their mortgage and pay their bills.

Close to nine million Canadians were helped by the rapidly deployed CERB and many employers rehired their employees through the wage subsidy. We know that by helping Canadians get back to work we can boost the economy in the process. That is why we are launching a campaign to create more than one million jobs and we are going to invest in the social sector and in infrastructure. We know that not every industry will bounce back the same way from this pandemic, so we will immediately invest in training to quickly help workers pivot and gain new employment.

As many businesses, non-profits and charities across Dartmouth—Cole Harbour were asking, we will extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy into next summer so more workers can stay on the payroll. We will expand the Canada emergency business account to help more businesses with fixed costs like rent. Atlantic Canada relies on tourism and arts and culture. These industries have been some of the hardest hit. I want them to know that we hear them, see them and will work with them to introduce further support.

As we build back better, we need to focus on helping businesses and individuals transition to a cleaner, greener economy. Investing in climate action is a huge opportunity to not only help our environment, but to provide good paying jobs while boosting and rebuilding our economy.

We must exceed Canada's 2030 climate goals, and we need to entrench Canada's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 in legislation. Seizing this incredible opportunity will provide thousands of new jobs by retrofitting homes and buildings, which will also help Canadians and businesses cut their energy bills.

We will invest in more renewable energy solutions and in public transit. Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is home to incredible clean-technology companies, and we need to use this opportunity to make Canada a world leader in clean tech. We are going to launch a new fund to attract investments in producing zero-emission products, such as vehicles and batteries, and we will cut the corporate tax rate in half for these companies. Plus, we will continue investing in charging infrastructure to make it more affordable and easier to switch to a zero-emission vehicle.

As members know, I am a strong advocate for protecting nature across Canada. I firmly believe that whether one lives in an urban environment or a rural environment, one should have easy access to parks and green spaces. Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes is a great example of the importance of federal investment in nature and parks. Moving forward, we will work with municipalities to expand on urban parks. We will help them plant more trees and find more nature solutions to fighting climate change.

These important environmental measures will provide good-paying jobs, help us reach our emissions targets, and provide a cleaner and healthier Canada.

This pandemic has exposed many gaps in our social systems. For seniors, young Canadians, individuals with disabilities, racialized Canadians, indigenous peoples and folks already experiencing poverty, we recognize that their lives were made more difficult.

As we transition away from CERB, we will launch a new transitional recovery benefit and support more Canadians through the employment insurance system. As we move forward, we are going to completely rebuild Canada's employment insurance system, and it will cover folks who would not have qualified in the past, including some self-employed Canadians.

As we help Canadians return to work, we need to make sure that parents have access to safe, inclusive and affordable child care. We will do this by creating a Canada-wide, early learning and child care system.

We are keeping our commitments to increase old age security for seniors 75 and older, and we will boost the CPP survivors benefit. We know that Canada's seniors and long-term care residents deserve better than the unfortunate truths exposed during the pandemic. We are going to not only introduce Criminal Code amendments to act against those who neglect seniors in their care, but we will also work with the provinces and territories to set new, robust national standards to ensure that all residents in long-term care get the best support possible.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, our constituency office heard from many individuals with disabilities who faced extra difficulties related to the pandemic. Soon we will deliver the extra COVID-19 payments, but I want them to know that we recognize that the current systems are simply not working for them. Moving forward and working together, we will introduce a disability inclusion plan that will include a new Canadian disability benefit similar to GIS for seniors. We will help more individuals with disabilities gain employment and create a more streamlined, fair process to help determine eligibility and access to government disability programs and benefits.

During the pandemic, emergency shelters overflowed as folks were asked to stay indoors. Too many had no place to go. Sleeping head to toe in overcrowded shelters was not and is not a safe option during COVID-19.

In closing, no one in this country should have to choose between their health and their job. No Canadian should choose between the prescription drugs they need or paying their rent. No Canadian should be forced to sleep head to toe in a crowded shelter during a pandemic. No senior should live with inadequate support in long-term care. The ambitious plan laid out in the Speech from the Throne paves the way for Canada, a Canada that leaves no one left behind.

