Debates of Jan. 25th, 2021

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑14 is designed to make Canada-wide standards for long-term care a precondition for funding. I believe that this is also an idea from the NDP.

However, the Canadian Armed Forces' report on its experience in Quebec long-term care homes last spring was clear. Many standards and rules on preventing and controlling contamination and on wearing PPE are already in place, but they failed to stop the virus.

The issue is the care homes' ability to comply with and enforce the standards and rules in place. Quite simply, these rules were more difficult to follow because there is a staff shortage. The report found that long-term care homes have a serious shortage of staff with medical training. We need money, not standards.

Does the member agree that it is up to provinces to deal with standards, but if the federal government wants to do its job, it should try giving the provinces money?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of a situation that everyone has been watching for months. The number of deaths in long-term care facilities has been devastating for families across Quebec. The same conditions can be seen in many regions across Canada as well.

To resolve this chronic problem, we need standards as well as staff. We cannot play political games with this issue. The government obviously did not establish a system with the necessary standards, capacity and human resources to ensure that all seniors in Quebec and across Canada have a future that acknowledges their contributions to their communities and to the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that if we are going to get our economy moving again, a critical thing about that and getting resources to people who need them is creating jobs and opportunities to support workers and those who wish to become workers again. To that end, it was so disappointing for me to see the NDP basically cheerleading the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and all the unionized jobs that were killed when that project was ended.

I wonder if the member from the NDP could explain this, for a political party that wants to be competitive supposedly in western Canada, and that claims to speak on behalf of workers. Why would it be cheerleading for the end of a project like Keystone XL, that would have helped so many people get back to work and would have been so good for the Canadian economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member, I actually come from the oil and gas industry. I worked at the Shellburn oil refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia, so I know the industry well and I know that it has had countless resources. In many cases, when one looks at subsidies, oil and gas is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in Canada.

I care about energy workers because I come from that environment. What we have seen under both Conservative and Liberal governments is an utter refusal to allow the resources to energy workers to transition to a clean energy future. That is where the jobs are. We have seen President Joe Biden take leadership in that regard and we know, as the building trades and unionized workers tell us, that the clean energy industry and imports from Canada of clean energy will quadruple over the next nine years.

With that massive increase in imports from Canada of clean energy, why would we not put in place the resources so that energy workers, who have made such an enormous contribution to the energy sector, can transition to clean energy? That is where the future is. That is where the jobs are, and that is what the NDP is cheerleading: clean energy resource investments, so that we can provide the jobs to energy workers in the emerging economy of the clean energy sector of tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, the speech was for him a while ago because he began it before question period began.

I was taken by the hon. member's comments on the impacts of the Spanish flu and how long those impacts stayed with society. On a personal point, my namesake, Elizabeth Evans Stephens, was a victim of the Spanish flu. The intergenerational impacts of losing a young mother not only affected my grandmother, but my mother. This is a pandemic the likes of which we have not seen for generations, and its effects will be intergenerational.

My very strong support for the hon. member's speech goes to his points on the banking industry with its extraordinary levels of profits. It has had over $30 billion in profits through the pandemic, yet this industry is leaning on small businesses. In my area, Wilson's bus line is at risk of going under because the government programs that are on offer do not really meet its needs. Bus companies and other companies across Canada are at risk because these banks, which have been raking in profits and have had government help, seem to think they are not Canadian. They do not think they are part of our national effort to save businesses and jobs.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on what the government should be doing to ensure that the banks do not push good, essential companies such as Wilson's bus line into bankruptcy.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is what is inconceivable to me. There was $750 billion given in liquidity support to the Canadian banking industry without any conditions whatsoever. We saw credit unions stepping up and lowering their interest rates to zero. We saw credit unions stepping up and providing in some cases what was required around suspending the payment of mortgages and not imposing penalties. The banking industry did not have any conditions at all imposed, and the result has been windfall profits of $30 billion and real pressure on businesses like Wilson's and others across the country.

We need to take the best practices of other countries. Other countries said that if they were providing supports, there were going to be conditions. The Canadian government stepped up within days of the pandemic hitting, and its first thought was to help the banking industry. Three-quarters of $1 trillion later, the banking industry is reaping massive profits and so many Canadians and small businesses are struggling.

Of course, with COVID, we know that the implications and the consequences will last for more than a decade. For lower-income families, the reality is the fall economic statement talks about cutbacks starting in the next fiscal year. There will be dramatic cutbacks over the next 13 months. We need the government to rethink its approach and we are willing to work with it—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one more question. The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, and also congratulate him on Bill C-213. It is a perfect example of us once again taking Liberal promises and putting them into NDP action.

I listened very attentively to his speech, and he is right. It is not so much what is in Bill C-14, but what is missing. For me, a particular issue affects the city of Langford in my riding. A start-up business, V2V Black Hops Brewing, did not have its payroll account in place before March 15. Here we are, 10 months into the pandemic, and it is still unable to qualify for the emergency wage subsidy.

Perhaps my colleague, in his role as critic for finance, and with the incredible work he has done with the member for Courtenay—Alberni, could answer the question why, after all this time, the Liberals are still excluding start-ups from accessing this important wage subsidy? So many of them are struggling. Indeed, I fear many are going to go out of business.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is an incredibly strong advocate for small businesses in his riding. I know this, and I have seen it first-hand.

This is just another example. V2V Black Hops Brewing is not getting the supports it needs. However, the federal government says the big banks that are awash in cash are the priority.

This is why the NDP caucus has been so persistent, as has the member for Courtenay—Alberni as our small business critic, and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as well as all of the NDP caucus, in ensuring that small businesses get some support. We are not there yet, but we are going to continue to push, because the government needs to be thinking of regular families and small businesses across the country, and stop its obsession with the most profitable businesses and the largest banks.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. members. Before we get to the next speaker, just a reminder, perhaps for those who are joining by video conference. Earlier in the day we had some difficulties with the raised hand function on Zoom. Administration tell us that at the moment that is working fine. Please use that same tool that we have used in the past. However, if any encounter difficulties or think they are being missed, please bring a point of order to me and we will make sure we get them recognized.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House of Commons. Whether standing in the chamber or sitting at home, it is always such a privilege to share some thoughts and ideas and try as best as I can to provide a bit of constructive criticism here and there. I like to think part of my job is to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability even coming from opposition parties. I hope to address a number of points.

First, as we all know, life has really changed over the last 12 months for all of us in a very real and tangible way. For example, I never figured I would be addressing the House of Commons via the Internet and what I am saying being recorded as if I were standing on the floor of the House.

It does not matter what one's economic social stratification is. Lives have changed profoundly because of the pandemic. We have seen so many phenomenal efforts come forward from many different sectors of our economy and society.

I want to recognize that over the last number of weeks, our holidays, whether one celebrates Christmas, Hanukkah or one of the many other different types of celebrations that often take place during the Christmas period, were really different. In my province and many other places across this land, we were not able to have gatherings, people and families coming together. However, it did not stop people from communicating.

The pandemic means there has to be physical distancing. It does not mean we have to separate that communication link to those very important relationships in our lives, whether with family or friends or in my case and in the case of many of my colleagues with our constituents.

The constituents I represent in Winnipeg North have done a fantastic job in communicating with me, whether through telephone calls, at my constituency office, through emails, letters or Zoom discussions. There are all sorts of ways in which we have been able to communicate. I do not think time would allow me to share all the feedback, ideas, recommendations and concerns that people have raised with me over the last number of months. As much as possible, they would want me to share them on the floor of the House of Commons so all parliamentarians would have a sense of what the residents of Winnipeg North are thinking. There is a higher sense of hope in the minds of my constituents today than there would have been months ago. The delivery of vaccines has been very important to them.

I listened intently to a number of comments coming from opposition members in particular. If we were to do a fair comparison, we would find Canada has done exceptionally well on that front. I say that without any reservations whatsoever. As a government, we have had numerous ministers on that particular file and they have worked exceptionally hard at ensuring Canada can be very proud of the vaccination agreements we have been able to achieve in order to protect the health and well-being of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

There are some common threads from the constituents I represent. One of the them is the desire to see, and many members will know that at times I can be somewhat partisan, governments working together. They want to see a team Canada approach toward ensuring that the health and well-being of Canadians is being dealt with as a top priority.

I know that, from the Prime Minister's office to ministers to members of the House of Commons, we have all put in that extra effort to ensure there is a higher sense of co-operation among the many different stakeholders.

When I talk about stakeholders, it goes far beyond the Government of Canada. We have to look at our communities. I think of social enterprise groups, non-profits and the many fine works they have done to ensure they contribute in a positive way. In whatever ways they can, our individual constituents have contributed. We think of our first responders, in particular our health care workers, our bus drivers and those driving taxis. These people have made a difference and have ensured we have been able to get through in such a way that we can continue on and feel that sense of optimism today. I appreciate all those individuals.

The Government of Canada, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, has ensured there is a sense of commitment coming from not only the national government, but provincial and municipal governments and even our school boards. All elected officials, as leaders in our communities, have an important role to play on this issue, and it makes a difference.

When I was back in Ottawa in late November, Manitoba was not doing that well with respect to the coronavirus. On a per capita basis, the number of new cases being reported on a daily basis toward the end of November might have been the worst in the country. It shows that if Ottawa, in support of our provinces, and the provinces make good decisions, we can in fact bring those numbers down. Today we are under 100. In fact, just over this last weekend, we saw many of the restrictions being lifted.

For example, many of my constituents were limited to what they could buy at the local store. Many of those restrictions have been lifted now. Why? Because Manitobans have, as Canadians as a whole have, recognized that we all have a role to play with respect to us getting out of the current situation we are in.

That brings me back to some of the comments made by my colleagues.

The former speaker, an New Democrat, talked about the Liberals giving to the banks as if they were our first priority. That is not true. The Liberal Party does not put the banks ahead of Canadians. All one has to do is take a look at the types of actions the Government of Canada took back when action was needed.

I talk a great deal about the CERB program. The Canada emergency response benefit program embodies many of the things that a government can do to make a positive difference for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us take a look at the details of that program.

There was virtually nothing, no CERB program, in existence prior to COVID-19. With the support of world-class civil servants, of whom we should be very proud, and the fine work they do, a program was put together that ultimately served just under nine million Canadians. All of us should be very proud of that and should not be shy to talk about it.

That was the priority. At the very beginning, this government was very focused on sending a message to Canadians that we had their backs, that we would be there for them no matter where they lived in the country.

The CERB program is one of those programs that clearly demonstrates that a government cannot only talk about caring for the citizens it represents, but it can demonstrate tangible action. Hundreds of millions to billions of dollars were put through a fantastic program that came from no where and ultimately that disposable income was put into the pockets of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members should think about that.

If the government had not done that back then, what would have been the outcome? We would have had more people borrowing money because of their loss of income. We would have had people not being able to pay for basic needs such as their groceries, their rent, their mortgages or buying the things essential to them, whether a single person or families. Hundreds of millions of dollars were put into the pockets of Canadians throughout our country so they would have the disposable income to continue on.

If members will recall, back then we were telling people that we had to stay under the curve. The world pandemic was not there two years ago. It is not like we had previous knowledge on it. What we had was a very sharp learning curve for Canadians, a learning curve, for example, that we had to wash our hands for 20 seconds. If people had to cough, they should cough into their sleeves.

As we got weeks into the pandemic, health care experts were saying we needed to wear masks. Canadians, through leaders in our communities, understood they had to listen to the health care officials and started to wear masks. When we go for walks today, we see people wearing masks. Compare that to back in March, April or even May of last year. This also included the use of hand sanitizer.

These things have really made a huge difference even today. One of the reasons it has had that impact is because of actions by the national government and other levels of government working together to ensure people understood what the pandemic was all about and what we needed to do to minimize the negative impact of it.

At the end of the day, education, which was widespread on this issue, is one of the reasons why Canada is in a relatively good position today. Some provinces are affected more than other jurisdictions. There are many different factors at play. We cannot compare the Toronto international airport and the important role it plays in our society and the Brandon airport in my home province of Manitoba, even though the Brandon airport is so critically important to our local economy there, in our province and ultimately to our country.

Different provinces have different areas on which they have to focus their additional attention. There are areas on which we need to improve. The Prime Minister often talks about building back better and we have the opportunity to build back better. There are a number of good examples of that.

One of the biggest areas of concern we have today is long-term care. I believe Canadians have spoken. They recognize that the national government has a role to play in health care delivery. Many, including myself, particularly when I was a health care critic in the province of Manitoba many years ago, have advocated for this for many years. I know this might upset some of my Bloc colleagues, and possibly some of my Conservative colleagues, but I believe that the national government does have a role to play. This was demonstrated very clearly through the coronavirus.

We have a Minister of Finance who has incorporated the idea of the continuation, as the Prime Minister did back in September with the throne speech, of the importance of a national pharmacare program. That is something which Liberal members of Parliament under this Prime Minister have been proactive on since day one in 2015.

The NDP will cry that Liberals have been saying this for the last 20 or whatever number of years, but under this Prime Minister and with this group of Liberal MPs, we have seen significant action on that file. I am very proud of the efforts, whether they are those of the Prime Minister or my colleagues, in recognizing an issue that I know is so very important to my constituents. If we check Hansard, we will find that I have introduced many petitions on this issue. In fact, my daughter, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature, has talked about the importance of a national pharmacare program.

We need to identify the provinces that are prepared to go the extra mile and work with Ottawa. We cannot just bring it in. If we are going to have the type of national pharmacare program that Canadians deserve and want, we have to work with those jurisdictions. It is going to take a coalition of sorts to continue to push this through. I can say that we are committed to that.

When we think of what actions are in Bill C-14, I have a list some of the things that we are talking about. It includes the Canada child benefit increases, long-term care issues, student loans, access to virtual care, mental health tools, substance abuse and the emergency rent program. I will stop on that one.

I ask members to think of the emergency rent subsidy program and the tens of thousands going into hundreds of thousands of jobs being saved, the millions of small businesses that have taken advantage of things like the wage subsidy program and the thousands of businesses that are taking advantage of the rent subsidy program.

This is a government that understands the important role small businesses play in our society. They are the backbone to our country. We need to be there and we have been there for small businesses. We will continue to be there for small businesses as we have been there for all Canadians.

These are the types of issues that as a government we need to be engaged in. When I listened to the critic of finance, the member for Carleton, he talked about the deficit issue and the trade deficit. Let me remind my Conservative friends that when Conservatives took office after Paul Martin there was actually a trade surplus. It was the Conservatives that turned it into a trade deficit. We have been working on that. Look at the number of trade agreements we have signed off on as a government. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on as many agreements.

In terms of the deficit, I will save that for another speech, but Canadians will do well if Liberals do not listen to the Conservatives about deficits and deficits of financing, because the Conservatives have not demonstrated any competence in that area. When I get a better opportunity to be able to expand on that point, I will. I see my time is running out, and there is so much more that I would like to talk about.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my friend from Winnipeg's comments. Just because they are not factual does not mean they are not true in his mind, so I will give him credit for that.

A couple of questions came to mind when I listened to the member from Winnipeg's speech. One thing I am wondering is what his plan going forward is. This is the economic statement, Bill C-14, where they are talking about what we can do. We can agree that we need to help Canadians as much as we can through the pandemic. However, I keep asking these questions: What are the Liberals going to do to secure the future for Canadians? How are they going to ensure there are good-paying jobs, going forward, after the programs run out?

It is time to stop looking to the past and start looking forward. The government needs to roll out a plan for Canadians to make sure there is a future for my children and for the children of members across the aisle. That is why we get into public service. We want to make sure that our children have opportunities that we did not have. I am not sure this is happening for the generation that is coming next.

What is the Liberal government's plan to secure our future and to have good-paying jobs? Can that start with the member's support of the Keystone XL pipeline and making sure the government does everything it can to have good-paying jobs in western Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I might get a chance to talk about Keystone and how important our resource industries are, particularly in western Canada. I genuinely do believe in the future and how important it is that we do what we can on that particular file.

Having said that, the member talked about what we can do now. I want to point out one of the most encouraging things, and we heard it from the minister earlier during question period, which is that six million vaccines will arrive by the end of March for a population of just over 37 million people. It is really encouraging that we are getting these numbers of vaccines and that we have many other companies outside of Pfizer and Moderna to provide them. In fact, Canadians will be able to not only to get the vaccine, but it is also going to be free for Canadians. That is something which we have been pushing for from day one.

The other thing is, of course, continuing to support small businesses. Maybe in another question, I will pick up on that point.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have to admit that it feels a little strange to see him on a screen, when it seems like he never leaves the House.

Just now, I heard him speak about his constituents wanting the federal government to do more on health. I heard him say that that is what he wants as well, and that he would like the federal government to play a role in health. We have repeated ad nauseam that health is a provincial jurisdiction. Quebec and the provinces are all calling for larger health transfers. Quebec and the provinces do not want the Liberals to interfere in the health system.

I myself would like to have a say in the activities of the Montreal Canadiens. I would like to tell them what to do, but that is not my job. I would not be good at it. Given the Liberals' failures with regard to managing the border during the pandemic and what is happening with vaccines, I am a little concerned that they also want to interfere by imposing standards on long-term care facilities.

The question that I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg North is this: Is this desire to interfere in provincial jurisdictions not a way of telling Quebec and the provinces that they are too incompetent to manage their health care systems?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Manitoba legislature prior to being a member of Parliament, and I had the opportunity to serve as a health critic there, so I have a fairly good insight in terms of the whole jurisdictional issue.

I have also been a parliamentarian for about 30 years now, and I can tell the member conclusively that the residents I represent believe the national government has a role to play in terms of health care that goes beyond just giving provinces cash. Again, some lessons that could be learned by the coronavirus or by the pandemic reinforce that fact. Whether it is looking at standards, or looking at ways in which we might be able to complement the services Canadians are getting from Ottawa, I believe that the desire is there to continue to work with provinces beyond just giving cash toward health care. I believe—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We just have a few more questions as part of this 10-minute period.

We will resume questions and comments with the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it is very odd to see this member, in particular, not in the House, as I do not even know if he usually leaves at night.

My question, based on what I heard today, concerns how many Canadians really appreciate, through this process, the public health care system that we have. However, it also identifies the very clear gap in our universal public drug plan, which we desperately need across this country. I think about how much we could save just by the collective buying. Then I look at how many years the Liberals have been promising this. It has been many, many years. This is something that comes up again and again, and there is a little step here and a little step back there.

I am wondering if this member could commit today to making sure that we see a public drug plan, as recommended by Dr. Hoskins and the advisory committee, based directly on the principles of the Canada Health Act. I think it is time, and I certainly hope this member does as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could provide a greater sense of hope. At the end of the day, I believe that this particular Prime Minister and grouping of Liberal members of Parliament have been very diligent in pushing their desire to see some form of a national pharmacare program. We have seen that in budgets and throne speeches. We have seen that virtually back in 2015 with the support through standing committees and commissions, and I do believe that there is an opportunity there. It is real and tangible for the first time in my 30 years. It has been only in these last five years that I have seen a real desire and push to try to get us to that point.

The member should remember that it is absolutely critical that we work with the provinces in order to get the type of pharmacare program that Canadians want and deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the parliamentary secretary, even if it is through video conference. I can assure him that his voice reverberates off the walls in here just as it would if he were present, and he definitely gets the same reaction from across the aisle that he does when he is here in person.

He touched on a very good point at the beginning of his speech, and that is about investing in Canadians. This government took a very strong approach that was unwavering in its commitment to giving Canadians the supports they need throughout this pandemic, not just because it was the right thing to do during the pandemic, but because we know that when we come out on the other end of this, the resources Canadians had during it are going to help us rebound from it more quickly.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on how he sees that happening, given the work that has gone into this by this government, and indeed Parliament and all members of this party, in supporting the legislation that has come through this House over the last several months?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I love doing this virtually, I do especially enjoy being in the chamber itself.

Having said that, the member is right. It was so important that the government be there in a real and tangible way. I made reference to the CERB program, but we can talk about programs such as the increases for the OAS and the GIS for our seniors. We can talk about the expansion of the youth program to provide more jobs for young people during that summer period. We can talk about the one-time payment for disabilities. There is so much that the government did in order to ensure that people had the financial resources or the disposable income in order to meet their needs.

Pandemic or not, the bills do not stop coming in. The need for groceries is always going to be there, so it was important that the federal government, by working with provincial governments and municipalities, was able to make a difference by getting everyone involved, recognizing how important it was to support Canadians in Canada's middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debates tonight and on Tuesday, January 26, 2021, pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to the hon. member's request to express their disagreement.

Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands moving the motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Before we continue, I would like to remind all members of the House who are participating by video conference that, earlier today, we had a problem with the raised hand function on Zoom. The problem seems to be resolved for now.

If there is a problem and the function is not working, I invite members to rise on a point of order to inform the Chair and ensure that they have an opportunity to ask a question or make a comment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to start off, I note that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

It is an honour to enter the debate on Bill C-14. It is really a do-over bill, as most of the substance of it tries to fix errors the government made last summer.

When we think of do-overs and references to repeating the same actions over and over again, what comes to mind is the classic movie Groundhog Day, in which Bill Murray lives the same day over and over again trying to learn about the situation he is in. There are some similarities here. His character in the movie is a little arrogant, a bit vain and out of touch with common people, and I think this can be used to describe the government. In the movie, the main character is trying to learn and develop to be a better person. He is trying to learn from average, mainstream people, or the Tim Hortons crowd, we could say.

When I talk to the residents of Saskatoon—University, a lot of them are concerned about COVID. However, they are also concerned about what comes after it when their bills will come due.

I think the most important aspect of the bill for future generations, for my kids and their kids, is the part that mentions the debt cliff and the overall debt of our country. Right now it is being pushed to $1.8 trillion. That is an outstanding sum of money and it is troubling. When I tried to figure out what $1.8 trillion is, my calculator could not do the calculation. I did not know this until last weekend, but a standard calculator only goes up to eight digits, so I had to work it out on paper.

This do-over bill talks about increasing the debt ceiling or debt cliff, and I will again reference the classic movie Groundhog Day in a second. What is $1.8 trillion? If someone were to start on the Atlantic coast of Canada and walk to the Pacific coast and then back again, dropping a loonie for every foot they walked, that would not be $1.8 trillion. Someone would have to jump into the Atlantic ocean and swim to Iceland, while dropping a loonie as they swam every foot. That is an outstanding amount of money that future generations are going to have to pay back.

We know the Liberals will increase taxes, and the racking up of credit card debt during the pandemic is going to haunt future generations to come. Referring back to Groundhog Day, this makes me remember one scene where a truck is going over a cliff, while Bill Murray is with the groundhog, and it lands. One bystander commented that he may be okay and then the truck explodes.

We knew before the pandemic that the Prime Minister likes to spend money. We talked about the $20-billion deficit in the 2015 campaign, and what did we get? Before COVID hit Canada, we were in rough shape. Maybe some Canadians saw similarities to that movie. Maybe they were thankful we had a Conservative government before the Liberal government and were not in such bad shape because of that. Maybe people thought we would be okay because it was only $20 billion. However, then COVID hit, and kaboom.

We are talking about $1.8 trillion, a reckless amount of money. Future generations are not going to have opportunities because of reckless spending. The bill is trying to fix the problems caused when the Liberals rushed through bills last summers for increased spending. There were obviously errors in how those bills were drafted because we have to do over a lot of those measures, which can be found in Bill C-14.

I believe Canadians are starting to realize that we are in uncharted territory with this amount of debt and the decisions that are going to come down the road. My colleagues spoke previously about how Canadians do not have to worry, because the government took on the debt so they would not have to, but we know it is a fallacy to think that this is going to help Canadians. I am very fearful of what will happen when interest rates start to creep up. We have been printing money to pay for the spending, and there will come a day, with inflationary pressures, when interest rates will have to be raised. To service the debt right now is going to be a burden for not just the next generation but the next and the following generation.

I have another quote that is a little telling from that movie when Bill Murray was complaining about things that people say not to do. “You make choices and live with them”, he says. “I'm not gonna live by their rules anymore.... Don't drive on railroad tracks.” The passenger says, “That's one I happen to agree with.” There are some similarities. Most Canadians are realizing that governments need to be there to help out Canadians when their jobs evaporate because of restrictions due to COVID. The government should be there to act, but with the shotgun approach and the fire hydrant approach of spreading taxpayers' dollars across Canada, there is going to be a bill to be paid. I believe most Canadians realize that we cannot carry on at the clip that we have been without some serious consequences.

Some of the consequences we are seeing are on the cost of living. Canadians who have gone to the grocery store in the last couple of weeks have noticed, and when I went on the weekend, I was surprised that the cost of everything is up. This is going to disproportionately affect Canadians the most who cannot afford it. Vulnerable Canadians are going to see more and more of their dollars going to living expenses, and I am fearful of what that means. In past Liberal campaigns, they promised no new taxes, that taxes would not be increased, that the carbon tax would not be increased. Then we heard different plans they have for increasing taxes, which will have a multiplicative effect on groceries, because we know we have to transport groceries to all parts of Canada. As we increase those costs, what does it mean?

As for the carbon tax, today in Saskatoon it was -35°C, and there is no alternative to natural gas for heating my home. The Liberal government is going to crank up the carbon tax, which will take more money out of consumers' pockets and will have a spiralling effect on our economy. Where does that leave us? Also, once we are through this pandemic and start paying back this massive amount of generational theft that has taken place, taxes are going to be increased, and the net result is going to be less opportunity for the next generation. It is a matter of time before the credit card bill is due and those dollars will have to be paid back.

I will end with a prediction of what is to come, quoting again from the movie, if we carry on with this reckless spending and not realize that our actions have consequences. I will give a winter prediction: “It's gonna be cold...it's gonna be gray...and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life.”

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks. I respect him as an individual, though I disagree wholeheartedly with the substance of his speech. He has criticized the government's response on the basis that this legislation is a do-over, and I will let him know that I would do over the supports we have extended to families and businesses 100 times out of 100.

The member has complained about the debt. What he fails to realize is that leading economists would tell him that a virus created the cost to the economy. The government was left with the choice as to how we should respond to it. We chose to be there for Canadians so they could put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. We chose to be there for businesses so they could keep their doors open and workers on the payroll. When I talked to the Tim Hortons crowd that he referred to, they were worried about keeping their kids in school, whether they would have jobs to go to and whether they could feed their families. The measures we put in place served those ends and served them thoroughly. I would repeat these measures at every opportunity.

When the measures included in this legislation are designed to support families and businesses and protect the health and well-being of Canadians, is he going to vote for this legislation?