Debates of Jan. 27th, 2021

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question because it allows me to go into more detail.

Because the small business I have been trying to help did not have a payroll account number established before March 15, 2020, it has been unable to qualify for the wage subsidy. It has been going through 10 months of the pandemic just like every other small business, but not having that wage subsidy has absolutely been detrimental to it.

The Liberals need to look at start-ups and businesses that have not qualified to see how we can help them get the wage subsidy. We are going to be in this storm a few months longer and they desperately need that help, so I implore the Liberals to please commit to action on that front.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. There were two points in his speech that stuck out to me.

My colleague spoke about Canada-wide programs that would interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, in particular with respect to child care. Quebec already has a child care program. We do not want to pay double or do twice the work.

The member then mentioned the universal pharmacare program proposed by his colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, but Quebec has had a pharmacare program since 1996.

The Bloc Québécois is not making up the rules. The rules are enshrined in sections 92, 92A and 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, originally known as the British North America Act.

What does my colleague have to say about the fact that Quebec has already addressed these issues and that it has requested the right to opt out with full compensation? Is he prepared to respect Quebec's autonomy and the decisions it makes?

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

Madam Speaker, how I would respond to my colleague from the Bloc is by pointing out the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act is a perfect example of federal legislation that still respects provincial autonomy, jurisdiction and health care. It sets up five priorities on how provinces can qualify for those federal health transfers and it ensures that we have a public, universally funded system right across the country so that no matter what part of this great country a person resides in, they have access to the same kind of care. This kind of federal model both respects provincial jurisdiction and allows us to play a strong federal role in making sure that every Canadian, no matter what part of the country they live in, has access to the same great services when they need them.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my neighbour's speech, and he really did a good job of laying out where we are presently.

What I am hearing in my riding is that most people are still very much in the pandemic. While we need to think about what is ahead, we also need to take care of those who are in need now. We are seeing a phenomenon in which independent professionals, artists and some small business people who were in need applied for CERB in good faith, but they are now being threatened with clawbacks because of the CRA's interpretation of the rules.

Can the member comment on how unjust that is?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for raising that important issue. I want to contrast that particular issue with the fact that some large corporations received federal assistance and then used that money to actually pay out dividends to their investors. They are not being chased down by the federal government. They are not being penalized. However, Canadians who made applications in good faith are being penalized. This is the completely wrong direction, especially when some Liberal MPs are encouraging people to apply in good faith.

When we are in the middle of a pandemic, we need to start taking care of people's immediate needs, not threaten them with this over-the-top, heavy-handed approach. I agree with the member that we need a different approach. The Liberals should be looking, in fact, at corporations that have benefited from this pandemic.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, once again I want to wish everyone, including all my constituents, a happy new year, as this is my first official speech in 2021.

I am extremely happy to be able to speak today on Bill C-14. Before I do, I want to thank and congratulate the people of Nova Scotia. I know we are in the midst of a second surge right across this country, but we have been very successful in limiting the numbers in Nova Scotia. What people have done, what students and teachers have done in the school system is something to be proud of. It has been a success story on that front, even in these very challenging times.

The fall economic statement focus for me today is on protecting the health of Canadians, ensuring that individuals and businesses have the opportunity to continue to work and prosper and making sure we build better as we move forward. The fall economic statement is an important piece of that delivery.

I cannot thank front-line workers enough for the work they have done. We are faced with health challenges, and they have to go to work in dangerous places because of the disease. They are there on the front lines, and it is just amazing. We have seen that throughout the pandemic. For people working in grocery stores, students in schools, and so on, it has been very challenging.

I want to thank the Canadian Armed Forces for the work they have done with the long-term care facilities throughout the pandemic. We have heard some very sad news. We have also heard about the improvements that are needed, and I will talk about that later.

We have invested over $1 billion in vaccine agreements, which allows us to have seven promising candidates and over 400 million doses of vaccine. We are in a very good position; in fact, it is one of the most extensive vaccine portfolios in the world. We are providing the vaccine free to all Canadians. As well, we have procured over 38 million rapid tests, and I am proud to talk about our COVID app, which 5.5 million Canadians have downloaded to help them identify possible exposure.

Again, we should talk about PPE. We have invested $2 billion in personal protective equipment. Many companies, even here in Nova Scotia, made changes to their manufacturing so that they could manufacture products that would help us through COVID. What they were willing to do to help Canadians is pretty impressive.

