Debates of Sept. 25th, 2020

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Winnipeg Centre that there will be other opportunities for questions and comments, and when that happens, I would ask her to attempt to be recognized. When someone else has the floor, it is not proper protocol within the House to be shouting to the other member. That applies to all MPs, by the way. I believe that we need to keep decorum in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lakeland.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will split my time with the strong, new member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

In their first call, our Conservative leader urged the Prime Minister to address western alienation and national unity. By failing to even mention it in the throne speech, the Prime Minister completely ignored the people I represent, and yesterday he called them crazy, and so it is impossible for me to support it.

Canada is in fiscal peril. The throne speech shows that the Liberals will keep risking Canada's finances so that kids the same age as my nieces and nephews and younger generations will struggle with affordability, starting a business, buying a home and planning for retirement. They may never experience the same health care, pensions or services their grandparents did.

In 2014, the Prime Minister said, “The budget will balance itself”, but his first one was twice the deficit he promised. In four years, he put Canada $87 billion in debt and now, when Canadians need support most, the Liberals are running a massive $343-billion deficit. The PBO warns that “we cannot afford deficits of over $300 billion for more than just a few years. ...it would [be] unsustainable.”

Conservatives do not advocate for fiscal responsibility as an end in itself. Instead, our caution is precisely to prepare for days like today so that there is fiscal firepower to support Canadians in crisis, but Canada is doing worse than our European allies. Under the Liberals, in March and April, three million Canadians lost their jobs and more than a million Canadians are still out of work. Canada has the highest unemployment rate in the G7, and the largest industries are sustaining major, prolonged damage, costing real people real jobs and hope for a better tomorrow.

This month, 70% of Canadian small businesses reported lower sales, 60% are not fully staffed and one in three are still fully closed. After six months of the Liberals turning Parliament into a special committee, stripping powers from MPs and opposition parties, spending hundreds of billions of dollars with limited scrutiny while attacking as heartless anyone who would dare to ask questions or ask for oversight and accountability, and after six weeks of shutting down everything to avoid his own scandals, what is missing from the throne speech is a clear post-pandemic road map and a real plan for the private sector to lead Canada's economic recovery.

It is fair to say that Canadians want elected representatives to work together. Conservatives have done so, but it is also our job to speak truth to power. Let us be real about the Liberals' failure to close the borders early, risking health and lives in response to COVID-19, and now to support Canada's front-line medical workers and first responders, who make up 20% of Canada's COVID cases, which is twice the global average. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions links that reality to a lack of protective equipment.

Last week, I heard from firefighters who cannot source N95 masks in rural or smaller population centres. So many of those first responders across Canada are volunteers. That is inexcusable, given all the early warnings. On January 17, Canadian military intelligence warned the defence minister about COVID-19. On February 7, the World Health Organization warned about global PPE shortages. On February 13, the Public Health Agency warned that Canada's stockpile was inadequate. However, the Liberals did not even try to buy PPE from international suppliers until late March and had already sent planeloads of Canadian PPE to China without any plans to replace it.

To protect public health, obviously, decisions must be based on science, evidence and practices in best-performing countries. Announcements must be clear and accurate. However, the Liberals have confused Canadians who are worried about making ends meet, and worried about their kids going back to school and whether they will be able to go back to work. People just cannot keep waiting for test results.

On August 26, infectious disease specialist Dr. Andrew Morris called Health Canada's rejection of home testing “absurd” and said that rapid testing is the backbone of infectious disease management, but the throne speech had precious little to fix Canada's failure to adopt the most effective models. The U.K., Japan, Germany and even the U.S. in April approved instant and rapid home testing, but not Canada. One single approval trickled in just today from Health Canada—some urgency.

On a personal note, I am grateful to our new Conservative leader to be the public safety shadow minister. It is not just a title or a huge responsibility for me, it is personal. I live on a farm in a rural riding in an escalating crime epidemic. My constituents fear for their families, homes and businesses, vulnerable to increasingly brazen criminals in a slap-on-the-wrist, revolving-door system. It is costing them enormously, financially and in their peace of mind. That is why, in 2018, I pushed Motion No. 167 to combat rural crime as an anxious rural resident and MP myself, and as the daughter-in-law of a proud RCMP detachment assistant for more than 40 years.