We must seize these incredible opportunities together. Let us build a more equitable Canada. Let us build a greener, cleaner Canada. Let us build a better Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Speech from the Throne noted was national urban parks, and I would like the member's opinion on that matter. I have been fighting for Ojibway Shores, as have the communities of Windsor and Essex County, which is along the Detroit River. It has thousands of special species, but over 100 endangered species. It is recognized as a hot spot because of the Carolinian forest and its uniqueness. It is actually one of the last remaining places on the Great Lakes with a natural shoreline, and on the Detroit River it is the only place.

The current position from the federal government is to have the municipality pay for this piece of property, which would be part of other properties put together to create a national urban park. It seems really odd that a government, when we are fighting a climate crisis, would want local taxpayers to pay for federal property.

What does the member think about that current policy? I am hoping the government revisits it, because we would like to have a national urban park next to the Gordie Howe bridge, which is set to open in the next couple of years, a bridge we have been fighting a couple of decades for.

Should local taxpayers have to foot the bill for federal property to unite environmentally significant properties that could lead to urban parks?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, quite a while back I was a member of the environment committee, and we had a discussion and a report on protecting the amazing spaces in our country. We worked on Rouge National Urban Park in Ontario.

I am a big supporter of protecting nature, and I worked very hard to gain some federal funding for Blue Mountain-Birch Cove in Halifax.

We are a country that is so blessed to have so many great, amazing spaces. Regardless if they are municipal, federal or provincial, we all must work together to protect these spaces. One of the recommendations in the report, which I happened to put forward, was that the federal government not only work with provincial governments but work with municipalities to be able to acquire these incredible spaces, much like the one the hon. member is speaking of.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is for my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

During the Speech from the Throne, we heard a lot about how what happened in places like long-term care facilities and seniors' homes must never happen again.

However, I wonder if he acknowledges that his government, like other governments that cut health transfers in the past, is partly responsible for these tragedies.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the work she has done in her constituency during this pandemic, and that goes out to all members of this House. Regardless of what side of the House they are on, members have worked hard for their constituents.

With regard to long-term care, it was such a terrible situation. It is a provincial jurisdiction, but we have a moral authority to help. We have seen unmitigated levels of collaboration and co-operation with provincial and territorial governments. That needs to continue. We all need to look out for our most vulnerable seniors in long-term care.

This cannot continue if there is a second or third wave, if there are continuing resurgences of COVID. We must do better by our most vulnerable seniors, and it will require all levels of government to work toward that goal.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member hinted that the Speech from the Throne talked about no one being left behind. However, I was very disappointed when I listened to the speech that rural Canada was referred to twice out of approximately 7,000 words.

Could the member indicate how much money out of those infrastructure dollars, or what percentage, is going to go to rural Canada, like much of Atlantic Canada, which I have a lot of respect for having spent eight years of my life posted there? How much money is going to be going to rural Canada?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, a speech from the throne is a vision for the future. A budget is where the actual dollars are spoken about and tells where that money will go. However, what we want to make sure we do is to leave no one behind, leave no community behind and continue to see urban and rural areas as absolutely equal in this country.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for the great work and for sharing his time. I would also like to thank each and every member of Parliament for the work that they have done during this pandemic in their constituencies.

I rise today to speak in support of the throne speech, which introduced our government's vision for the future of Canada. The throne speech recognized the difficult circumstances our country has faced as a result of the worst health crisis in the past century, as well as the measures that our government has taken to support Canadians over the course of this pandemic.

It is also the speech that sets out a course for the future based on what we, as members of Parliament, are seeing in our communities and with the constituents we represent from coast to coast to coast. Many of us in this chamber have stayed in our respective constituencies for the health and safety of our colleagues, our families and those whom we represent. Despite protests from some of the members, having a Parliament that relies on technology to facilitate debate and voting was and remains the right thing to do.

