Debates of Sept. 28th, 2020

Government Business No. 1

[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, the pandemic has put a great deal of pressure on in many different ways.

Earlier this year, the government, in co-operation, particularly, with the New Democratic Party, recognized the value in the House of Commons sitting in the summer, and justifiably so, something it has not done, at least not that I can recall, in the last 30 years. I suspect it might be even longer than that, since the House actually sat in the summer months.

I was here both in July and August, sitting inside this chamber, listening to hundreds of questions. That does not even come close to the types of transparency and accountability that I saw when I was on the opposition benches. Government was available for questioning.

Where was all the interest, which the Conservatives have today, during the summer, when they were not necessarily posing the types of questions they are looking for answers to today?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague across the way, but I would respectfully disagree with him. As I mentioned in my speech many times, the Conservative Party was calling for the recall of Parliament, almost immediately, after we had a handle on the problems the pandemic was causing in our communities. We wanted Parliament called back right away to deal with that.

What the government gave us was a fake Parliament. We were not able to debate legislation. We had a few questions, but it was every other week, and the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament, shutting down the last week of that debate.

The Conservative Party wanted to debate all throughout April, May, June, July, August, September and onwards. The fact that we were not given that opportunity is a real shame for Canadians, because we know there are a lot of problems with the programs that the government announced. We wanted to work with the government to ensure those fixes were in place.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the part of my colleague's speech that caught my attention was the part on child care. I had my daughter in 1999, when I was a student, and child care cost $20 a day. As a student, I can assure you that in 1999 that was a lot a of money. I very much welcomed the creation of the national child care service in Quebec shortly thereafter. It is a Quebec program and a provincial jurisdiction for the other Canadian provinces.

What does my colleague think of the idea of allowing women to return to work or to school and other women to have a job, which would help the national and provincial economies, while also respecting provincial jurisdictions?

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

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I was talking about. If the provinces, the provincial jurisdictions, want to implement a day care system of their own, that is perfectly fine. That is up to the provinces. It is not up to the federal government to say “You are going to do X, Y and Z, and if you do not, you are not getting your federal money.” That is what we are talking about.

We are also talking about flexibility for those parents who may work shift work or otherwise. Every situation is unique. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution to the day care problem. The plan that Conservatives are putting forward to Canadians to show an option for them in the next election is that we are going to give them the freedom to make choices, and we all know that more choice is a good thing, and so is competition, a better service, a better product at a better price.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. Here today, we just learned that Ontario has now had its highest number of infections, 700 cases today in his home province. My colleague is raising the need for testing.

Does the member not believe that paid sick days are just as important, and that people should not be going to work if they are sick, infecting their co-workers?

We learned that 14% of workers earning less than $16,000 are actually getting paid sick leave, versus 74% of those earning over $96,000 a year. We know that women, especially, have been impacted by COVID-19. They are 20 years behind. Their participation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did ask for a small question.

I want to give the member an opportunity to respond with a brief answer, please.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my friend. I mean that in the truest sense of the word.

Yes, absolutely, testing is very important. I mentioned in my speech that there is a need for rapid testing as well. It needs to be available. We have countries all across the G7 that have approved rapid testing. It is the key to opening our economy.

Of course I agree with the member that anyone who is sick should be able to stay home while they recover, but that is not the point here. In order to move forward, we need rapid testing, so why is the government delaying rapid testing from being approved?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today.

This is the second time this week for me. I unfortunately do not always bring good news, and my comments about Bill C-4 are no exception.

We have an important decision to make this week. We need to take time to talk about how we ended up here, which did not happen overnight. It took the government, Canadians and us a long time to get here.

I want to review the decisions the government made, talk about what happened in the world before and during March and April, and talk about how we got to this point.

On January 28, the World Health Organization described the risk of transmission to be very high in China and very high at a global level of the virus, which was of course on the horizon.

On January 30, the Minister of Health said that it would be virtually impossible to prevent the virus from arriving in Canada, but did not take any steps to prepare at that time.