I know so many under-resourced officers, administrators and victim services advocates who are at their wits' end, just like rural residents who feel like sitting ducks.

In Lakeland, there are 10 first nation and Métis communities. As a person who happens to be part Ojibwa, my heart aches when they share their worries about pervasive crime, recidivism, safety and their youth. Multiple indigenous communities in Lakeland declared local states of emergency because of out-of-control gang activity and crime since 2015. They worry about the exact same shortages of front-line mental health, addictions and police support and services as everyone else in Lakeland and in Alberta. What a shame the Liberals did not actually act on my Motion No. 167, but Conservatives will not give up.

The Liberal approach to firearms is a complete failure. In Toronto, shootings are up 83% under the current Liberals, with 2020 the worst year on record. In the throne speech, a single sentence promised to control the flow of illegal guns into Canada, as if the Liberals have not been in government for the past five years. What is worse is that the public safety minister knows mass confiscation of legal firearms will not reduce crime. Last year, about handguns, he said:

...that would be potentially a very expensive proposition...it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we’d still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border....

He is right. Where are the real resources and political will for front-line law enforcement and CBSA to tackle guns, organized crime and border smugglers, who are the main sources of firearms violence in Canada? Every dollar and every minute spent on this pointless and ineffective firearms ban could instead be used to go after criminals, who are not worried about filing paperwork and do not follow firearms laws already.

As for those who have been crime victims, I have walked their path. My lifelong and childhood best friend, the kind who is family, Dana Turner, was murdered in 2011 by a guy who also attacked an undercover cop and a prison cellmate. It is still seared into my mind: the desperation in looking for her, the hope that we would be wrong or that it was not what it seemed. I struggled through Dana's sister Paula's victim impact statement in Parliament to support life means life legislation, a Conservative bill the Liberals defeated in 2016. Later that same year, Dana's murderer was sentenced to prison for 16 years with no chance of parole. Two years ago, thank God, the appeal court upheld the judge's sentence. Dana was the victim of Mark Lindsay, but so were her parents, her sons, her siblings, every relative and her friends. As Paula generously said, so, even, were his parents because crime ricochets through so many lives and impacts so many people forever.

Canadians should not have to hold their breath and cross their fingers, hoping upon hope for exceptional lawyers, or that they can afford them, and for the grace of individual judges for justice to always be served. That is also why I am proud. Our new Conservative leader is committed to ensuring that even if someone is not criminally responsible they will not be a threat to the broader public. It is why we will keep calling on the Liberals to reverse their reduction of sentences for major offences, and I will ask for more action on dangerous offenders.

It is not just Canada's domestic security that is vulnerable on the Liberals' watch. The Prime Minister's naive admiration of the “basic dictatorship” of China is also a threat. Canadians are still unjustly imprisoned in China. Whether it was the Nortel hack in the 1990s, the Equifax hack in 2017 or the BlackBerry hack discovered in 2020, they all trace back to one place: the Chinese Communist Party.

China's state agencies are stealing Canada's cutting-edge research and innovation and interfering with critical infrastructure like telecoms. The Five Eyes partnership is Canada's most important international security and intelligence-sharing agreement, but Canada is the only member to not ban Huawei. While the Liberals are dithering, our new Conservative leader is clear: He will not allow the Communist Party of China to spy on Canadians through Huawei. China's state-influenced companies are setting up massive databases to compromise influencers and decision-makers, including 16,000 Canadians, while it is using its financial power to expand and control crucial and physical infrastructure in other countries. Of course, China's state owned and affiliated enterprises are consolidating control of resources and resource producers, including Canada's, which are all the more vulnerable because of Liberal policies and the severe economic consequences of the pandemic.

In closing, the Prime Minister could have outlined a concrete plan to keep Canadians safe, to create jobs and to restart the economy. He did not, so I will vote no confidence in the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will say right from the onset that I disagree with what the member is trying to convey through her messaging this afternoon. If the member would take the time to read through the throne speech, I suspect that she would find there are many different initiatives that are very tangible that would continue to assist Canadians through this very difficult time in terms of dealing with the coronavirus and the issue of getting the economy going to its maximum force. I do not think they have to look that far into the throne speech to find that. I plan to speak a bit later and expand upon that.