This has also been an opportunity for us to really get back to why we are doing this job in the first place: to represent the interests of Canadians, to aid those who need it and to assist in facilitating the opportunities for our citizens and businesses to thrive. In the case of Surrey—Newton, I have received valued input from many, including Muslim community leaders who came together, including Mr. Rahat Ali Wajid Rao, president of Canadian Muslim Advocacy. On behalf of the organization, Mr. Rao acknowledged the great work of this government and particularly the right hon. Prime Minister for being a great leader of the 21st century. It is this ongoing information from my constituents that I have relayed back to my colleagues in the caucus and in the cabinet so that we can shape our policies and programs for the next stage of Canada: the stage in which we, as Canadians, forge a new path forward amid the oncoming second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I am pleased to report that so many of the measures outlined in yesterday's throne speech are going to address the various concerns that I have heard while listening to my constituents in Surrey—Newton. Today, I would like to briefly touch on the measures that will make a real impact on people's lives.

We have seen the challenges that families face when children are displaced without school or proper child care. These can be crippling and affect one of our country's most important economic drivers. This is why our government is committed to giving families access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care and creating a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. This is going to be a vital component of a flourishing economy in Canada, and we are going to work closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure it becomes a reality for families across the country.

Surrey—Newton is a riding that is fuelled by small and medium-sized businesses. The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched many of these businesses to their limits in terms of survival. As our economy continues to emerge from this pandemic, it is critical that we continue to provide the range of support that we have offered to businesses across Canada. This is why we are extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy program until the summer of 2021, expanding the Canada emergency business account to assist with fixed costs, improving the business credit availability program to allow our businesses to expand operations and make new investments, and introducing targeted support for industries that have been hit hardest, like travel and tourism, hospitality, and the performing arts.

COVID-19 exposed the vulnerability that many of our seniors face, and in Surrey—Newton I have heard how many constituents had to take extraordinary measures to support their senior family members. Accordingly, this throne speech outlines a number of actions that we will be introducing to protect our elderly population. We are going to be increasing the old age security benefit once an individual turns 75 as well as boosting the Canada pension plan survivor benefit. We are going to work with provinces to set strong national standards for long-term care facilities. We are also going to introduce a series of programs and measures to help people stay in their homes longer, which leads me into what continues to be the number one priority of many Canadians. Of course, I am talking about health care.

The government is going to launch new initiatives that are going to take steps toward a universal pharmacare program so we can keep drug prices low for Canadians. We will further increase access to treatment and services for mental health and ensure that virtual health care access is expanded across the country, particularly for rural areas.

I could go on about our many bold announcements that were contained in this throne speech, but what I want to emphasize is that, at its core, this is a vision that has been inspired by people and for the people. It is a vision that was crafted from the work of our MPs who have taken the time throughout this pandemic to listen to their constituents and to ensure that our next steps in Canada's recovery are informed by what is happening on the ground. It is critical, particularly at the juncture we face right now, that our choices are responsive to situations that Canadians of all stripes, all regions and all backgrounds are facing.

I am confident in saying that at its core, this throne speech does exactly that. It responds to needs above all else. With that in mind, I encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of the throne speech, so that we can continue to ensure all Canadians are kept safe, while being provided with ample opportunity to emerge from this challenging period stronger than ever.

I wish all Canadians from coast to coast to coast the best for their health and safety.

I am thankful for the opportunity to share my thoughts with the members and Canadians.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's good wishes, as I am from British Columbia, but I do take issue with his always praising the government.

Largely because of the work of the member for Vancouver East, we know that the government is spending less than 1% on housing issues in British Columbia, when compared with other provinces. We have residents in places such as Vancouver, around Strathcona Park, who are publicly complaining constantly about the crime, property damage, chronic homelessness and drug addictions that are happening in that area. Yet, when the member for Vancouver Centre went on The Lynda Steele Show, all she said was that they are consulting and engaging with the provinces. Well, they have not gotten it done.