Between January 22 and February 18, 58,000 travellers arrived in Canada from high-risk areas and only 68 were pulled aside for further assessment by a quarantine officer. There again we see that the government had an opportunity to do so much, an opportunity which it passed on, leading us to where we are today.

By February 17, the national lab had only run 461 tests, and on March 10, public health officials advised policy makers that COVID risks were low in Canada and that mandatory quarantines for returning travellers would be too difficult to enforce.

Before I go on, I have to go back to February, because who can forget what happened in February when the government sent 16 tonnes of personal protective equipment back to China?

Perhaps it did not think that we might need that equipment in the future. The government did not think ahead, and that is very clear right now.

Of course, on March 13, the Prime Minister went into isolation. On March 13, the U.S. declared a national emergency. On March 16, finally, Canada closed its borders, and on March 20, we finally closed our borders with our good friend, the United States. However, on April 9, the Prime Minister warned that it could be over a year until life returns to normal.

We can see that the government had much notice and time to prepare from so many perspectives, from a health perspective, a public safety perspective, and an economic and fiscal responsibility perspective, but it did not. That is the reason we are going into the chamber again to vote in support or not of the legislation of the government, which has been so incredibly irresponsible.

As an official opposition that loves and supports Canadians and that loves and supports our fellow citizens, we did what we had to do. We supported the legislation to give all of the incredible supports to Canadians across the country. I will say that some supports did work better than others.

As the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities during the spring, I saw different studies in terms of evaluating the supports that were given. Unfortunately, though, there were no long-term economic solutions to maintain financial security for Canadians. I will get more into that.

In addition, we did not look at providing any long-term solutions to any groups, such as non-profit organizations, beyond the pandemic, so everything was very short-sighted. That does not matter anyway now, because any useful work that was conducted has become null due to the prorogation of Parliament. Of course, who can forget the WE scandal, where the government was more concerned with doling out contracts to its friends than with providing supports to the Canadians who needed them?

I will also add my two pieces as the outgoing vice-chair of HUMA. I think the government did a terrible job of protecting our seniors in long-term care facilities across this country. I am so happy our official opposition has a fantastic new shadow minister for seniors, the member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who I know will fight for seniors.

I will also say I am very excited to see the previous speaker, the new shadow minister for families, children and social development, who I know will take on the battle to get Canadians out of this cycle of perpetual poverty, which is what we are seeing with the extension of the bill today. Again, as good Canadians and as good stewards of the health, safety and well-being, particularly the economic well-being, of Canadians, we will certainly consider doing what we have to do to support Canadians. However, we were put in this place by the government and its absolute irresponsibility.

What keeps me up at night is the economic recovery of this nation. I could go on and on about the economic recovery of this nation because as we speak, Canada's debt is over $1 trillion. Our deficit for the 2020-21 fiscal year is $380 billion. It is absolutely unthinkable and unbelievable, but here we are.

On July 8, a Global News article said, “The flood of federal spending in response to the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis will see the deficit soar to $343 billion this year, as officials warn the economy might never go back to normal.” Well, would we not like a deficit of $343 billion instead of the $380 billion that we have now.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, speaking of the federal government, stated, “It's without a doubt that we cannot afford deficits of over $300 billion for more than just a few years. And when I say a few years, I really mean a year or two. Beyond that it would become unsustainable.” We are easily reaching the state of this being unsustainable, and beyond.

In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer added, “So if the government has plans for additional spending, it will clearly have to make difficult choices and either raise taxes or reduce other areas of spending. Because it's clear that we cannot afford to have deficits of that magnitude for even the medium term.”

Unfortunately, this is the poor planning of the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and all of his officers. They had several occasions prior to the pandemic to put us in a better fiscal position and to put Canadians in a better position to respond to this pandemic. Then the pandemic hit. Conservatives, who care about Canada and our economy, made the decision to support Canadians in their time of need and in this time of relief.

Again, it is the poor planning of the government in the present and moving into the future that behooved us to show up in the House again and vote for additional supports, supports, which I might add, that will cost north of $50 billion, and possibly as much as $60 billion. This is on the backs of Canadians, on the backs of my son and all the other Canadian children.