Would the member not, at the very least, acknowledge that within the throne speech there are numerous measures that deal with what the Government of Canada is proposing to do?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just think that is patently false. Today members of all parties are replying to the Speech from the Throne. We are debating it. Members of every single opposition party and independents have been asking, precisely, for concrete details on whatever issues they might be advocating for on behalf of their constituents.

Over and over, the Liberals stand up and talk about ambitions, desires, intent, strategies, themes and foundations. By their own answers all day today, and I am sure for days to come, they have no details or concrete plan whatsoever.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party's refusal to increase health transfers to 35% is a good example of predatory federalism. When medicare was first introduced, the federal government provided 50% of the funding. This figure was gradually cut back, and now the government funds just 22% of these costs. However, the governments of Quebec and the other provinces cannot cut health services in the same way that the Liberal government has cut its funding.

There are now aberrations in the system, as we have seen with long-term care facilities, which have had various problems. These problems arise because the governments of Quebec and the other provinces do not have the means to hire more staff, and in particular orderlies.

The Liberals are saying that we are trying to stir up trouble, but Quebec is not the only province calling for health transfers to be restored to 35%. All of the provinces are calling for this. We are also calling for these transfers to continue increasing by 6% per year.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, obviously we have vigorous disagreements on some issues, certainly on oil and gas and on pipelines, but one area where we agree is that the federal government should be respecting provincial jurisdiction, should actually be listening to the premiers and should be trusting provincial governments to meet the needs of their own provinces.

I would note that the premiers have unanimously come out and said that the top two priorities they had wanted from this throne speech were not addressed: jobs and health care. To the member's point, I am mindful that a previous Conservative government, while it stewarded through the global recession to put Canada in the strongest financial position of any developed country in the world, while it reduced taxes to the lowest level in 50 years, while it lifted more Canadians out of poverty than at any other time since it was recorded, it also, year after year, increased health care transfers to the provinces and left a $1-billion surplus.

However, Liberals always do what Liberals always do, and they always cut transfers to the provinces.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the major concerns that I have is the lack of mention of this country's veterans in the throne speech. This is very concerning.

It is also very concerning because the Royal Canadian Legion has come forward and talked about the many legions across Canada that are struggling to make ends meet during this time. In my riding there are 11 legions that perform a very fundamental service to the veterans in our region.

I just want to hear from the member whether she shares that concern with me.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, briefly, since most people who know me well would know that I could have three hours of things to say, I absolutely share her concerns. Conservatives will always stand in solidarity with all members who will fight for support for veterans. They fought for us and gave us our way of life, and it is a sacred duty that we owe to the people who have put their lives on the line for our country and to preserve our way of life, and to all their family members and friends who sacrificed with them.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be the voice for my constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and, now, the new shadow minister of agriculture and agri-food on behalf of farmers and agricultural producers. It is a tremendous honour and responsibility that I do not take lightly.

Over the past several months, we have seen our country go through a lockdown, when Canadians were asked to stay at home and keep safe, except for those who worked on the front lines. I would like to take a moment to thank all of the front-line workers and the farmers for helping us through this pandemic. Farmers stepped up to make sure that Canadians were fed, regardless of the obstacles that they faced and the minimal help that they received through the emergency response programs. How were they repaid? The word “agriculture” does not even appear in the Speech from the Throne. I had hoped that the Liberal government would use this opportunity to recognize the importance of agriculture not only in feeding Canadians but as a critical pillar of our economy.

I am disappointed to see that, once again, the agriculture sector is not a priority for the government. Agriculture should be included as a key component of Canada's economic recovery plan coming out of COVID. To be honest, I was not expecting much, but at the very least, it would have been nice to hear that it is understood that our agriculture sector had been through a lot and that the unique challenges that threatened various farmers' livelihoods must be addressed. This would have gone a long way to tell my constituents and Canada's farmers that their voices have been heard. Admittedly, an ambitious plan that is responsive to the on-the-ground concerns before they metastasized into a food security crisis would have even been better.