Will the member agree that his government needs to do more to help the property owners and residents who surround that park to deal with the situation? This is intolerable. I would like to hear from the member on this specific issue.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for his thoughts.

When it comes to a housing strategy, our government has brought in a landmark plan, whether it is to have affordable housing or to help reduce homelessness by 25%, which we are going to keep working on until we bring it down by 50%.

I can certainly give the member an example. In my own constituency, when it came to building affordable housing, particularly for indigenous peoples, I was there at the groundbreaking ceremony. I have seen this project go through, and people are very happy.

We are committed to working with other members in the future to make sure that we are able to achieve the goals we set.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for talking about the economy and regional prosperity with respect to small and medium-sized businesses. My riding of Shefford has a very strong entrepreneurial spirit and its vitality depends largely on SMEs in industries that will be adversely affected for a long time to come, particularly in the tourism and cultural sectors. Sugar shacks, for which Quebec is known, also come to mind. All of these businesses will need additional assistance.

My colleague touched on the Canada emergency business account. Is that really the way to help businesses? For many of them this is just an added debt. It might help to increase the subsidy portion from $10,000 to $20,000.

The Bloc Québécois is considering the appropriateness of tax credits in a program to help with fixed costs. For example, there could be a 50% refundable tax credit for fixed costs. This is about finding solutions for our businesses. I would like my colleague to comment on this issue, because there is still a lot of uncertainty for many businesses in our region right now.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois for raising the issue of small and medium-sized businesses. I myself have been a small business owner in my constituency for the last 25-some years, and I totally understand the needs of small businesses.

Our government introduced the $40,000 bank loans and gave a 75% wage subsidy to employers. Those programs have helped small businesses survive. We have also extended the emergency wage subsidy program to the summer of 2021 to help employers retain employees and bring those one million people back into the workforce.

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

Madam Speaker, in the previous throne speech the government had said that it was going to plant two billion trees. It is in this throne speech as well. The government has had more ethics scandals and conflict of interest scandals than it has planted trees. I would like to ask the member opposite about this.

During the pandemic would have been the perfect time to get people back to work planting trees. They would have been outdoors, socially distancing. When will the Liberals be planting their first tree?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This was resuming debate, so I wonder if the member is willing to continue her speech.

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

Madam Speaker, it was a question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I did recognize the hon. member for a speech. Does she wish to continue with a speech?

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

Madam Speaker, I will not be resuming.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Given the fact that the hon. member for Calgary Skyview stood as did the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, there was some confusion. I did call resuming debate and I assumed the hon. member wanted to speak. I will now go to the hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this hallowed and historic chamber, the bastion of our democracy, to deliver my first address as the shadow minister for women and gender equality. I thank the people of Calgary Skyview for the confidence they have shown in sending me here. It is a great privilege, and I do not take their trust lightly. I love this place, and I love Canada. I love our values of freedom, democracy, equality, inclusiveness and tolerance.

My remarks today, however, are tinged with disappointment and apprehension. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen an erosion of Parliament and thus, our democracy. The pandemic has been a crisis the likes of which few, if any, of us have previously seen. This extraordinary circumstance called for an extraordinary response from our government to shepherd us through the crisis to recovery.

However, it did not require the abuse and undermining of our democracy. That is what we saw this summer. I speak from my personal experience on the status of women parliamentary committee. We knew that the pandemic was having a different and more dramatic effect on woman and girls. Last July I called, supported by all parties, for the return to work of the status of women committee. The disproportionate impact on women and girls was exacerbated by the government’s failure to apply a gender-based analysis lens to the CERB, a serious error that our committee was to study and make recommendations to address.