I was very proud to take on an economic recovery task force in my riding of Calgary Midnapore. I was very happy to do that, but it feels sometimes that it is an absolute futility because the Prime Minister stated on September 1 to the CBC, “We shouldn't be moving forward with an ambitious, bold vision to help Canadians and build a better future without ensuring that we have the support of Parliament.”

The start of the throne speech stated, “For over 150 years, Parliamentarians have worked together to chart Canada's path forward. Today, Canadians expect you to do the same.” The Liberals only care to work with as many parliamentarians as they have to to advance their own agenda. If they managed to dangle a carrot in front of 24 NDP MPs, they have ignored 160 other parliamentarians who also represent Canadians. Canadians deserve help, but more importantly, they deserve a plan for an economically sustainable recovery.

[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 interesting to have contrast here. We have a Conservative member who is making it very clear. The debt that is being accrued because of the programs we are bringing into place is very upsetting and appears to be something which the member does not support. She is giving the impression that we should not be borrowing as much money as we are. On the other hand, she tries to give the impression that she supports all these programs.

Looking specifically at this bill, the member is complaining about the $50 billion, but she is supporting the programs. She cannot have it both ways.

Does the member believe that we should continue to support Canadians through programs that are largely, in part, being financed through debt? Does she believe we should do it or should we not do it?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my point is that we never should have been put in this place that we have to do this. This is again and again as result of the poor planning of the Liberal government: first, in not preparing before the pandemic arrived; second, the poor preparation and the inability to recognize the magnitude of the pandemic; and third, adequately addressing the needs of all Canadians and all businesses several times over.

Thank goodness my leadership team had the foresight to put in the provisions to not let this spending get completely out of control. Yes, Canadians need our support, but it could have been done in a far more responsible, accountable fashion.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Midnapore for her noteworthy efforts in French during her speech.

I see the Conservatives are trying to be very compassionate. On the other hand, what concrete action would they take for people who are less fortunate and those who have limited access to jobs? Unfortunately, I do not see any solutions in the Conservative line, and I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

I sincerely believe that the Conservatives have always been the party of compassion in Canada. We are the family party and the seniors' party. We are the party that believes in Canadians. We are recognized as the party of compassion across Canada and in the House.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that the Liberals have been absolutely irresponsible by proroguing Parliament and then just sitting on this until midnight last night, when all benefits expired and a million or more Canadians were left with absolutely no means of support. Therefore, I certainly agree with her there.

I strongly disagree with her portrayal of Conservatives being a compassionate party while at the same time decrying the provision for paid sick leave, for the first time in Canadian history, for workers who are struggling to do the right thing when they are sick, either having to put food on the table or staying away from work. The NDP forced the government to actually make that difference, forced it to make that change for the first time in Canadian history. For 150 years now, Canadian workers, including in Calgary, have not had access to paid sick leave in many cases and now they will, finally.

This is a major achievement. It is not a carrot; it is an absolute necessity for people who have to struggle to make ends meet. At the same time, it is essential as a public health precaution to ensure that people who are vulnerable or susceptible to the pandemic are not affected by it.

Why did she characterize the provision for sick leave as a carrot and how can she pretend the Conservative Party is compassionate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are only five minutes for questions and comments and I want to allow the member to answer. I would ask members to reduce the time for their questions as opposed to delivering a speech.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, a brief answer, please.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly can understand the member of Parliament's embarrassment to prop up the government, but unfortunately his party has a history of doing that. The New Democrats did it in 2005 to pass Paul Martin's spring budget. They did in November of 2005 to defeat the government. They did it with their failed coalition with the Liberals in 2008. Therefore, I am not shocked at all to hear that response from the member.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

I rise today to speak about the Canada recovery benefit legislation and the way in which it will positively impact the lives of Canadians across the country as we continue the process of restarting our economy.

Many members of the House, myself included, have not been in Ottawa over the past six months, but we have all been conducting our work in our ridings, interacting with our constituents in a safe manner during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The actions this government took in implementing the Canada emergency response benefit were significant in the lives of Canadians, whose incomes have been disrupted or eliminated entirely by the health crisis. It allowed families to make ends meet while facing such challenges and, of course, while maintaining their own health and safety.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen a return to many of the things that families are used to. Children are returning to school. Many workplaces have or are about to resume operations with many staff who were laid off several months back.