Also, we have made investments in mental health and the challenges around mental health, such as the opioid crisis and homelessness. Trying to find ways to prevent the spread of COVID in those areas is very important.

Throughout the pandemic, we have identified major gaps in long-term care facilities that we need to deal with. Most deaths that we have seen in COVID-19 have taken place in long-term care facilities. Our government has indicated that we will move forward to negotiate national standards with provinces, which is crucial, and Canadians expect us to do so.

We have been faced with the deepest and fastest recession since the Great Depression. We saw a decline in our GDP in March and April and the second quarter of last year like we have never seen before. We have seen over three million Canadians lose their jobs. Can we imagine people losing their jobs and not having any revenue?

Our government needed to respond to this unprecedented challenge with an unprecedented response, and we did so by investing over $400 billion to help ensure the health and security of Canadians, to help with financial benefits and to brace the business community throughout this crisis.

That is 19% of our GDP. It is the largest relief package since World War II. However, today, as difficult as it is, about 80% of the jobs have returned compared to the United States where it only has about half that number.

We were very quick in trying to help young families with the Canada child benefit and the increases on that front, now adding $1,200 per child under age six depending on the family income.

CERB helped Canadians. One in five Nova Scotian received the CERB to help him or her through this tough time. Those are big numbers.

The Canada emergency student benefit supports young people, who are very much challenged through this tough time as well. We have increased the Canada summer jobs program and we will increase it again this year by another 40,000. We have invested in the youth employment and skills strategy for another 45,000 jobs.

We have supported seniors with $300 of $200 depending on their income for the OAS. We have to move forward on long-term care and pharmacare as we said we would. We are working with provinces as we speak.

In Nova Scotia, 32,000 companies were able to take advantage of the wage subsidy, which is very impressive. Also, 15,000 companies in Nova Scotia were able to take advantage of the Canada business account.

We know the challenges around the airlines and we have helped them through wage and rent subsidies and supported them through rent relief and other ways as well.

We have helped communities in Nova Scotia. We increased the equalization payments. We increased the Canada health transfers and the Canada social transfers. Those are all extra investments to help us through this as well as adding a regional relief and recovery fund. Let us keep in mind that these businesses were not able to get any financial supports through the other programs and this picked up the extras that did not get support through those programs. It is a way of trying to catch everyone as best as we could.

With regard to build back better, our government, in our economic statement, will invest around $100 billion over the next three years, which is 3% or 4% of GDP, to stimulate the economy. That will be focused on a greener, more innovative, more inclusive and more competitive economy. This is the Canadian way.

We need to invest in early learning and child care, and we will some investments in that. This will increase the accessibility to high-quality child care. It will give children a better start and will allow both parents to work if they so desire.

There are also green investment grants for homeowners to improve energy efficiency. Charging refuelling stations will be very important as well. There will be the planting of two billion trees to fight climate change and protect the forestry. Our Canadian net-zero emission accountability act will be binding, and of course reporting annually.

Finally, I want to talk about the student loans to help students through tough times. This coming year the interest on the student loans on federal money will not exist and that will help them as well.

Through this very difficult time, through COVID-19, we were able to help in the health and security of Canadians. We were able to help them financially. Now we need to ensure, as we continue, we are able to jumpstart the economy as quickly as possible so all Canadians will benefit. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel and I am confident we will be successful as we move forward.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, a little earlier the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs talked about how the vaccine distribution was going very well in her northern and remote riding. Now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs spoke proudly of the wonderful job the government had done in securing vaccines.

Like the parliamentary secretary of Northern Affairs, I come from a northern and remote riding as well. Today I was contacted by a chief of one of the first nations community, a community of about a thousand people. It has been dealing with a suicide crisis and is now in the midst of a COVID outbreak. Today he told me that they were now dealing with three more funerals, one more from suicide and two from COVID. So far this community has received 30 doses of the vaccine. He told me today that hopefully he would get more in February.

Is this really what the parliamentary secretary is proud of in the distribution of the vaccine to northern and remote communities?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague well knows, we have negotiated some of the most extensive vaccine candidates in the world and the vaccines are coming. More candidates are being added as we move forward. We are distributing vaccines as best as we can to try to initially reach as many of the Canadians who need it most, and we have been very successful in doing so.