Our committee heard from witnesses who explained that many women were forced out of the workforce or their education programs to meet the increased workload and pressure from their domestic and care responsibilities. We heard that the risk of gender-based violence, domestic violence and human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation may be aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Based on the testimony, we were preparing recommendations to guide the government in addressing this inequity. However, we were shut down before we could finish the work. The work, which we hoped would help the government address the disproportionate stress and hardship faced by women during this crisis, was stopped cold. So far, the government has not addressed the issues identified by our work, and Canadian women and girls continue to face these disproportionate pressures and risks.

Before I go any further, I would like to advise that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Calgary Midnapore.

Why was our democratic process cut off? Why were Canadian women and girls left to fall through the cracks? It was simply so the Prime Minister could avoid the increasing scrutiny and demands for accountability that were the natural consequence of his flagrant ethical lapses in relation to the awarding of a contract to the WE Charity.

We lost a great Canadian this week. John Turner made many contributions to Canadian life, both in his public and private roles. One of his greatest contributions to our country was as a parliamentarian. He had a deep intellectual and emotional attachment to our democracy and our parliamentary system. He went back to its roots in the Magna Carta, which established that the ruler’s will is not arbitrary and that the privileges of Parliament had to be protected.

He lamented the erosion of the independence of the standing committees and their increasing irrelevance under the continual centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office. He once said, “What we have in this country didn’t happen by accident, democracy doesn’t happen by accident. Let’s fight for the restoration of the supremacy of Parliament in our democratic life.”

Why is our Parliament so important? It is not because any one of us happens to be here, or happens to sit on any committee, or serve in cabinet, or oppose the government. It is because we are sent here by the people. It is because, since 1215 under the parliamentary system, we do not allow ourselves to be governed arbitrarily without our consent.

It is not because my work was cut off that I am concerned. If it was not me, somebody else would be here doing the work. It is our job to work on behalf of the people of this country. We were doing that work on behalf of women and girls in this country, at a time when they were under attack and a time when they needed their government to acknowledge this reality and act to address it.

That work is too important to fall to the arbitrary whims of a Prime Minister feeling the well-deserved heat of his own actions. In not standing up to the Prime Minister and saying to him that this is not how our democratic system works, the members opposite turned their backs on the people who sent them to Ottawa as their representatives, not as the Prime Minister’s representatives in their ridings.

They certainly turned their backs on women and girls in Canada in the midst of a crisis. It is ironic to me that I deliver these remarks during Gender Equality Week, a week that reminds us of the work we have left to do to address gender equity gaps in our country. The government extols its work protecting vulnerable women from increased violence and exploitation in the midst of the pandemic, but we are hearing from front-line workers and services that they are overwhelmed and do not have sufficient resources.

I heard from the London Abused Women’s Centre, which has seen an increase in trafficking during COVID, particularly into pornography and webcams. Devastatingly, some of the girls are as young as 12 years of age. The London Abused Women's Centre, like other agencies across the country, has received no federal funding since its previous grant expired on March 31, 2020. The program has temporarily continued only because of the generosity of the people in London, Ontario.

The requests for proposals issued by WAGE and Public Safety are for significantly less funding, making it more difficult for trafficked and exploited women and girls to seek services and exit. This is shameful. Neither the throne speech nor the Prime Minister’s political posturing mentioned trafficking, despite the devastating impact it has on Canadian women and girls, their families and communities. Women and girls continue to suffer disproportionate hardship from the COVID-19 crisis.

I call on the government to mitigate the error of its decision to shut down Parliament this summer. I call for the important work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to be allowed to continue as soon as possible and include the previously heard testimony, so that we can complete the task that was arbitrarily halted at a time when women and girls in Canada needed us.

We are here for no other reason than it is the pleasure of our constituents that we be here. What a gift they have given us; what an opportunity to do something to improve the lives of Canadians. Our time here is too precious not to use it to the greatest of our ability and effort. The Prime Minister and his functionaries should never tell us when to do that work or when to stop that work. The people will tell us.

In the meantime, we are back. Let us get back to work. There is much to do.