Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2021

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I do not know the answer for Saint-Hyacinthe specifically, but I do know that there are disparities across Canada.

For example, of the $500 million earmarked for the first stream of the rapid housing initiative, $200 million is going to Toronto. Obviously, rents are very expensive in Toronto, so the real estate market is very high. Low-income earners have an even harder time finding affordable housing in Toronto and Vancouver.

However, that is not our problem. In fact, we are sort of being penalized for the fact that Toronto and Vancouver cannot sort out their real estate markets. This means that the federal government provides more funding to those folks, who do not appear to be very good at looking after the most vulnerable. As the rest of Canada is not good at it, Quebec has developed an approach that works pretty well. The same is true in many areas; we would be better off if we were independent.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a novel sensation to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-14, for several reasons. First, it is always a tremendous privilege to rise in the House, even though it is not as populated as it has been in the past, to represent the constituents of Provencher and speak to the issues of the day regarding this great country of Canada. Second, it is novel to speak to an economic statement that does not typically lead to legislation. This is an unusual speech in that respect.

Third, this marks the very first meaningful budget-like document that the Liberals have produced since 2019, almost 650 days ago. To be sure, this is not a budget. However, I am grateful to have the opportunity to address Bill C-14 given the fact that the Liberals have flat out refused to present a budget since 2018.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is just now concluding its pre-budget consultations and entering the drafting stage of the report. It is now time for the committee to review the recommendations from Canadians, and to consolidate into the report all the needs that have been identified by Canadians from coast to coast to coast to present to the finance minister. My hope is that the Minister of Finance will take this process seriously, that her response will be thoughtful and that she will come up with a realistic plan for our nation's finances.

Conservatives have been clear right from the beginning that we want to make sure that Canadians struggling as a result of COVID-19 have the support they need. We recognize the challenges that so many are facing, including those of us living under stringent public health restrictions that have dramatically impacted our well-being. The government has a duty not only to help Canadians get through the crisis, but to develop a plan to help us get out of it. I said earlier today in the House that it seems as though the government has no plan, and failing to plan is planning to fail.

It is perfectly fair for governments to react quickly when faced with a crisis. One cannot get everything right when trying to sort out something new and unexpected on the fly. However, a year has now passed since COVID-19 came on Canada's radar in a real way. By now, the government has had plenty of time to prepare a solid, long-term plan for Canada's economy. By now, we know where the damage is most significant. We know who is hurting, and with this knowledge comes the power to plan for the future: to show Canadians a way out and a plan for things to return to normal.

One tangible way that the Liberals could do this immediately is by setting a fiscal anchor. A fiscal anchor is driven by rock-solid foundation principles and will be an anchor or reference point to hold things together and provide stability on which we can establish policies. The principles of financial anchors are missing from the Liberal government.

The Business Council of Canada defines fiscal anchors as follows:

...notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits, and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy. They serve many purposes including:

1 Retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets...;

2 Establishing a positive investment climate for businesses;

3 Providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government...; and

4 Ensuring that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

In practical terms, this is about creating good jobs for Canadians. It is about creating the conditions for local small businesses to succeed and thrive. It is about moms and dads being able to put food on the table for their families. However, it is also about governments being able to sustainably fund the social services that many rely on: health care, education and the social safety net. Fiscal responsibility, or a fiscal anchor, signals to Canadians that the government is not merely acting for its own immediate interests today, but for the good of the country and its future.

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page told the National Post in October, “There’s a cost to having effectively no fiscal plan. And right now it’s fair to say we have no fiscal strategy.” He added, “This is about where the government’s rudder is. Where is the policy strategy that guides us through the pandemic, and to the post COVID-19 recovery? We’re missing that.”

In a November piece for The Globe and Mail, Mostafa Askari, Sahir Khan and Mr. Page write:

All governments need constraints. Politicians do not like to raise taxes. There is a bias toward deficits. Higher debt can create the risk of future economic instability. It can reduce fiscal room to address the next economic downturn. Constraints also signal future policy intentions of governments and are essential to promote accountability.

The Liberals' refusal to adopt a fiscal anchor is such that they continue to avoid accountability for their spending. We are facing a historic deficit of almost $400 billion. The total federal debt will reach $1.1 trillion this year, and the federal debt, as a percentage of GDP, has risen dramatically. If ever Canadians deserved transparency and accountability, now is the time.

With this in mind, I want to speak about part 7 of the bill. In this section of the legislation, the Liberals propose to amend the Borrowing Authority Act and the Financial Administration Act by increasing maximum borrowing authority for the federal government of Canada from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Even as someone with years of experience in the financial sector, those figures seem very daunting to me. This increase is considerably more than the government needs to get through this next fiscal year. Moreover, it authorizes a massive expansion of the national debt all while the government refuses to identify a fiscal anchor and refuses transparency.

If the Liberals were swiping their own personal credit cards during these transactions, it would be one thing, but they are swiping the nation's credit card, knowing full well that hard-working Canadians will ultimately be stuck with a bill that will likely have to be paid through tax increases and will be passed on to future generations. This is money out of the pockets of real people, real families, and not just this generation.