As my colleague understands, when one is receiving vaccines, based on the number of them coming in at one time, one is unable to get all the vaccines that are important for Canadians. We are working on that. We have a plan that is moving forward. There will be some challenges here or there, but the objective is that we are able to get as many vaccines as possible and as quickly as possible to Canadians right across our great country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned two things that resonated with me as the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors.

First, he stated that national standards are necessary and essential. We would like to remind the government that caring for seniors requires money, not national standards.

The government must give our health care systems, Quebec's and the provinces', the means to take care of those who are sick at this time. What Quebec's advocates for seniors are calling for is an immediate health transfer and not standards. Once again, standards are not going to ensure that people are cared for.

Second, he also said that his government had really helped seniors by increasing old age security. Aside from the $300 cheque sent to OAS recipients, I have not heard about any other measure.

Why are the Liberals stubbornly ignoring their election promise to increase old age security? People should be able to access it when they turn 65, not 75.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question.

We are responsible for the health of Canadians across the country. We must support all Canadians who are dealing with health problems.

We have made investments through a national health fund that is already contributing significant funding to support seniors. While we deal with the challenge of COVID-19, we are adopting other strategies to provide more help to seniors.

As Canadians we must support seniors whether they live in Quebec, Newfoundland or in British Columbia. This is not just a matter of giving money to each province, but of setting standards so that all Canadians receive what they deserve and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have time for one last question.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting, but I do have some concerns about some of the things he mentioned about supports for young people and students.

In particular, he spoke about the emergency student benefit, which I am sure he knows does not exist any longer. He also spoke about expanded funds for Canada summer jobs, which I hope he knows did not happen last year. Of course, there were the almost $900 million that were supposed to go to students and did not. Now we have stopped charging interest on student loans.

Despite the fact that his party voted to put a moratorium on loan repayments until May, could he explain why the government has not acted on that when students and recent graduates so desperately need that support right now?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that young people and students are facing very challenging times through this pandemic. The program we initiated for students in the summer, the CESB, was very important and it helped many young students in my constituency. Last summer we also increased the Canada summer jobs program. I know the numbers increased in my riding and the member should do some calculations because the intent was to increase jobs right across the country. Again next year, we will add another 40,000 to bring this number—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we are debating the economic statement implementation act, following a throne speech after prorogation, but before I get into the substance of my speech, I think it is important to again put on the record the context that this debate is taking place about 600 days since the last federal budget. It has been 600 days since Canadians had a fulsome view of the finances of our nation. Certainly, I think that reality should cause many to pause and question the objectives and agenda of the federal government.

We all understand the unprecedented times we face. However, provinces, other jurisdictions and cities have all been able to figure out how to present, approve and manage the budgetary process, yet here we are 600 days later. Conservatives certainly were calling for fulsome economic details the entire way, but we have not gotten those, which is incredibly troubling. That is the context, the 30,000-foot view of the bill we are debating, Bill C-14.

I spent a lot of time on the phone last night with constituents. The Liberals are very, very quick to brag about the way they have handled this crisis. In fact, the associate minister and parliamentary secretary just prior to me were bragging about how much they spent, $400 billion. However, one has to consider not just the dollars that are spent, but also consider how effectively those dollars are being spent and what the result is. Certainly, when any Canadian goes shopping, they do not simply look at who can spend the most. They look at the value for the dollars being spent. That is just part of simple budgeting, which speaks to my initial point.

On this side of the House we have great concern about the effectiveness of some of these dollars. Supports have been needed. I know the Liberals are quick to say that Conservatives would not have done all of this. We have been collaborative throughout the entire process, but critical at the same time because there is much to be critical of. When we look at the results of what has been spent there are some serious questions. That is what I heard from constituents last night.

I want to bring together the speech I made a couple of days ago and what we are discussing today, specifically, the economic realities that my constituency is facing. I spoke to a rancher in a small community in my constituency. She was almost in tears on the phone and said that we should with the Prime Minister and the Liberals this comment: “Look me in the eye and tell me there's no future for my kids in Alberta”.

We were talking about the economic circumstances of Alberta and Alberta's place in the federation. It is heartbreaking the number of people whom I speak to who think that Alberta might be better off alone. I know that the members opposite will want to play politics with that issue, but I will say that as a member of Canada's national Parliament and a proud Canadian, to hear so many who feel that Canada has given up on them and that they have no choice is tragic. That should cause all involved in national leadership to pause. Certainly, that relates directly to what we are talking about here today.

I also got an email that sums up quite a few of the other calls I got last night. I will not read it all, partly because the language used is not parliamentary, but it still provides the context of the devastating circumstances around Keystone, the energy sector and the economy, with the service sector being pummelled and hotels being closed. All of these things are seeing a level of tragedy that is unbelievable. This is talking about the mental health effects specifically. In this case, two parents from her son's class saw no hope and committed suicide. I have put that on record because it provides the context of how important it is to get this right.

There is a whole host of issues addressed in this bill and, quite frankly, there are some things that need to be addressed. Some of aims to fix some of the issues with previous legislation that was brought forward. Some of the issues were identified early but we are only now fixing. Some of them are promises that were made in the throne speech that the government is now attempting to actualize. Some issues have been mentioned, such as that the entire House agreed on the need for action on student loans, but which we are only now seeing the government get to.

There is a bit of understanding of something that I would like to bring into context with regard to the spending part of what this bill addresses. There is certainly some concern when it comes to the overall spending, although there has been no question that supports have been needed. That is why Conservatives have stepped up to the plate. In fact, we attempted to collaborate, and here I can give the government a bit of credit because in some cases there has been successful collaboration. Unfortunately, there have been other times when there was unwillingness on the part of the government to come forward in a fair and transparent way. We can reference its attempted power grab early in the pandemic when the Liberals wanted unlimited tax and spending powers, frankly attempting to roll back 800 years of parliamentary tradition. There have been scandals, which we certainly are still demanding answers on, such as WE Charity and Baylis Medical, among others.

There was the prorogation for no other reason than the fact the Prime Minister was trying to hide from his own mistakes, and so he prorogued Parliament. Although the Liberals will claim they only lost two days of parliamentary sittings, Canadians can see through that. When we look at the facts, about 35 days were lost, especially when we include the bills on the Order Paper that had to be reintroduced and debated, many of which came back exactly the same, even though issues had been identified with them.

As I come to the conclusion of my remarks, in part 7 of this bill, there is an increase in Canada's borrowing authority. We have seen unprecedented growth in the spending of our government and this economic statement that we will be voting on speaks to aspects of that.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, by the end of fiscal year 2023-24, the spending of the government, when it comes to debt financing requirements, will be $1.642 trillion. However, I would note that the Borrowing Authority Act asks for $1.831 trillion. There is a discrepancy there, doing math quickly in my head, of $207 billion. If the government plans to spend that $207 billion, it is the right of the government to bring forward that legislation and that plan to suggest so.

However, we have seen an unprecedented lack of transparency in the way the current government has operated and here we see a massive increase in the borrowing authority of the government for what is not the government's money. That is one of the frustrations. Whenever I hear a prime minister or a minister or any level of government say it is their money to spend, that is one hundred per cent categorically false. It is taxpayer money. It is hard-working taxpayers who spend that.

Therefore, I believe there are serious questions that need to be answered, whether in regard to Bill C-14 or the overall circumstances that we find ourselves in. I look forward to questions.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get to my question on the issue of government expenditures, I will point out many of the investments we have made, though they are expensive, will actually reduce the overall cost to government, because the cost of not supporting households and businesses to get through this pandemic is far greater than the cost of making sure they can survive and preventing that economic scarring.

The thesis the member led off with was effectively that the government should not just be spending money, but figuring out whether there is value received for that money. I want to talk about one specific program. His leader has repeatedly criticized in public the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB as it has become known to Canadians. It has now reached nearly nine million Canadians to help them keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables for their families.

Does he agree with his leader that this program was completely screwed up or does he believe that the Canada emergency response benefit actually provided value for money to Canadian households?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there it is. He is putting words in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me clarify for the member. In fact, Conservatives were there in the beginning when CERB was first introduced understanding that the unprecedented circumstances that we all faced needed unprecedented action. Conservatives were there and not only were we there, but we were doing everything we could to be collaborative in the process to ensure that it would be effective, to ensure that it would be spent the right way, and to ensure that the formulas being used would balance accountability with the need to get dollars in the pockets of Canadians.

In fact, we made further suggestions about the way it could have been administered, which the government decided not to follow. That is its right, but likewise, it needs to accept the consequences of some of those decisions and, now, the challenges that have arisen as a result. Canadians needed support, yes, but when it comes to the question of effectiveness of this program, it is not immune from criticism. In fact, it is responsible for many of the challenges we are faced with.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He pointed out that the federal government has not tabled a budget for quite some time, which is completely unacceptable. This is an image-obsessed government. One only has to look at the eligibility criteria for the new highly affected sectors credit availability program to understand that the program made for a great announcement but it will not make much difference, since no one will be eligible for it.

Bill C-14 does have some interesting aspects, but it also includes some intrusions. Some aspects are disappointing, for example for landlords who still are not getting any assistance for rental costs or farmers who had expenses in 2019 and are ineligible. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on some of the gaps in the legislation.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. There are many holes. In fact, there has been a few times where the government made an announcement, took way longer than many would suggest was necessary in implementing that announcement, and screwed it up the first time and then had to go back to the drawing table. For sure in one case, and I am sure there are others, it screwed it up a second time and now have to return to Parliament to see fixes to that again.

That is the problem. Had the Liberals been more collaborative in the process and listened to some of the constructive criticism that were made, including the premiers and the affected sectors, we would have been in a very different situation today than we find ourselves in and, certainly, the dollars would have been spent more effectively.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, would the member support, as 60% of Conservative supporters across Canada do according to polls, the idea of a wealth tax on the very people who can afford to pay for the situation that we find ourselves in, instead of ordinary Canadians?

Would he be in favour of that wealth tax?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, a brief answer, please.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will not take any lessons from a member of the NDP who wants to shut down wealth creation in this country, such as the pipeline. I know he asked a whole bunch of questions on Monday about how we should simply, with the snap of our fingers, force thousands of people out of work and shut down an entire sector and somehow miraculously, maybe with some unicorn dust and a few other things, there will be sectors that simply replace themselves.

However, the reality is that Canada has a world-class energy sector that needs to be respected, and doing so is a big part of the way we can dig ourselves out of the economic challenges we find ourselves in. I would ask that member very specifically that he has to look at the things—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, but when I say “brief”, I would ask that members try to keep it as a brief as possible. I did allow for extra time, but I do have to cut the clock at some point to make sure everybody gets a chance to speak.

Resuming debate with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity.

I will start by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the WSÁNEC first nation, the indigenous people of the territory that I am honoured to represent in Parliament.

Today, we are addressing Bill C-14, which, of course, includes the legislative changes that are required as part of the fall economic statement that was tabled November 30. Although our commentary today should be limited to the legislative changes before us, and I know that some of speeches have been quite wide-ranging, I want to reflect briefly on the fall economic statement itself, then turn to the legislation before us, and then to the things that are missing from it and that we wish were there.

The fall economic statement, at over 200 pages, is definitely wide-ranging. It references a lot of hard work, and I want to acknowledge the hard work of our Minister of Finance, indeed, the government as a whole, with a good dose of gratitude.

There is no perfection to be found in the actions of any government around the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some do better than others, and some do worse than others. I think we do better as Canadians when we try to work together.

That is the intent of Greens, whether we are elected federally or in the provinces across this country. We prefer collaborative efforts, co-operation and working through consensus. However, in looking at this document, it is extraordinary in detailing ambition around a wide range of issues.

First, on the question of a safe restart, there was about $20 billion put into a safe restart. We know that this was transferring money to the provinces for things as important as personal protective equipment, PPE, and getting the vaccines rolled out, which is a subject we debated until midnight last night with a lot of emotion and different opinions, but we have vaccines. We wish that they were being rolled out more quickly, but it does take federal-provincial co-operation. It also takes dealing with global multinational pharmaceutical companies. We are also looking at day care, so for the safe restart and a number of other aspects, there was $20 billion.

There are priorities in the fall economic statement that are not COVID-related but are high-priority items for Greens, particularly working towards indigenous reconciliation and moving towards pharmacare. I do not know why it is taking so long, but pharmacare is flagged in the fall economic statement.

Specifically, we should start looking at pharmacare in relation to rare diseases. I am part of a caucus, quite an informal caucus, with members of Parliament from every single party in this place, and that is a great place for collaboration. We are working with the CF Foundation and trying to get the life-saving drug Trikafta to patients in the CF community. We work together, and I think we are better when we do so.

On the opioid crisis, again, referenced in the fall economic statement, Greens favour decriminalization. We need to move fast to stop the deaths from opioid addiction, which is an extension of a mental health issue. It is a health issue. It is not a criminal issue.

On climate, which is also referenced in the fall economic statement, Greens are very keen on improving our east-west electricity grid and also improving its potential to reach north. We applaud the focus on interties that we have begun to see out of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. However, we need more. We need more work on the electricity grid. We need more work on public transit, but it is flagged, as is the importance of electric vehicles.

Many climate-related measures are in the fall economic statement, including nature-based climate solutions. On the commitment to planting two billion trees, which we have heard of many times and look forward to seeing, it is critical that they are trees appropriate to the ecosystems in which they are planted. It is critical that we do the tree planting in ways that enhance carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity, such as along stream banks to help protect our wild Pacific salmon where they have lost so much habitat.

These are measures we support, but they are not enough. We have seen Bill C-12, and they are referenced in the fall economic statement for climate accountability, but without major strengthening, such as a fixed dark target date of 2025 for carbon reductions, it will not be worth supporting.

When we look south of the border we see the steps the new Biden administration is taking, pursuing some of the courses Barack Obama left in place. This is also encouraging. Canada has scope, as is mentioned in the fall economic statement. With carbon and border adjustments, we can move our economies in the same direction and create more jobs while doing so. These are encouraging things.

We support Bill C-14 as far as it goes. The measures are important in order to get more COVID assistance to people to get more relief.

What is missing? There are many sectors that are not just falling through the cracks, but plummeting through a chasm. They need more help. I refer specifically to all the businesses in the tourism sector, particularly restaurants, but also bus services.

The fall economic statement refers to the highly affected sectors having more credit availability, but it is capped at $1 million per piece of assistance. I will specifically mention Wilson's bus lines, which provides not only charter service but also regularly scheduled service into first nation communities. It is an integral part of our tourism ecosystem here. It is being pressured out of existence by the commercial banks. The banks are demanding repayment. The $1-million capped loan will not be enough to save Wilson's.

For other parts of our transportation infrastructure, such as regional airports, $1 million in loans is not going to help them. We need to focus on what is needed to save all of our transportation infrastructure that is at risk right now. I think the best way to do that would be for the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to talk to all the CEOs of the big commercial banks and remind them they are making profits every quarter.

This is the most recent news. If we just scan the headlines of BNN Bloomberg, we see the new quarter, post-2020 into 2021, news. It is a kick off of big bank earnings. They are doing great. They have adjusted fourth-quarter profits above the average analyst estimates. When the banks are doing well, maybe not as well as before the pandemic, but they are not struggling or about to go under, they need to help.

Similarly, we should not be leaning on Canadians who got the CERB in good faith because they thought they made $5,000 in the previous year. The qualifications to say they did not qualify came out later. Come on. Let us fix it in this bill to say that anyone who received CERB who received $5,000 gross income in 2019 is entitled. That would clear up a misunderstanding and remove the cloud over the heads of over 440,000 Canadians who received, and I think this is an Orwellian turn of phrase, an education letter.

The critical issue of long-term care homes is referenced quite a lot in the fall economic statement. It mentions long-term care home workers. One of the more disturbing stories I saw in the last few months was of an outbreak of COVID in an Ottawa shelter for the homeless. It turned out the homeless who were living there were actually workers in long-term care. They were earning so little as long-term care workers, they were living in the Ottawa homeless shelter because they could not afford a roof over their head.

We need to do much more. We need to get into those long-term care homes and make sure our seniors are vaccinated. We need to stop the senicide. We need to make sure we pay our workers adequately, whether they are front-line workers in long-term care or anywhere in our society. We really do need a guaranteed livable income to ensure equity and decency for every single Canadian.

This is just a quick scratching of the surface of what we see as a challenge to us as Canadians. The fall economic statement gives us a good direction, but it needs to be more ambitious. We need to ensure that as we come out of COVID we repair our social safety net so it is not a net full of holes, but an actual place of stability, decency and respect for every single one of our human beings in this society, whether homeless, indigenous, or a woman who cannot figure out how to go back to work. We need to rebuild. We need a society that lives up to our greatest aspirations, including acting on the climate emergency while we still have time.

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

Madam Speaker, the member from the Green Party talked about pharmacare. This is something that has been talked about for many years now and is, in my opinion as well as her's, long overdue. It is overdue because there are potentially many benefits to pharmacare, not just from a social infrastructure perspective, but also, with respect to the costs of medicines, from an economic perspective.

I wonder if she can elaborate on how she sees that as the right direction for Canada to move in now, how we can delay no further on it, and how we can move quickly to introduce universal pharmacare throughout our country.