Contrary to Liberal beliefs, food does not just magically appear on the shelves of our grocery stores. Farmers, ranchers and producers work tirelessly to ensure that Canadians have delicious, grown and raised-in-Canada food available to them on their grocery store shelves. When the pandemic initially hit, Canadians were caught by surprise and the instinct to stock up kicked in. For some reason, toilet paper was the first product on everyone’s list, but the reassurance that farmers and food producers were up to the task of feeding Canadians and that we were not in danger of running out of food was not front of mind.

It did not take long, however, for most to recognize how fragile our way of life is. I am grateful that Canadians do not have to worry about food availability on top of everything else, but it is the government’s responsibility to be aware of and to act proactively to ensure that Canada’s food security remains unthreatened in the years to come.

When it comes to actions, the Liberal government’s track record of responding to the on-the-ground realities have a lot to be desired. There is anxiety from across the agricultural community about competitiveness, market access, reduced production and processing capacity, just to name a few. I sincerely hope that the government’s actions will finally address its accumulating concerns, because if they do not, we may no longer be able to take for granted our current level of food security.

We must ensure that our local food production remains stable in the face of uncertainty. Our domestic demand must also be able to be sustained by local production. Anything short of that would be negligent. This year, 2020, has made it abundantly clear that when times are tough, we can only truly rely on our very own made-in-Canada safety net, so why is it that the concerns and calls for action from those who feed us so often fall on the deaf ears of the government? If the government truly recognized the fragility of our food security and was serious about protecting it, we would have seen it demonstrated with actions or, at the very least, with a promising throne speech.

It is sad to say that the throne speech did not provide much evidence that there was an epiphany on the government's part. Still, I am going to remain hopeful that Canada’s food security will not stay in the government’s blind spot for much longer and that we will soon witness a determination to do better. I truly hope that is the case and I welcome every opportunity to work collaboratively with the minister and members across party lines to create conditions where farmers can earn a living knowing that their government will have their backs if external factors outside of their control threaten their livelihoods.

The first step, which I am hopeful is a common-ground issue that we can get the ball rolling on right away, is modernizing the business risk management programs. The diversity of the agriculture sector requires a more flexible solution than we currently have. The obstacles are different for different producers.

The agriculture committee completed a study on business risk management and was ready to review the report right before Parliament prorogued. The FPT ministers meeting that was scheduled for October has now been moved to November, leaving time for the agriculture committee to resume its work on this report and get it to the minister ahead of these meetings.

It is important that industry works collaboratively with all levels of government so that we can soon find long-term solutions to better manage risks and provide real stability to a sector that contributes so much to our rural communities and our economy. Likewise, I am hopeful the government will recognize the urgent need to sit down with beef and pork producers and processors and find—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Was there a point of order?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker.

The French interpretation is back online, but it was offline for at least five minutes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is back online. We will not wait five minutes, but any time the interpretation cuts out, go ahead and raise a point of order so you can hear the speeches.

We will resume. The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has about four minutes left.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, likewise, I am hopeful that the government will recognize the urgent need to sit down with beef and pork producers and processors to find actionable solutions to solve the processing capacity bottleneck, especially in Ontario.

Aside from the immediate reduction in food output, many farmers are worried that they will be pushed out of business if obstacles are not immediately removed. However, the message that was sent to farmers, with the pennies-on-the-dollar COVID-19 relief package, not only did not convey a sense of urgency, but proved yet again that farmers are not valued by the government.

Canada's farmers are some of the hardest working people I have ever met. They are proud people and would never ask for a handout, but during this pandemic they needed a hand-up. Existing programs are not enough. Neither was the so-called relief package, which was a drop in the bucket of what was required. Besides, a big chunk of that was not new money; it had already been budgeted under the existing AgriRecovery envelope prior to the pandemic. Family farms without a business account were not even able to take advantage of the Canada emergency business account loans when they needed them the most. The bottom line is the government was not there for our farmers while they were doing the incredible work of overcoming challenges to feed Canadians.

Unfortunately, the government's relationship with farmers does not stop with inaction. It is one thing to not help our farmers amid external forces of instability, but it is another thing entirely to have our government choose to inflict direct harm with destabilizing policies.