We also have seen new situations arise as a result of COVID-19. Workers have had their industries permanently changed and are looking for new careers. For example, in British Columbia, all stand-alone banquet halls have been ordered to shut down by our provincial health officer. This has left many of my constituents in a difficult situation, trying to figure out what is next when it comes to collecting a paycheque.

I have also seen many self-employed business owners who are recovering their past clients and work activities, but are doing so in a way that is slower than the bills that are piling up.

These are the familiar and new realities that have inspired this bill. As we transition away from emergency response measures like the CERB, it is imperative we understand the situations that we as elected officials are hearing on the ground and that we take that feedback into account. Simply put, our government understands that the next phase of recovery cannot have millions of Canadians falling through the cracks without any means of support.

This is why we extended the Canada emergency response benefit by an additional four weeks, through to the end of September. However, this bill is about what is next. In that regard, three new recovery benefits are introduced so that the move to employment insurance leaves no Canadian behind.

First is the Canada recovery benefit, which will provide financial assistance for up to 26 weeks to workers who are not eligible for EI but still require income support and who are available and actively looking for employment.

As I mentioned, my riding of Surrey—Newton is driven by small business owners, many of whom are sole proprietorships, run by hard-working, self-employed people. As they move to get more of a solid footing, we do not want businesses to fail because they have seen this during their business activities and we do not want them to be left behind through this transition.

The Canada recovery benefit is about supporting Canadians who have had their income drop or be eliminated due to COVID-19, but it is going to be accompanied by additional support. In these individuals' search for gainful employment, we are working closely with the provinces and territories to share information and provide tools and training to get people back into the workforce.

The second new measure, the Canada recovery sickness benefit, would provide $500 per week for up to two weeks for workers who are sick and must self-isolate as a result of exposure to COVID-19. During this pandemic, doing the right thing by self-isolating and reducing the risk of spreading the infection to colleagues, friends or family members should not be a path to financial hardship. Workers and their families should not have to choose between staying safe and making ends meet.

Last, this bill is introducing the Canada recovery caregiver benefit, which would provide $500 per week for up to 26 weeks per household for eligible Canadians unable to work because they are serving as caregivers for someone impacted by the pandemic. This could include a sick child who is being kept at home out of caution because they are not feeling well and is staying home for the public good. Workers would be able to apply for this benefit for the period for which they are providing care and require income support, and they would have to confirm that they will meet the eligibility criteria. The 26 weeks of this benefit could be shared within a household, but two family members residing in the same household cannot receive the benefit for the same period. Only one member of a household can receive it at a given time.

These are the realities of a country that is working to restart our economy and our daily lives in a safe and responsible way. Employment insurance has always represented temporary relief for unemployed workers who are upgrading their skills and looking for new opportunities or who have been laid off. With these new benefits, our government is appropriately changing EI so that the new realities of COVID-19 recovery can be realized without anyone being left without the support that they need to emerge from the health crisis stronger than ever.

This is a bill that has been drafted based on the stories that all of us have heard and brought back from our respective ridings. The bill considers the challenges faced by average Canadians as we continue the process of reopening the country and the economy. Most important, Bill C-4 represents a response that listened to Canadians. This is how we have managed our government's response to COVID-19 from the beginning, and we are responding based on the real-world situations that are happening in people's lives.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this most important legislation today.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, in my hon. colleague's speech, he talked a lot about the government response to COVID. I must say I am a bit disappointed with its response. It took a very long time for the government to consider closing the border. The mask mandate was definitely a long time in coming. We see that, even today, we are behind many of our allies with respect rapid testing. That is what the response has been.

The question I have for the member is this. Does he think that proroguing Parliament was an appropriate action at the time?

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister stood firm when it came to closing the border to the U.S. We did not tolerate the bullying from our neighbours to the south, and we continue to do that.