Young parents trying to set aside money for their children's education, small business owners trying to meet payroll for employees and seniors on fixed incomes will all be affected by this increase to our national debt.

In the real world, when Canadians want to obtain a line of credit they have to show the lender that they are good for it. They have to show they will be able to make payments. They have to show that they are responsible stewards of the money that is being lent to them. That is how the three Cs of credit work: character, collateral and capacity. I, for one, do not see why the House should authorize such a significant increase of the government's maximum borrowing authority when it cannot even establish a baseline for its spending. Liberals have not demonstrated the ability to be responsible for increased debt.

This is about taking care of Canadians today and tomorrow. We owe it to future Canadians to ensure our public finances are sustainable. Debt is a moral issue: It is something that is owed to one by another with the understanding that what is owed must be paid back. This is a basic principle, and one that is almost universally understood within the context of business, finance and even personal relationships. If we borrow money from the bank to finance the purchase of a home or vehicle, there is an understanding and a binding agreement as to how and when that loan will be paid back. The borrower is taking on that debt, and with it the responsibility to repay the amount borrowed from the lender. A commitment has been made to restore the financial situation of the lender. The refusal or failure to do so will result in penalties, or at the very least adverse effects to the credit and financial well-being of the borrower.

To borrow without the ability or a clear plan to repay is foolish. While in our culture some debt is usually unavoidable, it is a reality that most of us try to avoid it. We do not want to be in debt. We do not want to be enslaved to interest payments. We want to be free. The government does not have its own money, it only has the money that it receives from the taxation of its citizens. When it needs more money, the government only has three choices: raise taxes, cut spending or borrow.

As my colleague, the member for Carleton, has so succinctly put it, paycheques are the solution. Canadians need opportunities to work. This puts food on their tables and produces tax revenue governments need to provide important services. It is time that the Liberals focus on creating opportunities for Canadians. There are many ways to achieve that objective. Stop raising taxes such as the carbon tax and the CPP payroll tax. Accelerate project permit application processing for infrastructure. Repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Ideas like these create space for a real recovery.

Let us pursue sustainability and fiscally responsible policies that get Canadians not just through this economic slump, but actually out of it.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote something from that fine old socialist newspaper, The Globe and Mail, which said:

Once the world gets past the worst of the pandemic, and growth returns to more normal levels, the economies in most industrialized countries should expand substantially faster than the interest rate on their debt. This means the size of their government debt should shrink steadily as a portion of GDP. In Canada, for instance, it makes perfect sense to borrow at 0.7 per cent (the current yield on 10-year Canada bonds) to support an economy capable of growing at 3 per cent or more.

Given that our debt service costs today, with the additional deficit, are $4 billion less per year than they were in the fall of 2019, how does the hon. member justify the alarmist narrative that he has been delivering?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the hon. member to look at what the International Monetary Fund has to say about the situation of our finances.

We know that the forecast for our economic growth has been reduced by 30%. The Liberal government does not have an explanation for that. If we are reducing our economic growth, we are also reducing the ability for this government to collect tax revenue. When we incur additional debt without incurring the additional ability to pay for that debt, we run into some very serious problems. In the real world they call it insolvency when one does not have the means to cover one's debt.

Yes, interest rates are low, and we can fool ourselves into thinking that now is the time to amass an incredible amount of debt that is going to look after itself. I think it was this very Prime Minister who said that “the budget will balance itself”, and that we did not have to worry about that, which seems to be the attitude I am sensing from this Liberal member.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow Manitoban for his comments.

The member talked a little about trying to assist people during the pandemic, but we know, certainly in the province of Manitoba, that there are many people who have been left behind. I have seniors residing at Lions Place who did not get proper support even prior to the pandemic, and are worried now about ending up on the street. How abhorrent is it that, in this country, seniors are not even given an amount that would allow them to remain housed? We also know that students have been left behind and, certainly in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, people with very severe mental health and trauma issues who were left behind before the pandemic are now even more vulnerable, as we saw with the cases of trench fever that occurred in my riding prior to Christmas.

Knowing all of this, I wonder if my hon. colleague would support a guaranteed livable income to ensure that all Manitobans and all Canadians could have their minimum human rights assured and guaranteed.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her question. I recognize her passion for the less fortunate and underprivileged in the world, and certainly her community in the heart of Winnipeg is no exception.

I also want to acknowledge an organization in the member's riding, Adult & Teen Challenge, and its former executive director, Steve Paulson, as well as Daniel, who is now in charge. It does a tremendous amount of work. I talked to some organization members recently, and they indicated that they were running at capacity. Adult & Teen Challenge is an organization that offers hope to people struggling with addiction and substance abuse. It has a very effective program that reaches people in the area, which is right in the member's riding, and I know that she is connected with them, and that is tremendous.

I think we need to give people the opportunity to succeed financially and to earn a living. The best way to lift people out of poverty is to provide jobs for them so that they can look after themselves. We also need to keep our eye focused, as I said, on part 7 of the bill before us, because it would increase our national debt level to the point that we would have to increase taxation, and we would reduce the wiggle room we have to provide adequate social services for folks who really need it, such as folks in her riding.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the debate on Bill C-14.