It is troubling that the government continues to add rather than remove obstacles with punitive schemes such as the carbon tax. The carbon tax is already a major cost for grain farmers. It is estimated that it will reduce their income by about 12% by 2022. There are only two options for drying grain: natural gas or propane. There are no alternatives. Whether they are from drying grain or heating barns, these costs are significantly adding up, and things will continue costing more and more, as the tax is scheduled to continue going up.

However, the ultimate impact of trying to phase out oil through these schemes, whether it punishes consumers or producers, is the inevitable rising costs of Canadian goods. This will make it impossible for our farmers to compete against foreign producers that are not subjected to these costs.

How many farmers will have to go out of business if they are stifled from being able to compete? The availability of food on our shelves today is not an accurate picture of tomorrow's food security. It is paramount that the government recognizes the consequences of the policies that push farmers out of business, because if the can is kicked down the road, the government will only have itself to blame for a failure to act proactively to secure our food supply.

Rural Canadians do not feel represented by the government. That is because they are not. It is, however, the responsibility of the government to at least make an effort to govern on behalf of all Canadians. If the Liberals did, they would not only talk about connecting rural Canadians to high-speed broadband, as they have for the last months and years, but would actually do it. They would recognize the amount of vetting that law-abiding firearms owners go through to get their licences and what hunting and sport shooting represents to our heritage, traditions and community. Likewise, they would understand just how many hoops farmers have to jump through and what it feels like to have a government this far removed from the issues that impact their livelihoods.

I urge the government to self-reflect and consider the long-term ramifications of pushing farmers away from doing what they love to do. I sincerely hope that upon reflection we can all come to the common understanding that the neglect of our agriculture sector and of rural Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have allowed for quite a bit of time, and I have been trying to advise the member that the time was running out. I am sure she will be able to add to the questions and comments anything in her speech that she was not able to finish. I am sorry to interrupt.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize my hon. colleague's new parliamentary role as the critic to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and congratulate her on this.

I listened very intently to her speech, because of course agriculture is extremely important in my riding. As well, we sit on the agriculture committee together.

People who have just been watching might have thought that this government has not mentioned agriculture at all, but when I look through the Speech from the Throne, I want to correct the record. There is a lot of conversation around food security, local food infrastructure, supporting farmers with a transition to a low-carbon economy, a commitment to maintaining our supply management compensation and the mitigation efforts for those sectors. As it relates to COVID, there is nearly $500 million of support to the agriculture sector on top of the existing business risk management supports.

I agree with the member that we need to be able to move forward on implementation and restoring the BRM the Harper government cut back in 2013. Will the member at least recognize there was a considerable amount of language for farmers and support for local food security?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that most of the new money put out by the government was reallocated from other programs already budgeted for under every year's budget.

As for the carbon tax, I have had the opportunity to meet with farmers already from across the country and will continue meeting with farmers. I talked with a farmer from Simcoe county a couple of weeks ago, and he was kind enough to supply me with a copy of his natural gas bill. Farmers' expenses keep going up, and for the period from July 15 to July 18, his carbon charge was almost $1,300. Then he pays a tax on a tax.

If the government claims to be listening to farmers, it is missing the point. There is no alternative energy source for grain farmers. They have to use propane or natural gas and it just keeps costing more, and it is going to cost Canadians more to put food on their tables.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I answer my colleague, I would like to echo other members in recognizing and thanking the workers and volunteers who were on the front lines during the pandemic. Now that the second wave is upon us, much will be asked of them.

What the Bloc Québécois wants the government to do for farmers is uphold supply management.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on calls for supply-managed farmers to get what we hope will be full and fair compensation for trade agreements.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is just another example of how the government keeps telling farmers it is going to do something and we have not seen any actions. Dairy farmers have been promised compensation under some of the trade agreements, such as CPTPP and CETA, and have yet to see any action.

I agree with the member. The government needs to continue to live up to its words and not just keep giving us platitudes. We want to see concrete actions and help for our farmers because we need them to help our economy recover from COVID. Without farmers, we have no food on our tables.

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

Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate my colleague on her appointment to her new critic role. I agree very much with her that stopping work in the committees through prorogation was very unfortunate.

I also wanted to ask her thoughts on compensation and maybe have her add to her previous answer about how important this is, and how long we have had to wait for it. It is really time for sectors to see some concrete action.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with the member on the agriculture committee, and hopefully we will be able to have those meetings.

As you mentioned, we also had some emergency meetings planned prior to prorogation to hear from our friends in the supply management sector on chicken, turkey and eggs. Hopefully we will be able to continue to have those meetings, where we can ask the government why it has not paid them what was promised as compensation from previous trade agreements.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member to address all questions and comments to the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the House and today is no exception.

It has been a very interesting time for all us, no matter where we live in Canada. I thought maybe I would share some thoughts with respect to contrast. It is not meant to scare people on what would have happened if the Conservatives were in government, but rather to put things in a different perspective.

First, in the last six months we have witnessed a great deal of co-operation, of people coming together to work. We often use the words “team Canada approach”. Led by the national government in Ottawa, we have seen a great sense of need to respond to the pandemic. Provincial governments, municipal governments, non-profit agencies, essential workers, a wide spectrum of people and organizations have recognized the need to work together. The only exception to that would probably be the Conservatives.

A great deal has been accomplished as a direct result. Millions of jobs have been saved and millions of people have been assisted directly. I thought it might be somewhat advantageous for us to spend some time talking about why it was so important for the government to be engaged so heavily on this file.

If we go back to the very beginning of 2020, the economy was doing quite well. Canada was very successful at excelling in a lot of things. The job numbers were fantastic. Members will recall that in our first four to four and a half years, the Liberal government created over one million jobs. We had the lowest unemployment. We were doing exceptionally well. It was not just because of the things we were doing in Ottawa, but what others were doing in all regions of the country. Some regions were finding it more difficult than others. The impact of the world price on oil did have an impact. Some things we did not necessarily have much control over. However, generally speaking, the economy and our communities were doing quite well.

When the pandemic came, it got to a point where we had to make the decision to shut things down. It was a wise decision. We listened to what the health care experts were saying. Science matters to this government. Listening matters to this government. When the decision was made, we understood that the government needed to step up and provide the types of supports Canadians would need in the coming days, weeks and months, and even beyond.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that we will be there for Canadians throughout this process. From day one, we have been. Remember, there was no such thing as a CERB program back in January. We created a program, with the support of civil servants and with an understanding of what we had been hearing, from virtually nothing. The program was so effective that well over eight million Canadians benefited from it. Canada has less than 37 million people. We can do the math.

It is interesting to hear the criticism coming from the Conservative party. They are saying that we are not doing enough. There is no doubt we can always do better, and we look for ways we can do better. Depending on which Conservative MP I am listening to, the government is spending far too much money and we should not be doing the things that we are doing, but then others say that maybe we should be doing some of the things that we are doing. The only consistent message from the Conservative party is that we, as a government, are spending too much money.

Therein lies the difference that we need to highlight. A Liberal government, and this Prime Minister in particular, genuinely believe that the last six months have been a time in which the government needed to step up and support families. It should not be an option, but if we listen to the Conservatives, we would think that there was an option. We believe that we need to put money into the pockets of Canadians throughout the country because of the many hardships caused directly by the pandemic. That is what CERB was all about. The CERB program was there to support Canadians when we had to support Canadians. It was the right thing to do.

Regarding the economy, obviously we are concerned about jobs. As I pointed out, in our first four years we created well over a million jobs. That is about the same number Harper created, but it took him nine or 10 years to achieve. The wage subsidy program has literally saved tens of thousands of jobs. It has prevented many companies across Canada from going bankrupt. It has allowed companies to keep jobs in their factories and places of employment that otherwise might not have been maintained. It not only protected jobs, but provided the money that was necessary for people to pay their mortgages, buy groceries, get gas for their vehicles or have day-in and day-out necessary expenditures and be able to continue on.

Those two programs affected a wide spectrum of Canadians, directly or indirectly. When we look at the throne speech, it shows us why it is laughable that the Conservatives or others would try to imply that the throne speech does not have a plan. In the throne speech we see the extension of the wage subsidy program. We see more in terms of how the CERB program is going to be incorporated, in a different form, into the employment insurance program. Those are substantial issues. We are talking about billions of dollars, not millions.

Within the throne speech, which was read just the other day, there is a litany of things to provide comfort and assurances to Canadians. This government is going to continue to be there for them in a very real and tangible way. We are going to continue to fight the COVID-19 virus for however long it takes, and we are going to be there to protect our economy and jobs. If we look at the commitments made in the throne speech, we find historic amounts of money allocated for job retraining. We recognize the value of changing skill sets and the need to upgrade one's skill set as the economy has changed.

The Prime Minister made reference to many things that now stand out, both positive and negative, because of the pandemic, and there are some things we can pick up from that.

Canadians love our health care system. In the throne speech, there is a reaffirmation of the pharmacare program. I know some would say we should implement it today. It is not quite as easy as that, because we have to work with the provinces. In order to maximize the benefit of a national pharmacare program, provinces have to work with the federal government.

It is discouraging for me when I hear Conservatives say that we should just give money to the provinces and that we should not interfere in what they believe the federal government should have no interest in. I believe the Conservatives, and their cousins in the Bloc, are wrong. I believe the Bloc does a disservice to Canadians when it advocates for just handing over cash to the provinces and that the federal government should have no role. However, I understand it. The government House leader said it quite well. The Bloc wants to see the destruction of Canada.

On the other hand, I do not quite understand why the Conservatives do not believe there is a stronger role for the federal government in ensuring that Canadians are getting what they want regarding health care. We have the Canada Health Act. I encourage Conservatives to read it. They will see there is an opportunity for Ottawa to contribute to the debate. It is not just about money, as the Conservatives tend to think it is.

I hope the Conservatives will start listening to their constituents on the very important issue of health care, because I believe a majority of Conservative voters who live in Winnipeg North would disagree with their twisted approach on the delivery of health care in our country. There are Conservatives who will support me because of their stance on health care.

At the end of the day—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that someone has the floor. I am sure other members are anxious to ask their questions and make their comments, but I would ask them to hold their thoughts until it is time to do so.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I need to move on as there are a number of other points I want to make.

An issue in Winnipeg North, which I am sure is universal across the country, arose when classrooms and schools started back in September. There was a great deal of anxiety. Parents were debating whether they should send their children to school or hold the them back and wait and see.

A wonderful announcement came from the government of a $2 billion commitment to assist schools and help to get young people back to school. That went a long way to providing some comfort to constituents, teaching professionals and other stakeholders.

Similar to when we make reference to the issue of health care, the government has a responsibility to be there in that real, tangible way. One of those ways was the very positive and progressive announcement by the government of that $2 billion to help make young people feel more comfortable in getting back into the classroom as well as to support our teachers. I suspect that is something the Conservatives would have never supported. I do not hear them talking about it.

Initiatives that have been brought forward have had a very positive impact. Ottawa has worked with the provinces in a number of areas, such as supporting children in schools, pharmacare and health care. That is one of the reasons for the $19 billion safe restart agreement. Ottawa worked with the provinces and came up with an agreement. For example, Manitoba will almost triple the province's ability to test for COVID-19. The government will be there in a very tangible way to support our health care services.

I was quite encouraged when I saw the letter from the Premier of Manitoba, acknowledging how Manitoba would benefit from the restart agreement between Ottawa and the province. That type of cooperation makes a big difference. We have witnessed that virtually from day one.

We have had issues as MPs when we have been encouraged to provide that feedback directly. I have no doubt that MPs on all sides of the House listen to their constituents and ultimately bring forward, in the best way they can, their thoughts to the authorities, whether through a department or minister.

I was appreciative of the system we set up to allow Liberal members of Parliament the opportunity to raise issues every day for a period of time. We felt comfortable knowing that if we raised these issues in caucus, it would filter through to the ministries or the PMO. We were being listened to.

I suspect each party had its own mechanism to allow for that direct input. I appreciated the fact that the Prime Minister made it such a high priority for all members of Parliament, of whatever political party, to bring the ideas and thoughts of their constituents to the attention of the PMO, the ministries or whatever other mechanism an individual MP felt most comfortable with. I like to think that it had a profoundly positive impact on a number of programs that we brought in.

I can see that my time has run out. I will pick up on a couple of those points during questions and answers.