When it comes to proroguing Parliament, the Speech from the Throne allowed us to present Canadians with our vision for the future as we continue to deal with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and restart our economy. The Speech from the Throne also provided the House of Commons and members of Parliament the opportunity to work on this confidence motion so that we could represent the voices of our constituents whom we represent in the House.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I appreciate in the House is that there are well-defined procedures. This is the period for questions and comments. This period contains the word “question”. Normally, when someone asks a specific question, they get a specific answer. Unfortunately, when the government is asked a question that is too difficult, it simply deflects and refuses to answer.

Therefore, I am going to try to ask my colleague across the way the question I asked his hon. colleague earlier.

When we proposed changes to the CERB in April, we were told none could be made. Today, we see that Bill C-2 is an exact copy of what we asked for in April.

Why was it impossible in April but possible in September?

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

Madam Speaker, if we look at the past six months, in the beginning the Prime Minister talked to Canadians every day, and every day we were seeing new developments and announcements as we proceeded through this COVID-19 situation. Professionals in the health industry advised the Prime Minister and the cabinet, and they acted on that. However, this government still had to do more when it came to the future, because this speech was based on this bill, and all benefits provided in the past are based on our concentration on the ground. That is what we will keep on doing. We will keep advising.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member keeps talking about all these Canadians that the Liberals have consulted, but I am speaking to a lot of students in this country and they are feeling very much left behind by the government. In fact, there was not one single word in the throne speech to help students. The emergency student benefit has ended. The students were looking for an extension with that disappeared money from the student service grant that was announced, and they are really quite disappointed.

I wonder if the member could talk to me about students in his riding. SFU Surrey and Kwantlen Polytechnic are in his riding, and I wonder if students are talking to him about how disappointed they are in the lack of benefits that support them, their rising tuition costs and so on.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about students. In my constituency, I have been on the ground listening to students and talking to their parents. They are in fact very satisfied with what we did as a government. We doubled the number of jobs during the summer. We gave $1,250 per month to all students and, if they had a disability, they got $2,000. We doubled the grant for university students. All of those benefits students are enjoying and they are supporting us on the ground.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part tonight in Parliament's debate from Wagobagitk, the traditional unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.

I believe we can all agree that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed how we live, work and interact with others. It has been a severely challenging time for Canadians from coast to coast, including right here in Cumberland—Colchester and indeed across Nova Scotia.

Over the past months we have noticed that there has been an increased interest in and also a need for mental health supports. The pandemic has taken an especially heavy toll on vulnerable Canadians. We have seen that COVID-19 most negatively impacts our most vulnerable: our seniors, people experiencing homelessness, Canadians with disabilities, racialized Canadians, women, persons with substance use challenges and persons with mental health challenges, along with those who work to support them.

I am pleased that our government is responding to these needs with a $19-billion investment provided to the provinces and territories under the safe restart agreement. This investment will help provinces and territories respond to COVID-19 in unique ways in critical areas, including funding to support the capacity of health care services and procurement of personal protective equipment. In fact, we are making hospital gowns and masks right here at Stanfield's in Truro and that has provided 275 jobs to Nova Scotians as well as providing PPE to Canadians.

This agreement supports infection protection and control measures to protect vulnerable populations, including residents in long-term care facilities and those requiring home care and palliative care. It also provides funding for other vulnerable populations such as homeless Canadians and those living in remote and isolated communities.

This agreement is an indication of our deep and ongoing commitment to protect the health and safety of all Canadians. It will help struggling Canadians in a number of ways, including the newly proposed Canada recovery benefit for Canadians who are self-employed or not otherwise eligible for employment insurance. The Canada recovery benefit would provide aid for up to 26 weeks between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021. It also provides a benefit for 10 days of sick leave to any worker in Canada who falls ill or has to self-isolate due to COVID-19. A third benefit will support Canadians who must stay home to care for a child under the age of 12, or another dependant, because their school, day care or other day program facility has been shut down due to COVID-19.

This pandemic has had disproportionate effects on women, who are more likely to be asked to take on home responsibilities and who have reported increased rates of family violence during these times of increased isolation. We also know the pandemic has further isolated indigenous youth and those in the 2SLGBTQQIA community.

