Debates of Nov. 30th, 2021

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am so happy to see the member in the House once again.

Seniors are incredibly important to us in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. We have the oldest populations in Canada. This is an issue we are hearing about across the country, but I think part of it comes to the CERB. When it was being laid out and people we applying to it, I was very clear with constituents within my riding about what the implications of that would be. It is important to understand that many people who applied for the CERB would have been in the black. They received more money over the last period of time than if they had just stayed on the GIS.

I think it is a matter of optics and clarification around the information for these programs and benefits, and I look forward to supporting the member and having these conversations perhaps with her constituents, because I think it is a critical issue. We do not want to see clawbacks, but we also want our benefits to be used in the way they were intended.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first time on my feet in the 44th Parliament, I want to thank everyone in Beaches—East York who sent me back to work here, and my riding association and the countless supporters who have really helped me do this work over the last six years. I want to give special thanks to my family in particular for putting up with me, especially my wife Amy.

My commitment to Beaches—East York remains the same. I will keep working across party lines. I will maintain a sense of independence, holding our government accountable to deliver on the promises we made and pushing for greater ambition.

Much of the work ahead will require greater ambition, but the throne speech rightly notes that the first priority remains getting the pandemic under control. It requires layers of protection, so the throne speech rightly identifies vaccinations, boosters and vaccines for our kids. My five-year-old will be getting vaccinated later today, and I encourage everyone to get themselves and their families vaccinated.

However, we also require other layers of protection. When we see ubiquitous rapid testing available in other jurisdictions, that rapid testing needs to be widely available here in Canada as well. The throne speech rightly identifies the importance of vaccine equity. We see around the world the concerns with respect to variants, and to address the global challenge requires better addressing global vaccine equity. Canada in some ways has been a leader here, but much more has to be done, not only by Canada, but by the world. It was important to see the government commit in the throne speech to increasing foreign assistance every year, but we really need to do more. Whether it is through a TRIPS waiver or tech transfer, we really need to solve these challenges for the world.

Beyond the pandemic but related to it, we need to strengthen our social safety net. I say related to the pandemic because the chief public health officer notes that racialized communities have been more greatly impacted in my community of Toronto in the course of this pandemic. She states:

Members of racialized communities are more likely to experience inequitable living and working conditions that make them more susceptible to COVID‑19, such as lower incomes, precarious employment, overcrowded housing, and limited access to health and social services.

The answer for us, as a lesson learned in this crisis, is a stronger social safety net, supporting the most vulnerable in our communities and working to reduce poverty. We have seen great progress and a significant reduction in poverty since 2015, but again, not enough. If there is a theme to my speech, it will be that we have made significant progress, but not enough, and that more needs to be done, so there are commitments to EI reform and to the Canada disability benefit. My ask of the government is simply that we realize these promises in the boldest way possible.

It is related to the cost-of-living challenge when we think of our most vulnerable communities. I know the government is going to see to bringing child care through. I have every expectation that the Ontario government will finally come to the table, knowing that its own election is in sight in June, but we also need to ensure that we address the housing challenge for the most vulnerable. We need to continue the work to end homelessness and to expand upon the rapid housing initiative, and there remains much more to be done to strengthen our social safety net and address the cost of living, especially for the most vulnerable.

I would note, by the way, that we increased the Canada workers benefit significantly in budget 2021, but there is an opportunity for cross-party collaboration. In the Conservative platform and its emphasis on the Canada workers benefit, there is an example that addresses the cost of living in a serious way for the most vulnerable.

Another important lesson learned, and a key lesson and key priority in the throne speech, is better health care. I mentioned poverty, and it is a key component of this conversation when we think of the social determinants of health, but so are better health care for our seniors via home care and long-term care, a strong rare disease strategy, the details of which are to come, healthy food in our schools for our kids, better mental health care and strong mental health care standards.

An issue that is dear to my heart and something I have worked on significantly over the last number of years is treating drug use as a health issue. We have listened to our public health experts in the course of this pandemic and we need to listen to them in the course of the opioid crisis. Experts on a special advisory committee of the Public Health Agency of Canada state:

A number of factors have likely contributed to a worsening of the overdose crisis, including the increasingly toxic drug supply, increased feelings of isolation, stress and anxiety and limited availability or accessibility of services for people who use drugs.

Fundamentally, we need to end the criminalization of people who use drugs so we can ensure they get the treatment they need. Members will note that the experts point to the toxic drug supply that is killing people. If we truly care about following the evidence, we need a strictly regulated, safer supply to ensure we save lives.

The throne speech also identified safer communities, and this is related to the conversation on the opioid crisis and saving lives, but it is also about saving lives as it relates to stronger gun control. Nora, a young Liberal in my community, has been with me ever since I started in politics. It was at her birthday party that we lost Reese Fallon, one of her best friends, in the Danforth shooting. When I spoke to her recently at our youth council meeting, she encouraged me to again raise stronger gun control when I came to Ottawa. I am glad to see that the government is prioritizing this issue in the throne speech. Again, though, we have made strong commitments, but are they strong enough? I would say no, it does not make sense to devolve the responsibility to cities. We need to show national leadership on handguns.

We also need to protect people in our online communities, and this is an issue that I will continue to work on in this Parliament, across party lines. I note the work of my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, and I have worked with Conservatives on this file as well, but we need to ensure that we have stronger platform governance and, as Canadians increasingly live their lives online, that our rules reflect that reality in a more serious way.

The throne speech commits to addressing inequality in a number of different respects, and I can talk about child care and homelessness, but there is another conversation that at times has been divisive in the House. The evidence is clear and overwhelming and there is a path we see through Bill C-22. We need to address diversity and inclusion by lifting people up, but also by reforming our outdated and ineffective criminal justice system. That means police reform, and it means recognizing that we are throwing people in prison in a really unfair and disproportionate way, disproportionately impacting people from Black and indigenous communities. We need to reform these rules. Bill C-22 is an important first step, but we need to move forward in a further way on mandatory minimum sentences.

The two issues I reflect on are what are we going to accomplish in this minority Parliament. Minority Parliaments hold potential for greatness. I said this in 2019, and then the pandemic hit. We saw some moments of greatness and collaboration to deliver pandemic supports and benefits, but not enough. When we think of this Parliament and the two biggest issues this Parliament can look back on other than delivering affordable child care, it really is around advancing reconciliation and establishing a credible path to net zero, attacking climate change in a really serious way.

Advancing reconciliation means closing gaps in federal funding. It means clean water, obviously. We passed the legislation and now we need to do the hard work of implementing UNDRIP. In Toronto, fundamentally, those who represent urban centres need to raise our voices for urban indigenous people and ensure that federal supports flow. They flowed in the course of the pandemic, and we need to make sure they flow in a more permanent way to urban indigenous service organizations.

On climate action, the throne speech says we must go faster and further. A common criticism from opposition parties is that we have never met one of our targets. The original target for 2030 was 30% below 2005 levels. That works out to 512 megatonnes, for those keeping score. If we look at budget 2021, where is the trajectory added? If the Conservative government does not get elected in the future and all policies hold, we are at 468 megatonnes, so yes, there is a reason we advanced a new target. It is that the previous target, if all policies hold, would have been met. The new target is important. It will require greater ambition to get there. We see greater ambition in the throne speech and in our platform in relation to capping emissions in the oil and gas sector and in terms of driving electrification, but more needs to be done.

Again, I cannot emphasize this enough, but we have come so far, and while there is reason to be complimentary in some respects, I have to emphasize the need for continued and constructive criticism and saying we have yet to do enough.

I will close here by saying that in this Parliament we recognize the progress that has been made, but I hope we can collaborate across party lines and push this government to do more, because we need to do more on so many of these important issues.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the topics the member spoke on. He talked about quite a few different topics. One was housing, which is very important for people in the Kenora riding and across northern Ontario, specifically with addressing the housing supply. It seems to be an issue that is impacting people across income levels and at different places in their life.

In the last election, our party put forward plans specifically around supply, to help encourage development and free up more land for development. Does the member believe those measures would help address the housing supply? Would he be willing to work with our opposition party to help put that into action?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for identifying another area of potential collaboration.

Unquestionably, we need to work together to advance supply. Our platform, as an example, committed to a $4-billion accelerator that tells cities we will give them money if they push back against Nimbyism, build supply and adopt inclusive zoning and affordability. That is really important, and it is probably an insufficient number given the scale of the crisis.

I would also say that we should also work together on some other measures, including the excessive financialization of the housing market. New Zealand, for example, has put measures in place so that if an investor is going to get into the marketplace, they have to put a 40% down payment and the stress test is going to be that much more stringent. There are a number of measures we can look to around the world that have been quite successful and that would protect the stability of our housing market. It is incredibly important when looking at the scale of the increasing prices over the last number of years.

It is an issue I would be happy to work across the aisle to deliver on.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is no hiding it: the Speech from the Throne is a bit like a paint by numbers. There is a general outline, but no colour. Since my hon. colleague wants to work with the other parties, I will take this opportunity to talk about health care funding.

This is about caring for people. Quebec and the provinces are asking that transfers for health care, including mental health care, be increased unconditionally to cover 35% of the system's costs. This means acting now, listening and respecting the Constitution, because health is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Is my colleague willing to help his government understand that this is an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand the Bloc's desire for not having strings attached. My own view, however, is that where federal dollars are supporting provinces and municipalities, it is absolutely fair for us to establish standards that are delivering on federal priorities.

As I look to the child care agreements, I see an emphasis, with provinces that did not previously have child care, focusing on accessibility and affordability. When I see new health care transfers that the federal government wants to make, I see an emphasis on mental health and on long-term care. When I see a commitment to a national school food policy, $1 billion over five years, there is going to be a commitment to nutritious food.

It is important to emphasize standards. Some provinces may already want to deliver on these standards, but some may not. It is important for the federal government to set priorities with federal funds.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that during the COVID-19 crisis and the pandemic, the Liberals listened to the top medical health professionals for guidance on policy and direction, and they responded.

When it comes to the overdose crisis, those same top medical health professionals have made it very clear that the government needs to decriminalize and provide a safe supply. However, the Liberal government has failed to have the courage to listen to them. The Prime Minister says he recognizes the overdose crisis as a health issue, yet he will not listen to the same health professionals who would give him guidance. He lacks the courage. The stigma starts with the Prime Minister.

Does my colleague not agree?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to decriminalize all drugs, treat drug use as a health issue and ensure a safer supply.

I would say the government has come a long way in a short period of time. I have seen it respond to my own advocacy on this issue and to the advocacy of others. Are we where we need to be yet? No. However, in the recent platform we see a commitment for $500 million for advancing evidence-based treatment and supports, and we see a commitment for a new substance use strategy. We have already restored harm reduction as a pillar of that drug strategy. There is an organization in my own community, the South Riverdale Community Health Centre, that receives federal funds to deliver safe supply.

We are in the space, but are we in the space sufficiently? No.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House again now, at the beginning of a Parliament that I must remind my colleagues should not exist. We should be continuing with the previous Parliament. Clearly, that was the view of both Quebeckers and Canadians.

All of us, all governments, all countries, all hospitals and all seniors' residences, are desperately trying to really, truly emerge, once and for all, from a crisis where the main issue, besides the economy and the pressure that the crisis is putting on the health system, remains a human issue: the fear, anxiety, illness and distress of loved ones. We seem to be having great difficulty in emerging from this crisis, and once again, this applies to all governments, but this does not free us from the solemn obligation to do everything in our power, at all times, to come out on the other side in better shape and, shall we say, with as many people as possible.

It was in the wake of this human tragedy with far-reaching economic impacts that the Prime Minister of Canada decided, out of the blue, to call an election in the middle of the summer, although it did not come as a surprise to anyone because the writing had been on the wall for a long time. He was kind enough to explain the concept of urgency to us. Obviously, this all-powerful being had to be given a strong mandate to tackle the pandemic head-on and get us out of it once and for all.

I had my doubts, as I am sure many others did, the day after that very poorly timed, extremely disorganized, ill-conceived election. Some polling stations did not have enough staff. Things were done in haste and risks were taken, particularly with regard to health measures. The directives were unclear and applied differently from one polling station to another. If this election had been urgently required, we would have understood, but it was neither urgent nor necessary. The credibility of the democratic system was somewhat undermined when some MPs were told that they had been elected, only to be informed later that they had not actually won. It was completely ridiculous.

In addition, Canadians and Quebeckers asked, what is this nonsense? They felt so strongly about it that they re-elected the same Parliament. It is almost the same in Quebec. The people told the government that they had given it a mandate, so it should get to work and stop bothering them. The government should not betray or pervert its mandate out of sheer ambition by saying it would like to outnumber the other party. Clearly, that is not what voters wanted.

We were sure all of this would be explained in the Speech from the Throne. It is not the Speech from the Throne; it is more like the speech from the timeout chair. I took the liberty of saying that, even read slowly, it was very short. Any college or university student, such as the former students of my esteemed colleague from Mirabel, who is here with us, could have written something more creative, clear and captivating.

That is the throne speech. That is why we went out and spent $600 million. That is why Parliament shut down for five months. That is why it took two months to write something that could have been written in two hours and probably was.

People feel like the government is laughing in their faces. Is it any surprise that they are not engaged in our democracy?

The throne speech was an amateur job with no real substance. It did not offer a pandemic recovery plan or a specific agenda. I know we will be hearing more about that during and after this particular debate. There is no vision, no statement of intent. For crying out loud, it is a whole lot of nothing.

There is something of substance we have already touched on: Bill C‑2 on pandemic recovery programs, which is quite a bit clearer and more specific. There is more in the first bill they introduced than there was in the throne speech, which was supposed to put us on a four-year path to glory, prosperity and good health, or so they would have us believe. That is a bit odd.

When the government puts forward a good plan, we respond positively. Bill C‑2 is a bill that calls for collaboration, and we are ready to collaborate. Naturally, there is room for improvement; that is what the democratic legislative process promotes and demands.

In the meantime, the government's mandate, which was to manage and overcome the crisis and to pass this legislation much earlier, has not been fulfilled, and people have told the government to go do its job.

The Speech from the Throne contains the buzzword “collaborate”.

Not so long ago, there were expressions like “we walk hand in hand with Quebec and the provinces”. My God, I hope there were handcuffs involved, because the hands would not have been close for long.

We have everything but collaboration. Does the word “collaborate” in the Speech from the Throne, which was skilfully read out in several languages, mean “we will listen to what the provinces want”?

What the provinces and Quebec want is simple: an immediate, unconditional transfer of funding to cover 35% of health care system costs. Without this transfer, in the short term, the provinces and Quebec will have to divert resources to the health care system that should be allocated to other things and, in the medium term, some provinces will basically go bust, go bankrupt. This is because the great federal tradition, especially the Liberal one, is to try to bring the provinces, which are conquered territories if ever there was one, to their knees in exchange for a little money.

The Liberal approach is “sell us your jurisdictions”, which is why the throne speech ignored, or mentioned only very quickly, the fact that collaboration means a give-and-take on both sides. That left us dangerously dissatisfied and reveals something a little shocking. In the last few days and weeks, a lot of attention has been paid to the magnitude of the tragedy, to figuring out what led to a such a high number of deaths.

Sometimes the media will also try to politicize it and point fingers—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like the members to tell me if I am bothering them. It is a little frustrating. Conversations should be taken outside the chamber.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. It seems there are some conversations that are disturbing the person speaking. I would ask members who want to have conversations to do so outside the chamber, in the lobby for example.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that intervention.

Some people were tempted to say that it must be Quebec's fault, or the fault of any of the provinces that went through similar tragedies, and that was really hurtful.

Health care falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. If it had been properly funded, from the time and at the level it was supposed to be funded, we would have had the system and the resources needed to deal with the situation.

I am not blaming any one individual, but rather a system: federalism. The main culprit is Ottawa, which withheld the money the provinces needed until it blew up in our faces. There is no other explanation.

It may be hard to hear, but that is all the more reason to say it: it is not right to deflect one's responsibility onto someone else. Enough with this ludicrous fantasy. Here we have a government that does not run a health care system, despite its statement about there being doctors in the army. Let us be serious. There are more doctors in Laval than there are in the Canadian army. This government has neither the constitutional jurisdiction nor the competence to run a health care system. It should leave that to the people who have the desire and responsibility to do so, especially if its own responsibility is to provide adequate funding. That is the way it should be.

This government wants to give us the impression that it is somewhat transparent or at least that it is not completely opaque. We suggested that instead of just talking about health transfers, we could expand the debate by talking about health care funding, and we could do it openly and publicly by holding a summit.

Unlike a first ministers' meeting, which takes place behind closed doors and from which ministers emerge without providing full disclosure and pretend they are pleased or displeased, the discussion will take place in front of cameras and microphones and in the presence of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Health. The other health minister of a province need not be there. Participants will include the premiers and Quebec's and the provinces' health ministers, the leaders of the opposition parties, their health critics and perhaps people from civil society who wish to address these people in a format to be determined. It will be a summit on health care funding where the Prime Minister can explain his vision to us in front of everyone. He was not elected to keep out of sight. We are not elected to Parliament to remain silent. That is rule number one, something the members opposite do not understand. That is what we are proposing.

I am just as outraged as I have been since 2019 about our society's disregard and lack of basic consideration for seniors. As I have said many times, seniors will have suffered the most from isolation, mental distress and eroding purchasing power.

I do not want to hear more claims that there is no more inflation, because no responsible person would say that. The government has not made any remotely significant increase to seniors' purchasing power, while inflation has been increasing every month at rates we have not seen in a very long time. Nevertheless, the government continues to ignore their plight. It is implementing complicated programs that seniors have a hard time accessing, that conflict with each other in terms of how to apply, and, on top of all that, that reduce the income of seniors who were receiving the guaranteed income supplement or who were exempt from taxes on the first $5,000. That is completely ridiculous and straddles the line between lack of respect and incompetence. We will not give up on this battle.

If I may, I would like to get back to oil. A few days ago, I was singled out by a Conservative colleague in a not-so-nice way. He came out with some nonsense about how Quebec would be cut off and would not get any more oil. I told him to take a hike, although in saltier language that I will not say here because children could be listening.

The Bloc Québécois thinks we need to do two things, and the first is not to ignore the evidence. If things do not change, the planet will not even be close to preventing global warming well beyond 2°C. We know what needs to be done, but there is no real commitment. The Bloc Québécois will tell it like it is.

When the government tells us that if it caps the industry's emissions and it performs well in reducing its emissions per barrel, then it can increase its production with money provided by the federal government to lower emissions, the federal government is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly based on its own commitments. I am glad to see that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development came to almost the exact same conclusion. Using Quebeckers' money, the government is encouraging increased production, consumption and export of oil that is toxic for the planet. It is as simple as that.

The second thing the Bloc Québécois is going to do, or rather, is not going to do, is tell the people who make their living from the oil industry to deal with their own damn problems. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing a series of measures for a long time now, including suggesting that the money from the aberration known as Trans Mountain could stay in western Canada and Alberta to fund the energy and economic transition that they will need. We are the first to say that we must not let the workers down. We do not corner people who do not think like us and hurl abuse at them in English, and find it funny.

We are looking for compassionate solutions, and I think we need to consider that. There is absolutely nothing in the throne speech about that and all the rest. We will make it our duty and pleasure to do something about that.

Quebec will come out a winner either way. Either the Bloc Québécois will make gains for Quebec based on the wishes of the Quebec National Assembly, which would be a win for Quebec, or we will not make any significant gains, which will show that there is no place for us in this federation that does not help us.

I therefore propose the following amendment to the amendment:

That the amendment be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph (a), by deleting the words “(iii) increase production of Canadian energy to boost supply and lower gas prices,”;

(b) in paragraph (e), by deleting the words “including the energy sector,”; and

(c) by adding the following:

“(f) a public health crisis, caused primarily by a fiscal imbalance that is putting the economic viability of the provinces at risk, which requires

(i) a major investment that would cover 35% of health costs in Quebec and in the other provinces by the federal government through the Canada Health Transfer with a subsequent annual indexation of 6%,

(ii) abandoning the idea of imposing national health standards,

(iii) ensuring that the provinces that do not want conditional assistance in the area of health care from the federal government in Ottawa have the right to opt out with full financial compensation for each of the proposed initiatives, and that it all be negotiated at a summit on health care funding; and

(g) the creation of two classes of seniors, which can be addressed by increasing Old Age Security for seniors aged 65 to 74”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on being re-elected to the House.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois mentioned in his speech how important health care is. Of course, increasing federal health transfers requires additional revenue to ensure programs are sustainable.

Would the leader of the Bloc Québécois support removing interprovincial trade barriers in Canada to help generate revenue to pay for increased health transfers?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are several parts to that question. First, it is a good idea to remove trade barriers. These restrictions do little good. The impact of doing that, however, meaning the possibility of generating the revenue needed for health transfers, seems to me to be a flight of fancy, as the other guy's father said.

However, programs obviously require money to fund them. The money has to come from somewhere. Ultimately, it always comes from some burst of economic prosperity, which results in less spending and more revenue for the government. In this case, and even if it were not the case, what we are dealing with is the good old fiscal imbalance, which comes back as often as Santa Claus. We may have stopped mentioning it, but it is lurking not far away. It lets the federal government keep the money based on its interests and power, to the detriment of the provinces and Quebec, leaving them in a precarious financial situation.

If we balance all that out, the health transfers will readily follow.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by my colleague, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

The NDP agrees that it was certainly irresponsible of the government to call an election this summer. The Liberals' only goal was to get a majority, but Canadians decided otherwise by electing the same Parliament as before. Despite the risk, the government decided to call an election anyway.

It took two months before we could come back to the House. Seniors who received emergency assistance during the pandemic are now losing their guaranteed income supplement. Back home, like everywhere else in the country, seniors are using food banks, and some are even losing their housing.

Can the leader of the Bloc talk about this huge mistake by the government, which is causing seniors to struggle in the middle of a pandemic?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to make a few comments. That will allow me to elaborate on what I was saying earlier.

In times of adversity, it is important to put yourself in someone else's shoes. In principle, that is what I have tried to do, but it is hard to put myself in the shoes of a Liberal Prime Minister of Canada.

In a context where there was enormous financial leeway, why such a lack of consideration for those most seriously affected by the pandemic in terms of isolation, psychological distress, purchasing power, and, I would even add, the capacity of navigating complex programs that experts have a hard time developing and applying?

Why this lack of consideration for seniors, when considering their needs could have cost very little in terms of clarity and funding?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, as this is the first time I have had the privilege to rise in the House, I want to thank the constituents of Battlefords—Lloydminster who sent me here.

I represent thousands of energy workers. I am so proud of the work that they do and how they are providing Canadian energy to Canadians, to Canadian families and to the world under some of the highest environmental standards in the world. The need for energy is not going away. We need energy to get to where we need to go, and where it is expected of us. We need energy for transportation of food and to heat our homes. We need reliable energy.

My question for the leader of the separatist party is this: Why does he support energy that is unethical, that does not have, let alone meet, the environmental standards that our Canadian ethical energy meets?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, people should not be paid such compliments. I am both flattered and confused. I am the leader of the separatist party and member for Beloeil—Chambly, and that is an extraordinary honour.

If the highest environmental standards did not protect us against the most polluting energy in the world, my God, what would things be like? We have the common sense to not tell western oil workers to take care of their own damn problems. We want to work with them. We want to ensure they have funding; we even want to contribute to this funding in order to get people's heads out of the sand, I would even say the oil sands, for their sake and the sake of the entire planet, and to face the real challenges together, in solidarity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I remind members they have had an opportunity to ask a question and should be listening to the answer. If they have other interventions to make, they should attempt to be recognized again and not interrupt the individual who has the floor.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

I think that COP26 clarified that the only government in Canada that is demonstrating leadership is the Government of Quebec, which is a member of the Beyond Oil and Gas Coalition. The organization only has an English name, which I found on the Government of France website. This coalition is co-chaired by the governments of Costa Rica and Denmark and also includes France, Italy, Sweden and Quebec.

I also want to thank my colleague because he is the leader of his party, and I want to thank the members for Repentigny and Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for their leadership here in the House.

I am going to ask just one question. Quebec has gotten rid of one dangerous industry, the asbestos industry. Are there similarities between fossil fuel energy and the production of asbestos?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have two things to say about that.

First, getting rid of something dangerous calls for economic action. I was very involved in the closure of the Gentilly plant. The Government of Quebec had to invest a lot of money at the time, and it went very well. I think that is comparable, I think it is doable, and I think we need to consider that.

More generally speaking, I would say that Quebec is blessed with respect to the environment. We have clean energy, wind, space and natural resources. We are lucky to have all that. Quebec can lead the way on environmental action. If Quebec can use green technology to create wealth, it is its duty to do so. Unfortunately—or fortunately—that will not happen within an oil-producing Canada.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to lay out the scenario we are in right now. In the context of the throne speech, where the government laid out its vision for Canada, I want to lay out some of the realities Canadians are facing.

We are up against an affordability crisis, which means that people are struggling to put food on the table, pay their bills and, most of all, find a home to call their own. This affordability crisis is impacting all Canadians, particularly when it comes to the housing crisis. People who have good jobs cannot find housing. People who have low income jobs, people who have no income and Canadians across this country are struggling with housing, and we are in a real crisis.

Added to that, we are up against a climate crisis, and we are seeing the direct impacts of that climate crisis right now in British Columbia, where we are feeling the impacts right now of the devastation of extreme weather. The flooding that has occurred in B.C. has impacted people's lives in tremendous ways. People have lost their homes and their farms. People have lost their lives.

We know that the climate crisis has often been referred to as a problem for our future, and we talk about protecting the environment for our kids. We are up against a crisis about protecting the environment for the present, and we have to protect it for our lives now.

With these urgent housing, affordability and climate crises, we do not see the government responding with an urgency commiserate to the seriousness of the problems. We do not see that urgency in its action, and it is not sufficient to just point out that there is a crisis. If we acknowledge there is a crisis, we have to respond as if there really is one. When it comes to the climate crisis, the housing crisis and the affordability crisis, the government is simply not responding, and the throne speech did not provide the vision of a government that is responding appropriately to the problems Canadians are now faced with.

The crises we are dealing with are obviously hitting us hard. The climate crisis is hitting British Columbia hard, but it is not just British Columbia. We have been seeing extreme temperatures in this country for years: heat waves, forest fires and now floods. The climate crisis is not just something to worry about for the future. It is an issue right now, and we need a rapid, urgent response immediately.

I talked about the housing crisis, which is raging from coast to coast to coast. Let me share an example of what is going on in Montreal, Quebec. We know families are finding it tough to make ends meet. The rising cost of living is making that even tougher. Plus, housing costs keep going up, and this government does not understand the meaning of “affordable housing”. The government thinks rent of $2,225 a month is affordable in Montreal, but it definitely is not.

What Canadians need in this time of difficulty is a government that understands that the only way to move forward when people are in crisis is to respond with real action, not with symbolic gestures, nice words or an understanding of the problem, but with a concrete plan to solve the problem. That is what we need, and this throne speech failed to provide that commitment to Canadians. It failed to provide a commitment that the government will respond to the problems facing Canadians with an urgency equal to those problems.

Right now, Canadians are also looking at the pandemic, and they are frustrated, afraid and worried. They have been left feeling really uncertain about the future. The omicron variant obviously increases that uncertainty. While people are struggling to get back on their feet, and while we are pushing forward toward a recovery, people want to make sure that this recovery is one that is actually focused on them, not on those at the very top. We have seen this before, and it is important to highlight why people are worried.

They are worried because they have seen previous governments, in times of difficult financial crisis, have recoveries that did not benefit workers, did not benefit people and did not benefit families, but they certainly benefited those at the very top, the wealthy and the powerful corporations, but they did not translate to real recovery for workers and people. That is the same fear that people are experiencing right now. They are worried that the government is not focused on a recovery for all, but is focused on one that will benefit those at the very top.

We have already seen that happen. The recovery is already moving in a K shape, where those who were well off or doing well before continue to do so, and those who were struggling are now worse off. We need concrete action. What does that mean? What is the concrete action we are looking for?

Let us start with the environment. Concrete action is what Canadians are calling for in the crises that they are dealing with. They want a vision and a plan to deal with the crises they are dealing with in a real, meaningful way. For the climate crisis, we know we have to tackle it broadly. We need to reduce emissions. We cannot see the government continue to set target after target just to miss those targets. We need real accountability. We need real transparency, and we need real, bold targets to reduce our emissions so we are doing our part to fight the global climate crisis.

We need to move toward a renewable energy future. There is no question about it. We need to make investments in that renewable energy future. One of the ways we can do that, a concrete and substantive way to do that, is to permanently and finally end all fossil fuel subsidies.

We have heard a lot from the Liberals. They have talked about ending fossil fuel subsidies for years. They have promised to do it for years, but instead of reducing fossil fuel subsidies or eliminating them, they have actually increased them to the highest level in our country's history. They have, in fact, increased them more than the Harper Conservatives did. This is a government that claims to care about the environment, yet its track record when it comes to its own promise on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is worse than that of the Harper Conservatives.

We just had COP26, and all countries agree that we need to be eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. The reason is that our public money should not go toward subsidizing, with our public dollars, the fossil fuel sector, but should be better spent in investing and incentivizing renewable energy that does not increase our carbon footprint. We need to be investing in those technologies of the future with our public dollars so there would be a double impact.

We also know that we cannot fight the climate crisis if we leave workers behind, and the labour movement has worked really hard to make sure, when we talk about a future in which we fight the climate crisis, there has to be a just transition. That stands for a lot of things.

A just transition means that workers are at the heart of our climate change and climate crisis policies. It means that workers are always front and foremost. It means that workers know what their future will look like. It means a real plan for workers so they do not have the uncertainty of looking at the global markets rise and fall and the uncertainty of commodity prices. They need a clear plan. The government owes it to workers to provide them with a clear plan for what their today will look like and what their tomorrow will look like as well.

A just transition is about fairness for workers, and it gives priority to workers. It is vital that the plan is made clear. So far, this throne speech and what we have heard from the government do not provide that plan to workers. Workers are left behind, and left uncertain about their futures.

Tackling the climate crisis also means making sure that we are helping communities that are grappling with the impacts of extreme weather right now. Sadly, we know that with the climate crisis, extreme weather is going to become more and more common. If that is the case, then communities that have already been hit hard, and which are likely to be hit hard in the future, need investments in infrastructure to make sure that they are resilient.

We need to make sure that we are not only responding to crises, but that we are acting proactively to prevent those disasters from happening in the first place. That is something we are calling for. It is an opportunity to create good jobs, make investments in communities dealing with aging infrastructure, and build more resilient communities. That is a part of our plan and what we would have wanted to see in a throne speech, something that actually speaks to the realities of people.

I attended COP26, and it is clear that subsidies to oil companies must be eliminated. Everyone agrees. However, the Liberal government's record is the worst in the G20. It has increased subsidies to oil companies even though it committed to eliminating them.

We need to eliminate those subsidies and invest in renewable energy. We need to promote clean energy, and that is exactly what we will continue to promote, because it is essential. We also need to invest in communities dealing with extreme weather, which is increasingly becoming the norm, in order to create more resilient, more sustainable infrastructure.

We need immediate action on the housing crisis. Former Bank of Canada governor Mr. Poloz has stated very clearly that, in this housing crisis, the federal government absolutely has a role to play. We believe that too. We agree that the federal government has a role to play in tackling the housing crisis and needs to do so immediately. There are two key things the government needs to do, and they are what we would have laid out in a New Democrat throne speech.

First, the speculation and pressures that are driving up the cost of housing need to be tackled. If we look at the increase in prices for housing, they are rising astronomically. We need to see clear measures put in place to reduce those pressures. This could be a national foreign buyers tax. We need to see efforts to stop property flipping, which is driving up the cost of homes. We need to see real measures put in place to reduce those speculative forces that are driving up the cost of housing.

Second, we have a supply problem. It is clear there is not enough housing available for people within their budget. We need the government to massively mobilize to work with provinces and municipalities to build more homes that are within people's budgets. There are lots of things that the federal government can do. There is federal land across the country that can be converted into housing.

There are opportunities to work with municipalities, and with provinces and territories, to invest massively in housing. We need to ensure that we build at least half a million new homes. We need to invest in not-for-profit housing and co-operative housing. We need massive investments in housing now, and we need to help those who want to own their first home be able to do so.

We also need to specifically respond to the needs of indigenous communities. That includes urban indigenous, as well as indigenous communities living on reserve, or in rural and remote communities. We need a specific “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing plan that responds to the needs of indigenous people, and we need it immediately.

It is clear that investments are needed in affordable housing and social housing, and they are needed now. We will continue to press the government for immediate, concrete action to address this crisis.

On health care, we are dealing with the impacts of this pandemic. People have seen how this pandemic has laid bare the pre-existing problems in our health care system. One of those fundamental problems is the fact that this Liberal government, as well as previous Conservative and Liberal governments, have been continually cutting the help people and provinces need by cutting transfers in health care.

Those cuts have hurt provinces, they have hurt people and they need to be reversed. All provinces and territories agree that we need increases in health care transfers, and this government needs to make that happen in a long-lasting, sustainable way.

We are up against nursing shortages and front-line health care worker shortages. We know that we need to expand our health care system to include dental care, pharmacare and mental health supports. Our public health care system is something that Canadians are very proud of, but it has to be protected. We have to be vigilant, and we need to invest in it to keep it public. We also need to expand it to provide the care that people need, which is what New Democrats are committed to doing.

We are committed to fulfilling the vision and dream of Tommy Douglas, who believed that health care should cover us from head to toe. When it was first imagined, our health care system was always imagined to include medication coverage, dental care and mental health services. We want to realize that dream and complete that vision.

It is essential that we fund our health care system properly to keep it public and universal. All provinces and territories agree that health transfers must be increased. The NDP will continue to push for this because our party believes deeply in our public and universal health care system.

We want it to be properly funded, and we want to expand it to include universal pharmacare, dental care and mental health supports. We will get this done and fulfill Tommy Douglas's dream of head-to-toe health care.

In terms of immediate action, we need immediate action on justice for indigenous people. We hear the government talk about reconciliation and make promises, but it has not delivered. It continues to take indigenous kids to court and it is fighting indigenous kids in court. These are the children of survivors of residential schools, and that same legacy of discrimination continues. We want to see an end to these court battles against indigenous children. We need to make sure that there is justice for the first peoples of this land.

We continue to see police violence against indigenous people. Specifically, we have called many times for a review of the RCMP, particularly on its actions when it comes to indigenous people and racialized people. Right now, we see extreme force being used on land defenders in Wet'suwet'en. We are deeply concerned about the use of force. We have already called for a review of those actions, and we will continue to call for reforms on policing to make sure that indigenous people and racialized people are not subject to violence and death at the hands of the police. We want to see a system that is overhauled and reviewed, and we will continue to push for that.

We need to see real reconciliation, and that means quality housing that is available in all indigenous communities. It also means clean drinking water, which is something this government promised but has failed to deliver. We are going to continue to fight to make sure that all people in this country, particularly indigenous people, have access to clean drinking water. That is a basic human right, and we will continue to fight for that.

I will wrap up with some actions this government can take immediately. I mentioned stopping the legal battles against indigenous kids, but it could also take immediate action to ensure that it fixes some of the problems that are going on.

Right now, there are GIS and child benefit clawbacks. Vulnerable seniors and families are not receiving the funds they need, because they needed help during the pandemic. That needs to end immediately. We also need to reform the EI system, which clearly does not work for the majority of Canadians. As well, we need sick leave passed before the House rises, and we need conversion therapy passed before the House rises. These are some concrete things we can do now.

The big question is who will pay for the recovery. We have believed all along that it should be the super wealthy, those at the very top, who need to pay their fair share. The burden should not fall on the people.

We need immediate action, and the New Democrats are committed to that. Canadians can trust us to fight for them and to make this Parliament work for them. Our vision is a Canada in which no one is left behind and we lift each other up. That is what we are going to fight for.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from the leader of the NDP today, and I noted he talked a lot about affordability in particular for families. One thing I noticed he missed, which was in the throne speech, was $10-a-day child care.

I bring this up because last year during the budget I asked the leader of the opposition whether he would support the budget because it contained that measure. His response was that it would most likely never happen because Liberals had been promising it for decades.

Now we are at the point where we just about have every province and territory signed on to $10-a-day child care. I am wondering this. Can he comment on what impact that affordability will have on families?