As the House knows, the Bloc Québécois has already stated that it will vote in favour of the bill because on the whole it will provide long-awaited support to our SMEs and our families.

I could have talked about a pile of programs that met certain needs because, again, families and SMEs do not have access to assistance. They either do not meet the criteria, their application has not been processed or it is waiting on a pile, or they are having a hard time getting through to anyone by phone to help them navigate the various programs.

Instead today, I want to take the opportunity to speak about and shed light on some very important issues that are a priority for parliamentarians, but also for my constituents, the people I represent in the riding of Salaberry—Suroît.

On page 81 of the 2020 fall economic statement, the government acknowledges that “Canadians in many rural and remote communities who still do not have access to high-speed Internet face a barrier to their ability to be equal participants in the economy.”

In 2018, just 41% of rural households had access to high-speed Internet, which is defined as a download speed of 50 megabits per second and an upload speed of 10 megabits per second. The speeds I get back home in Ormstown are laughable. I think I have two speeds: slow and non-existent.

That percentage accurately reflects my reality. Allow me to compare that to urban areas. That same study showed that 98% of urban households in large and medium-sized population centres had access to high-speed Internet. I find this unacceptable. This inequality between rural and urban communities is inexplicable and untenable.

I am proud to represent a rural riding. My riding does have some urban centres, but the vast majority of it is rural. No matter where you go in my riding, you are about 30 to 45 minutes from Montreal. In my own home, I am about 50 kilometres from Montreal and I do not have access to high-speed Internet.

I am not using my personal circumstances to elicit sympathy. No one in my neighbourhood or in my town has access to fibre, which would help us join the 21st century just like the people living in cities or urban centres. Every week I have constituents asking me, not always politely, why we are not connected yet, when they will be connected and when the Internet will finally reach their home. I think that we are very patient. We have been waiting a long time. Quebeckers and the people of the riding of Salaberry—Suroît do not understand why it is taking so long to get connected.

We have to buy technological gadgets. I have bought cellular equipment.

I have a lot of equipment. I believe I have spent $1,500 on equipment because companies sell me new technology that will supposedly provide high-speed service. We install it, we get our hopes up, but it does not work.

Teleworking during the pandemic has been a nightmare for people like me in Salaberry—Suroît living without high-speed Internet. It has been a struggle getting the children to do their school work when three or four computers are connected to the same network. It has been an ordeal trying to study or work remotely.

In Salaberry—Suroît, I am lucky to be able to rely on cable companies that have a social conscience and want to develop the fibre optic network. I am thinking in particular of the co-operative CSUR. There is also the private company Targo. They know exactly which parts of my riding do not have high-speed Internet.

These cable companies have submitted project proposals for various subsidy programs in Quebec and Canada. The programs are not coordinated, however, and plans to connect families and households are completely disorganized, especially in rural areas. Neither the CRTC nor the government can say when the projects will be approved.

That is not all. On November 26, the CRTC's chairperson and CEO appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for its study on the accessibility and affordability of telecommunications services, which the Bloc Québécois had requested. Here is what he said about deployment plans submitted in June: “we have received almost 600 applications from all regions of the country. They add up to a total of $1.5 billion. We have our work cut out for us. We are working quickly to assess those projects and we'll move forward. All of those are targeted areas that do not have acceptable levels of broadband service.”

In other words, there is a desperate need. People are ready, and they are feeling very impatient. We still do not know who will benefit from that money because the CRTC has a lot of work to do to assess the projects.

Still, we can say that there have been some advances. Bianka Dupaul, the executive director of the CSUR co-op, told me that during an installation on a rural road before Christmas, residents were crying at the prospect of a reliable connection. They felt lucky to get access to this connection before Christmas. It was a real blessing for them.

Sharing this good fortune is not complicated: the various levels of government need to coordinate their efforts to connect rural areas to high-speed Internet. Big companies like Bell Canada need to be brought into line, since they are engaging in legal obstruction and hindering the Internet rollout.

It is not just a matter of getting connected. There is also the whole issue of maintaining the network. For example, the CSUR co-op requested access to a specific pole and received a $14,000 bill for the work required to make the pole safe. Before the fibre optic cable could even be run, $14,000 had to be paid to secure the pole and gain access to it. This is far from reasonable. It is exploitation. We do not understand what is going on right now. Why do cable companies that want access to the poles end up with such whopping bills? I have written letters denouncing this situation, we have approached the media, and we have written emails to the minister and municipalities and sent resolutions.

We feel like the federal government is listening but not taking any action. No one is tackling the issue of high-speed Internet head on. No one is taking it seriously or acting with the urgency required. A new minister is taking care of this file, a minister from Quebec who also represents a rural riding. He can be sure that the Bloc Québécois will be there to remind him of his commitment to get all rural regions connected to high-speed Internet so that they can enter the same century as urban areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. As she knows, I am very familiar with Salaberry—Suroît because I have visited that beautiful region about fifteen times. The people there are very hard-working.

She spoke about accessibility, but is this not a matter of fairness as well? Rural regions often do not get the investments they should. That is why I want to ask her this question.

The matter of income is not addressed in Bill C-14. Many people, in the NDP and throughout Quebec and Canada, think that there should be taxes on wealth and excess profits. Since the beginning of the pandemic, billionaires have become $53 billion richer and some companies have been making huge profits. Does the member agree with the principle of a tax on wealth and a tax on excess profits?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is quite right to say that there are hard-working people in the beautiful region of Salaberry—Suroît. Unfortunately, economic development, access to distance education and telework are all more challenging because of poor Internet coverage. This is a fundamental problem. One large corporation has a monopoly and is making a profit. It complies with the law, but it is still deliberately obstructing the deployment of high-speed Internet.

It is not right that the subsidies given to cable companies allow Bell Canada to upgrade its poles and all its infrastructure before even running the fibre optic cable. The government must demonstrate a stronger political will and bring this large corporation, which owns the infrastructure, into line. It also needs to give the CRTC greater powers to ensure that high-speed Internet is deployed within a reasonable time frame. Quebec is expecting this in 2022, and we hope the new minister will bring the CRTC into line.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his very cogent presentation.

All of us in rural ridings have similar connectivity problems. I find it ironic that I can listen to satellite radio out of the United States, but I cannot get a cellphone connection everywhere I go. I know it is not the same technology, but when we think about it, a wave from Quebec does not reach everywhere while the one from the United States does.

My question for my colleague is this: Are we also addressing the issue of good “corporate” citizens? Last spring I attended some meetings of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and many people pointed to certain companies that had the towers, but were not making enough of an effort to ensure that there is connectivity everywhere.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has identified a very important problem.

High-speed Internet will not reach rural areas without giving the CRTC the proper tools and introducing policies with some teeth. The government must have greater political will and rein in the major companies that own the infrastructure. This would make it possible for smaller cable companies to move to fibre optic and provide access to high-speed Internet to those who do not have it.

The same applies to cellular technology. Towers are put up, but there are areas without cellular reception. This clearly demonstrates that high-speed Internet is not a government priority. If it were, the CRTC's performance would have improved a long time ago. We have to give it the means to do its job and rein in the corporations that own the infrastructure so that all of Quebec can have high-speed Internet.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to rise today to talk about the economic statement.

Members have heard me speak a lot about wild salmon and small business, but affordable housing is also something that is dear to my heart. We know that for many Canadians, finding affordable housing was a crisis well before this pandemic, and this crisis has just made things even worse. In my riding, for example, housing prices have soared, while many people have been left behind.

Nothing in this legislation actually addresses the housing crisis that is raging across our country, especially for many people who have lost their jobs. Young people are already feeling the pressure on their mental health from the pandemic, and many of them are working two or three jobs just to pay rent.

We know that the Liberals have made many promises around housing, but it was the Liberals who pulled out of the national housing strategy in 1993.

In the 1970s and 1980s in Canada, co-op and non-market housing was around 10%. In Europe it is actually around 30%, but today, we are at less than 4%. Personally, I know how important it is because I am a product of co-op housing. It made a huge impact for me and for my family. It gave my parents a chance.

We can look to Europe, which is at 30%. We are at less than 4%. right now. The Liberals made a lot of promises that they would start to invest in affordable housing; we have not seen that promise delivered in communities, especially rural communities. I can speak from a rural lens, and we have not seen those critical, much-needed investments there. In fact, the federal government has downloaded dealing with the housing crisis and this huge lack of housing units onto the provinces, and in turn the provinces downloaded it onto local governments. Now, as members can imagine, after 27 years, the accumulated need has become literally hundreds of thousands of units. In fact, we hear that over 300,000 units are needed just for homeless people, never mind working people who are barely able to make ends meet and are living in precarious housing.

There are opportunities. We know that when we invest in affordable housing, it helps small business owners. The chambers of commerce in my riding are united in their top couple of priorities, and affordable housing is at or near the top of everybody's lists. Most businesses cannot continue to grow, because they cannot find employees. The pressure is on many working families who are working two or three jobs to make ends meet, and even on small business owners who cannot find safe, secure and affordable housing. This is something everybody should have access to. It is about priorities, and governing is about priorities.

The Liberals said they were going to invest in affordable housing, but we have not seen that roll out. We heard their commitment around veterans. We all made a commitment in this House in the last Parliament to end veterans' homelessness by 2025, but we have not seen an investment in housing for veterans. In fact, two previous rounds of funding went by, and the Qualicum Beach Legion cited this in an application to get funding to end veterans homelessness. They needed to get some data to start that planning stage to build affordable housing similar to Cockrell House in Victoria, where homeless veterans are housed and given a safe, secure place to live and the supports they need, especially if they have been struggling or suffering from disabilities or from PTSD. Cockrell House has saved many lives, but there is only one place, on South Vancouver Island. There is nothing north of the Malahat, for example, and the Legion just got a rejection notice from the national housing strategy research and planning source.

People are just frustrated. They want to help to protect those who put their lives on the line overseas to protect the most vulnerable. They signed up to serve our country and they are not getting the support that they need and deserve. People are looking to make these really important steps, but they are not able to.

Another thing is that indigenous people are overrepresented in the housing crisis. I live in Port Alberni, where two-thirds of the people living on the streets are indigenous. The overrepresentation of indigenous people is clear. We can see it any day of the week. In fact, a week and a half ago we counted 38 people in doorways at night in a small rural city, and most of them were indigenous.

I was speaking to a lot of them. The next morning I was bringing coffee, hot chocolate and some snacks to people who were living on the streets and having a chance to catch up with them. They all had something in common; most of them, but not all of them, were living with health or addictions-related issues, but they all cited that housing was absolutely number one and that they could not rebuild their lives or get a fresh start without a safe, secure place to live.

It is so expensive to have people living on the street. They talked about their struggles and challenges, and we looked at the opportunities and what the solutions what might be.

We can look at Portugal, which has done a really good job of putting the most vulnerable and marginalized citizens into housing. They have opened up therapeutic treatment centres and facilities to help support treatment. It is long-term treatment, because we know that 28 days is not enough for treatment, although that is what the government still continues to offer, in most cases, because it simply cannot afford to deal with the issue right now. We are downloading dealing with housing, homelessness and the opioid crisis onto the provincial governments, and we need the federal government to step up to the plate. The provinces just cannot be left holding the bag any longer.

Portugal did that. Its government said it was going to get involved, take responsibility, lead and be leaders in tackling this really scary crisis when it was dealing with addictions. Portugal proved, through a strategy of making sure people have affordable housing and safe supports, that they could tackle their issues. Portugal had the highest levels of overdoses and addiction in Europe, and now they are the second lowest, so it has been proven that it can work.

I also want to talk about the cost. I have shared a story before in the House of Commons about a man whom I am going to call John. He has an addiction to alcohol, and every day he would drink and pass out. Fire, police or an ambulance were called, and he would get ferried up to the West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni. Then he would either stay in an acute care bed or be put in a cell, and he would be out the next day. This would happen day after day for years. I will ballpark the cost of this at $2,000 per day, and I would say that 300 days of the year this would happen. That is $600,000. They found a place for John in a low-barrier non-profit housing unit. Of course, B.C. stepped in and is building half of the non-market housing in the country, and they really need a federal partner. He stayed there for five years, and it was $500 a month to house this gentleman, which is $6,000 a year.

We have a choice: $6,000 a year, or $600,000 a year. There are those who do not think we should be investing in affordable housing and helping those people in need, and that it should not be coming out of taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers are paying for it already, and it is critical that we invest in this.

There was also a really important study that came out, the report of B.C.'s blue ribbon panel on crime reduction. We know that many people who end up homeless, especially those who end up living with addiction, feed their addiction by stealing or committing property crime to get by and to make ends meet. The report says that 80% of all crime comes from 20% of repeat offenders, and a male in that category typically costs more than $1.5 million to society through property crime, the judicial system and the health care system. I could speak all day on this. They say that every dollar spent in prevention, treatment, health, judicial reforms and helping people rebuild saves society $12. We could be saving literally millions of dollars while helping to support these people in rebuilding their lives.

When it comes to housing, we need a robust investment. When it comes to the opioid crisis, thousands of people are dying on the streets of our country. The Liberal government has still not declared it a public health emergency so that the necessary resources would be invested. We still have not decriminalized it, so people are living with a stigma in what is a health crisis. We need critical investments in therapeutic treatment centres, like Portugal, as well as investments in housing.

I would love to speak more on the many other issues that I touched on, such as small business, wild salmon, seniors and people living with disabilities, but today it is really important that we talk about the most marginalized.

If we are going to have a COVID recovery, it has to include investments in affordable housing. We have put in a rapid housing investment application and we are waiting for the federal government to decide on it. Literally, people are dying right now on the streets of Port Alberni and throughout my riding. We are looking to the federal government to be a partner, to help save lives, to help rebuild people's lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated today's intervention by our colleague from the NDP. He raises a very important point, which is that housing has to be one of the very basic amenities people must have in order to build a foundation for everything else they require and need in their lives.

The federal government is there with the national housing strategy, and applications are being received daily by CMHC and being reviewed. The CMHC has been directed to work with applicants to make these applications successful so that housing can be implemented.

I am sure that the member must be in favour of that program, given the impact it could have with the $50 billion attached to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are coming out of a crisis. The government has announced 3,000 units for the whole country through the rapid housing initiative, but we need over 300,000. That is less than 1%. It is about 300 units for B.C.

There is an application in from Port Alberni. The government was supposed to announce all the details of who the lucky recipients were and which communities had been selected by January 31. We still have not heard anything.

The other thing is that we do not have Reaching Home status in most rural communities, so rural communities are being left out even though they are still dealing with this incredible housing crisis. I have lost three of my friends' children on the streets in my community just in the last six weeks. It is not working. The government is not moving quickly enough.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up some very good points. I know housing is a big issue, and it definitely needs to be dealt with, as well as the opioid crisis. However, my concern is more with the mental state. We definitely need to do more for the mental state of these people. It is not good enough to just give them a house if they do not have the capacity to understand how to manage it.

Could the member give us his perspective on how we need to deal more with the mental crisis and in this way alleviate a lot of the other problems as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Complex situations require complex care. People living with mental health issues and addiction need more than housing. The member is absolutely right. They need treatment centres, with therapeutic supports, so that they can move forward and get the support they need to live a healthy life.

In B.C., the previous Liberal government closed down places like Riverview and support centres. We still have not really embarked as a nation, as Portugal has, on building therapeutic communities to give people the supports they need. That is what we need.

We need the federal government to step up to the plate, stop downloading on provinces and come up with an overarching strategy to deal with this crisis, whether it be the mental health crisis or the opioid crisis. We need therapeutic treatment to help support people living with trauma. It is absolutely critical, and I want to thank the member for that very good question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it really worries me when the Liberals talk about their rapid response on housing. What will that turn out to be? Is it maybe three units per community per year? That is ridiculous.

In my region, in the city of Timmins, a community of 45,000, we have 800 homeless people. When we add in the opioid and fentanyl crisis, people are dying at staggering rates, and yet we see indifference. Housing is not just for those who are dealing with the opioid crisis; seniors cannot get proper housing and families cannot get proper housing.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the vexatious way that the Liberals play with people's hopes on housing but refuse, year in and year out, to actually deliver a coherent plan to get people proper housing so they can be safe and live a good, decent life.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has been fighting the same fight for the most marginalized people who do not not have a safe, secure place to live and need the supports to move forward.

We have been hearing from the Liberal government for five years about its robust investments in its national housing strategy, yet we have not seen it. I am in Port Alberni where we have the same situation he has in Timmins—James Bay: people do not have safe, secure housing and are dying on our streets. These lives can be saved.

Everybody deserves a right to a safe, secure place to live. It is one of the United Nations sustainable development goals. It is a priority in the list of 14 sustainable development goals, yet the government likes to talk the talk but never walks the walks. As well, 3,000 units to deal with a crisis of over 300,000 homeless people in our country is absolutely appalling and shameful. The government needs to do something quickly. This is our opportunity for a proper COVID recovery.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. He went off the beaten path and talked about his riding's unique characteristics. I am going to do the same in my speech today. People talk about economic measures in such general terms and try to fit everyone into the same box to the point that we forget how different ridings across Quebec and Canada are from one another.

Many aspects of Bill C-14 deserve to be debated, but I would like to offer a more regional perspective.

People know I love faraway places. When the Government of Canada talks about the regions, it does not mean regions like the North Shore or Gaspé. Its meaning is broader. The regional relief and recovery fund, the RRRF, is built around the Pacific region, the Atlantic region, Ontario and Quebec. Those regions are as big as countries. To put it in a nutshell, that way of designating regions is practical for the government because then it can create programs based on thinking that seems arbitrary to us, the people of the North Shore, programs that adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

I will be basing my remarks on that example, because this approach has been, and continues to be, problematic in my region in terms of what the government is offering for COVID-19 through the RRRF, for example. This one-size-fits-all approach means that the money cannot be spent, although it is absolutely needed, of course.

I want to come back to the specific needs of the regions. My colleagues from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou can talk to you about their economies, which include natural resources, forestry and agriculture. People from those regions are concerned about jobs. There is also the Eastern Townships region. My colleague from Shefford might want to talk about agriculture and maple syrup—of which there is a seemingly unlimited global supply—but also about all the economic development and recovery projects happening in her region. The same is true for the Gaspé region.

I would like to look to the future. In the recovery that is just around the corner, we do not want drilling projects. There are the projects in the economic update, but there are also all the future projects that will be undertaken to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Magdalen Islands and the Gaspé want to revive the seal industry, which is a regional feature here too. There is also forestry, heritage and lighthouses to be saved in the Gaspé. My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia would also be willing to talk about it.

The same is true for Charlevoix, which relies on tourism, culture, gastronomy and international tourism. My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix could tell you all about it. There is also Montreal, with its aerospace and artificial intelligence industry. We could discuss it with my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is a proud Montrealer. There is also Quebec City, the national capital of Quebec, where our National Assembly is located and where culture and tourism are also very important.

Companies like Davie would also like a little boost as part of the economic recovery. We need to put the economic statement in the context of the current needs while looking at what is ahead for us.

I could go around Quebec to showcase all its regions here. What I want to show is that it is difficult to use a “one-size-fits-all” approach when designing programs and proposing measures, because that means people will not be able to access them.

That is why I feel it is important to talk about this heterogeneity. Although we want to collaborate on projects that affect all of the regions, we need to consider regional particularities, because every region has its own issues and challenges. When you have a one-size-fits-all program that does not benefit these people, everyone ends up penalized. Every region is distinct and has its own challenges and its own aspirations for development.

Speaking of regions, I have to talk about my own. I am the member of Parliament for Manicouagan. Like all members, I am biased. My riding, all 350,000 square kilometres of it, is the most beautiful. It might as well be made up of six countries. There are six RCMs, each of which has its own very different reality. One of my RCMs is the richest in all of Quebec, yet it borders the poorest one. As a member of Parliament, it is my duty to adapt, listen, be understanding and find different solutions for each one of these six different regions that make up the North Shore.

I am very fortunate to represent this riding that includes 1,400 kilometres of waterfront, forests, mountains and fauna. It is a veritable paradise, but at the same time we are facing our own specific challenges. I would have liked to talk about these challenges and the issues that the public would like us to be working on now and in the future. Obviously these are regional issues, but I think it is important to talk about the differences between these places so that people feel listened to and so that we can work better for them, including by adapting programs such as the RRRF. It would be a win-win situation.

There are many challenges in my riding. Take, for example, indigenous issues, which I am very concerned about. In my riding, 15% of people are members of the Naskapi or Innu first nations. These people live proudly in Nitassinan. I would like to lend my voice to the first nations in my region and make their wishes known. There are many issues to address. There is the issue of language, which is currently very important for first nations. This issue is not necessarily being addressed from an economic development perspective, even though it is an economic development issue. It affects education, culture and the importance of preserving the first nations' relationship with the land, water and forest. There is also the issue of police services, the funding for which was cut. There is less and less funding for that.

There is also the issue of housing, which was mentioned earlier and which is very important in my riding. The population is growing by leaps and bounds. The issue of protection officers is also important. Communities need them because fishing is part of their development. There is also the issue of first nations health. There are so many examples that I could give, but I will stop there because my time is running out. I could keep talking about these issues for a long time.

There is also the issue of roads. In my riding there are no roads within a 400-kilometre area. We border Newfoundland and Labrador and there is a ferry. The interprovincial link was not created by the Canadian government. There has to be a way to open up the North Shore and build a road that would also benefit the people living east of us, our neighbours in Newfoundland and Labrador. It could be a development project in our area. As we saw yesterday, there may be exploratory drilling on the lower North Shore. I would prefer that a road be built so that people could travel and we could develop tourism or have more respectful development of the environment, which is what my constituents want. I could go on talking for a long time.

I talked about the regions in general, but, zooming out, my integration model would apply to all of Quebec. We have put forward our agendas for seniors, the environment and health, and I would like the government to listen to what Quebec and the regions want so it can harmonize programs and budgets according to people's needs.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, although I have to say I am a little disappointed that she described her riding as the most beautiful, when she knows perfectly well that Drummond holds that title. Let us just say that in a beauty contest, her riding on the North Shore would be the runner-up.

Seriously though, she talked about concerns specific to the regions. Her riding is immense and has a lot going for it. Her riding also has problems with high-speed Internet. Our colleague from Salaberry—Suroît talked about this earlier, as did I. I know that my colleague's riding, Manicouagan, made a lot of progress in terms of expanding high-speed Internet access when people took matters into their own hands and got some great projects up and running.

There are still challenges though, and I would like to hear her opinion on programs that subsidize rolling out Internet access in the regions and on what the federal government has been doing in this area.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Drummond. I would say that Drummond and Manicouagan are tied in terms of the beauty of our ridings.

High-speed Internet access is very problematic in my region. As has been mentioned, the riding is very large. These days, high-speed Internet is the driving force of economic development and vital to keeping our people from leaving. A lot of businesses know this. We see it ourselves with teleworking, where we have to use the Internet every day. Not having Internet access means the devitalization of our communities and poorer populations. We need only think of education and the people who cannot attend class online. There are even some witnesses from my riding who cannot appear before parliamentary committees because they do not have access to Zoom. One might not expect it, but it is an essential service.

I think this is taking too long. The money needs to get out quickly. The Quebec government has a faster timetable than the federal government, so I urge the feds to give this money to Quebec City, which can then deploy these services. It is urgent, it is essential, it is necessary and the people are waiting.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for the love she has shown for all our regions in Quebec.

I know that my colleague is quite concerned about her region, which has its own specific needs and whose economy relies mostly on seasonal industries. When it comes to the government's vision and specific approaches, what would be her position and recommendations to best respond to the needs?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her question about the importance of seasonal work in Manicouagan. I did say seasonal work, not seasonal workers. Seasonal work is essential because many people work in tourism, the fisheries or the forestry sector, which are the economic pillars of my riding. These people live in small communities of 200, 300 or 400 people. There are 45 communities in my riding.

These people do not necessarily have access to other employment, and we do not want them to leave, either. We do not want these villages to die off. On the contrary, we want to maintain and develop them. Amazingly, we now realize that the fact that these people have access to EI not only gets them through the spring gap they once had to live with, but also enables them to stay and help develop the region. The EI program has become a tool for regional economic development. I hate to say it, but it is truly an insurance, no pun intended.

The government is introducing many new benefits, and I am pleased that there is money for those who are sick and for caregivers. I truly hope that the available funds will not be divided among more people. I hope that contributions will be adjusted accordingly rather than reduced, which would allow us meet everyone's needs. Our regions really need seasonal work to be recognized.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic that on this day, Groundhog Day, not unlike the plot of the movie of the same name, we find ourselves back in this place making further adjustments to the government's response to the pandemic. I do not offer that comment as a criticism of the government. I raise that point to serve as a reminder that we have been here before.

I also raise the point because we should all recognize that we may be here again, doing something similar in the future. I believe all of us would agree that, ideally, we would prefer that would not be the case. I am certain we would much rather see these troubled times put behind us. However, we know that the vaccine rollout has not, to date, gone well for Canada. We know that new and more deadly variants of this virus are being identified in different parts of Canada, and that should be concerning to us all.

For the record, I do not mention the slow pace of vaccine rollouts in my comments today as a political tack. I am certain that the government, like any government, would like to see a more timely and successful vaccine rollout. I would also add that that is not what we are here to debate in this bill today.

I am raising these concerns for a different reason, and I will come back to that. Let us first acknowledge that this bill proposes measures that we all support.

We support the enhancements to the Canada child benefit. The political notion of providing direct support to families was actually developed by a Conservative government in spite of the Liberals' claims at the time that parents would waste the money on beer and popcorn. When they came to power, the Liberals adopted this program and made other improvements. I have to give them credit for that.

In Canada, during the pandemic, the official opposition also supported programs such as the CERB, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account. There may have been some disagreements about the best way to implement them, however, in principle, we agreed with these programs.

For that reason, I will not be focusing today on the elements of the debate on which we agree. As many of us know, this bill is essentially divided into seven different parts. The official opposition supports most parts of the bill. However, we strongly disagree with part 7.

Part 7 of the bill proposes to increase the Borrowing Authority Act, basically to add another $323 billion in incremental borrowing until March 31, 2024. The official opposition would prefer to split this from the bill so that matters we do agree on can be voted on separately. We believe it is important to have a separate debate on that borrowing, which significantly increases our debt. Before some might say to themselves that I am being a typical Conservative, I would ask that everyone hears me out.

First, let me summarize briefly where we are. In 2015, the Liberal government promised to run modest deficits before returning to a balanced budget in 2019. Every person, whether in the chamber or here virtually, knows this did not happen. I am not here to revisit that, but simply to place it on the record as being a factual point.

In 2019, given the absence of following that fiscal plan, a new fiscal plan came from the government, and it was based on debt-to-GDP ratio. The Liberal thinking told us that as long as our debt-to-GDP ratio remained within certain parameters, everything would be fine. However, every person participating in this debate, whether in the chamber or attending virtually, knows that the debt-to-GDP targets are have now been thrown out the window. Again, I raise that because it is factually true.

We are now in a new situation, where the latest Liberal thinking has it that we cannot afford not to borrow more money, since interest rates are so low. Just because interest rates are this low it does not mean that it is okay to borrow so much money.

One has to wonder: What would happen if this plan, much like the Liberals' previous financial plans, proved to be wrong? What will happen if, or rather when, interest rates rise?

It is our job to be asking these questions. We need to ask ourselves how the decisions we are making today will affect Canadians in the future. If we are being honest with ourselves, how would we answer that question?

Some may say that hypothetical questions are irrelevant and that we need to focus on the now, since we are in the middle of a pandemic. I would like to take these people back to the same period last year.

One year ago, we had a health minister who told us that border closures would not work, and that travel restrictions would not only not work, but also could actually be harmful. We were told that they could stigmatize others. On that same note, we were also told that wearing masks was not recommended, as they would provide a false sense of security and should be avoided.

Now we all know how those polices turned out. I am not looking to belittle the government or government members. I am simply looking to point out how spectacularly wrong this advice was. How and why does this matter in the bill that we are debating today? It is because we have to accept that we have new and more deadly variants of this virus and that we are well behind in the vaccination fight against the original variant.

We may be in this fight for much longer than any of us would have ever anticipated or want to be. Obviously, we all have to hope and work hard to ensure that that is not the case. At the same time, we have to be prepared. That brings me back to part 7 of this bill, which fiscally proposes unprecedented borrowing to continue the firehose-like spending.

I would like to believe that most of us, even if it is not all of us, understand that the federal government cannot keep spending at the same rate as it has been. These expenditures are not sustainable in the long term. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said so, as did other leading economists.

Obviously, the government is very much hoping that this record spending will help us get through the pandemic. However, at some point, we will have to step back and ask ourselves whether the rate of spending is commensurate with how long we can actually fight the pandemic.

That brings me to my next question. Do we want these issues to be asked, debated and examined by Parliament or do we want to continue to allow the Liberal government to sign blank cheques and trust it to spend money in secret, just as it has been doing so far?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

We have an official opposition, and a third and a fourth party for a reason. It is to hold the government to account and now, more than ever, we need to do that job. I am hopeful that other members of this House will see the benefits of splitting part 7 from this bill and will agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard a number of Conservatives over the last week and a half go on about how we were told back in the day to not wear masks as it was not important versus where we are today. It goes without saying that the entire world learned and adapted to what it came to understand and know about the virus and the way it spread.

Yes, in the beginning we were saying just washing our hands should be enough. As the world started to understand more and more about this virus, it changed and adapted behaviours and recommendations. I cannot understand why the Conservatives are continuing to critique advice given a year ago versus the advice we have now based on the information we have come to know.

For example, I am wearing this mask, and I do even when I speak. I realize that when I speak, the particles in my mouth might go further than two metres and there is a desk full of people sitting right in front of me. We adapt, we learn and we change our behaviours as we move along.