Access to support or prevention programs by those fleeing family and gender-based violence has become more difficult in the context of community lockdowns and social distancing practices, which is why our government has included new initiatives to help reduce the impact of abuse and violence within vulnerable families. A $50-million investment is being provided through the reaching home program to women's shelters and sexual assault centres, including $26 million to Women's Shelters Canada to distribute to women's shelters across the country, $4 million to the Canadian Women's Foundation to distribute to sexual assault centres and $10 million to support Indigenous Services Canada's existing network of 46 emergency shelters on reserve and in Yukon.

Access to mental health services for indigenous communities is so important, yet it has been disrupted or shifted to virtual and telehealth approaches while many remote communities have limited Internet connectivity. Our government is therefore investing $82.5 million in mental health and wellness supports to help first nations, Inuit and Métis communities adapt and expand mental wellness services, improve access to distinctions-based services and address growing demand in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our government also recognizes the significant and unique challenges faced by Black Canadians and other racialized populations during this pandemic. As a key social determinant of health that can affect an individual's access and willingness to seek medical care, racism is a public health issue, and systemic racism must be stopped.

Given this, the Public Health Agency of Canada and partners are undertaking a number of activities to improve Canada’s knowledge of the impact of COVID-19 on racialized communities. We are establishing a new national COVID-19 data set, approved by Canada’s special advisory committee on COVID-19.

We recognize that COVID-19 has taken a toll on the mental health of Canadians right across the country: feelings of isolation, lack of access to usual support networks and living in fear of the uncertainties caused by the pandemic.

We also recognize the traumatic effect of the largest mass shooting in Canada's history, which tragically took place just five months ago in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy and offer them my sincere condolences on the loss of their loved ones.

After the dual crisis of COVID-19 and the mass shooting, I was adamant that our government offer increased mental health support to all those in need. In response, I was pleased that we introduced the wellness together Canada portal, which provided 24/7 mental health support to all those in need. More than 283,000 Canadians have now accessed this portal. We also made a $7.5 million investment to the Kids Help Phone for children and youth, which saw a huge increase in use.

The mental health impacts of this systemic discrimination and COVID-19 also have negative impacts on physical health. In response, our government is working to advance the knowledge of intersections between the mental and physical health of all Canadians, especially Black Canadians through the promoting health equity mental health of Black Canadians fund.

Under the COVID-19 and mental health initiative, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has also launched, in partnership with four provincial research agencies, a funding opportunity to better understand mental health and/or substance use needs of individuals and communities due to the pandemic. We have to admit that there is a huge problem with overdose and opioids in Canada. In parallel with the COVID-19 pandemic, many communities continue to struggle with a second public health crisis, namely the devastating impacts of substance use and the overdose crisis.

In response, our government is taking a number of targeted actions to remove barriers and reduce the risk of harm for people struggling with problematic substance use. As somebody with 24 years of sobriety myself, I know how important this is and I wish everybody who is struggling to find the wellness they deserve. People need to speak up and ask for help and they will get it.

In addition, Health Canada is supporting front-line workers who are delivering important substance use treatment and harm reduction services as well as community-based projects.

For the cultural industries, I am very pleased to see that our government has made a commitment to building strong, Canadian cultural industries. We pledge to require digital giants to contribute to the creation, production and distribution of our own Canadian stories on screen, writing, music and in lyrics and to share the revenue more fairly with Canadian artist creators. It is about time.

As well, the short-term compensation fund will compensate for the lack of insurance coverage for Canada's vital screen industry due to COVID-19 related interruptions. The $50 million fund, to be administered by Telefilm Canada along with the Canada Media Fund, will be made available to our industry. This is welcomed news for the hard-working artists across the country who are just dying to get back to work. ACTRA national president David Sparrow said that after years of consultation, it welcomed the Canadian government taking action to level the playing field between traditional and digital broadcasters.

This is just a snapshot of some of the actions that have been taken to protect vulnerable Canadians and those who have become more vulnerable during this crisis. This pandemic, like no other crisis in our history, has put into stark relief the importance of our government's overriding commitment to protect the health, safety and well-being of Canadians. I can assure the House that we will continue to do everything within our power and jurisdiction to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung: