Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2021

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate I am not in Ottawa when I talk about Bill C-14 today. That is where my constituents expect all MPs to be when the House is sitting.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank my constituents in Souris—Mouse Mountain. I thank them for having faith in me as their member of Parliament, a role I am proud to serve in each and every day. I also commend them for how they have been handling this past year and all the uncertainty that came with it. It has been inspiring to see communities come together in the face of adversity, and I encourage everyone to keep up the great work. They are making a difference.

With respect to today's debate, I am disappointed but not surprised at the state Canada finds itself in thanks to the government's uncontrolled spending and lack of action where it counts. As it stands, Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. This places us just above above Italy, a country that has been plagued with fiscal problems and instability for years now. This is not exactly a ranking to be proud of, yet the Liberals have not taken any concrete measures to improve Canada's standing in a meaningful way, despite their claims to the opposite.

In fact, under these Liberals, Canada has seen the slowest rate of economic growth in the G7. It is no mystery why competitiveness has fallen dramatically, as these go hand in hand. Without solid economic growth, there is no incentive to invest in Canada, and without those necessary investments, Canada becomes less and less competitive on the world stage.

Furthermore, the government has done little to nothing to encourage actual meaningful investment in the industries that need it now more than ever, such as the energy industry. One example of the government's failure in this regard is the recent cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline stood to benefit thousands of Canadian workers through the jobs it would create, not just temporarily during construction but also through the longer-term jobs associated with maintaining and operating this pipeline. In some cases, Keystone XL and the economic boost from it was bolstering entire communities. The economic spinoff would have created significant private sector industry tax dollars, which provide for many social programs.

The Prime Minister does not seem to realize the potential severe impacts of the trickle-down effect. When any key project like Keystone XL is cancelled, it immediately impacts the workers who are directly employed to work on it, such as construction crews or transportation companies. Many will need to consider moving elsewhere to find gainful employment, such as those working for service companies, restaurants, movie theatres, clothing stores, city, town and village staff and more. This means that many communities experience a mass exodus, something we continue to see the devastating impacts of.

I would like to take a brief time to talk about just two of the many of my constituents hugely affected by this situation. Jeff is a young oil field worker from the Moosomin area who lost his job in March with the usual slow down from the spring breakup, and who went on EI and spent months trying to get support. However, Service Canada closed down and there was nobody to talk to in person. Nobody would answer his phone calls or respond with call backs. He was desperate and close to broke.

Jeff searched high and low for work and found some with K+S north of Regina. He was then laid off. He went to Fort St. John and found work as an apprentice pipe-fitter, but he was laid off again before Christmas. He was rehired last month and finally, fingers crossed, last week, which is now closing in on a year, we managed to get him in contact with somebody and hopefully he will get some resolution to his EI issue. Bill C-14 has done nothing to assist him or many others like him.

Let me also introduce the House to Ryan, another hard worker who lost his job due to the government's lack of interest in assisting people who work in the energy sector. He is a young father of two, whose wife is expecting her third child. He is struggling to make ends meet in a community that has been severely impacted over the last five years by the loss of jobs. He searched and searched for work throughout this time, spending any savings he had to survive, paying power bills, heating bills, clothing bills and family bills, as they had a brand new baby. They were so desperate they had to start going to the food bank. I thank all those who donate and assist the food banks, specifically the Salvation Army and the Community Hamper Association of Estevan, including Char Seeman, Julie Bayda, Mel Pearson and Shelley Dayman, just to name a few.

Christmastime came to Ryan and his family and the limited food they got had a huge impact on the family's self-esteem and mental health. Ryan finally found some work last month, and the first thing he and his wife Stephanie did was take what extra cash they had to help by buying support meals for others who are just as desperate.

These Canadians do not want a handout; they want a hand up. They want jobs. In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, communities like Estevan, Weyburn, Moosomin and Coronach were hit hard. We saw first-hand what happens when a key industry is reduced to a fraction of what it once was.

This pandemic has compounded the problems. Businesses closed left, right and centre, and not just those connected to the energy industry. Restaurants, retail stores, supply companies, auto garages, etc., were forced to close their doors because the customers were simply not there. Families had to uproot from the towns and cities and, most importantly, the people they knew and loved, because they had no way to pay the bills.

When the federal government, specifically the Prime Minister, failed to advocate for the continuation of projects like Keystone XL, it was tantamount to telling everybody affected, the energy workers, that the government does not care about them. It is not just Keystone XL; Keystone is just one high-profile issue. The energy industry in general has suffered from a lack of support and advocacy by the current government.

As I stated before, Canada has dropped in its ranking of competitiveness, and part of that is certainly due to the lack of investment in our energy sector. Why would a private company see Canada as a stable place to invest when its our Prime Minister regularly helps to stymie the network of development and large energy projects that would help boost our economy? This lack of leadership and support is pushing businesses away from Canada, and the Prime Minister does not care. It is clear that he cares more about the image of his party. As I am an MP for a riding that has seen the devastation that his apathy causes, I am truly disgusted. Perhaps the Prime Minister will wake up should Enbridge Line 5 be cancelled, but I am not counting on it.

I would like to go back to the numbers now, as I believe they paint an alarming picture of the situation Canada is currently facing. While we certainly understand that programs are needed to help Canadians get through the pandemic, it is concerning that there seems to be a plan to increase spending and yet no plan to recover our economy. This year, the deficit is projected to be over $380 billion, which will bring the national debt to a record-setting $1.1 trillion. We have now gone two years without a federal budget, and the bill we are debating today does not outline how we are going to dig ourselves out of this deep hole. It is both reckless and irresponsible.

When these alarmingly high numbers are coupled with a Prime Minister who does not aggressively advocate for Canada, whether in regard to our vaccine supply, the future of our much-needed energy projects or the entirety of the oil and gas industry, which accounts for over 10% of our country's economy, it paints a scary picture of our future. Even before COVID-19, we were worried that our children and grandchildren would be footing the bill for the current government's ludicrous spending, and now that seems to have become an inevitability. In fact, it will be our great-great-grandchildren will have to wait see a recovery from this.

In conclusion, my constituents want to be confident that their Prime Minister has a plan for them and for the recovery of this country's economy. Bill C-14 would do absolutely nothing to instill this confidence. If anything, all it shows is more money going out the door, without any kind of indication as to how we will rebuild. In a time of fear and uncertainty, the government owes it to Canadians to show real, committed leadership, but all the Prime Minister does is add to his laundry list of failures.

As for me, I will continue to fight for the great people of Souris—Moose Mountain, including the energy workers, the agricultural producers, the small business owners and everyone in-between. Our country deserves much better than the current Liberal government has given over the last five years and it is time for a change.

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

Questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I was actually raising my hand for questions and comments, and I am speaking as well afterwards. May I ask a question, or did I miss the window for that?

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

Yes, the member may ask a question, of course.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague comes from Saskatchewan and I am from Alberta; we have similar issues with the impact on energy workers. There is a lot of frustration with some of the earlier bills: Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We know those bills predate the pandemic. However, when we are thinking about how the economy is going to recover post-pandemic, those bills are a big barrier to Canada's looking like an attractive investment destination.

Could the member speak further to some of that legislation and share his feedback on what could and should be done in response to that climate of Canada's not looking like a great place to invest with these bills in place, particularly in the context of our energy sector?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right. Ultimately, we are seeing investment dollars leaving this country, left, right and centre. The money is leaving from the western part of the country, heading south or to other parts, because investors are seeking better places to invest. Why would they not?

If we want to talk about what is going on in Bill C-14, I would like to point to the Borrowing Authority Act that the bill is going to amend. The government seems very quiet about the fact the bill is going to increase the amount it can borrow to $1,831,000,000,000. That is sort of like when someone gets their Visa bill and they have to pay their limit, and all of a sudden they see at the top that Visa has increased the amount, without telling them.

I do not hear the government speaking at all about this amount, so that Canadians could truly see how much the government is actually trying to increase its spending.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I think the fall economic statement was full of intentions and promises to spend billions of dollars going forward, but it lacked a real plan or any concrete sense of direction for how the government planned to actually invest that money. That is deeply troubling, especially considering all it has failed to do in the past.

I would like to know if my colleague is concerned about that lack of a plan, that lack of a planning process, and all the ad hockery in the fall economic statement as it pertains to the future of the Canadian economy.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member makes a very good point, and that is the fact that the present Liberal government has done no planning whatsoever for the last five years.

A prime example is right here, on investments and getting people and businesses going in this country, but it is also evident in how the government has been doing with the rollout of vaccines and PPE. There was no planning. The government made a statement on a Friday, before the weekend, and then all of a sudden, without hearing any responses or having any idea of what is out there, it rolled it out without any type of plan for its impacts.

The government has not talked with the Conservatives at all on this aspect. It rolls things out on its own. Planning and being a team coach means talking to players. It means hearing from each and every one of them; then taking parts of what they say to help improve what is being done. It is not just running out helter-skelter without having an official plan and procedures. It is not A, Z, B, D; it is A, B, C, D.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague correctly, for the past weeks and months, the Liberals have been talking about a “Team Canada” approach to COVID-19 and negotiating with the United States. That is just lip service though, because in practice, they are not really behaving like part of a team.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, that certainly is correct. As someone who has been involved in coaching hockey my entire life, the one thing we learned is that when we talk about team work, we talk about working with the team.

That would be someone who is actually working with the team, and the Liberal government has not made any effort to work with the team. It is purely acting as a coach who does not talk to—

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-14 and pick up on many of the themes discussed by my colleague from Souris-Moose Mountain. I do not know nearly as much about sports as he does, so I probably will not be as well versed on those issues, but I certainly share a concern about the impact on our energy sector.

Right now the government is talking about its various proposals for government spending. In reality, the government is saying that it is not going to support the existence of jobs and will put in place policies that will likely kill jobs. However, it tells us not not worry; it will have some money afterward.

What I hear from Canadians over and over again is that they are interested in working. Their desire is to get back into employment and have the joy, satisfaction and pride that comes from earning income. They also understand that the government's long-term approach is not realistic. We cannot have fewer and fewer jobs with more and more government subsidy and expect this to be an economic plan that will give us the capacity to provide support to people in the long run.

We are debating Bill C-14, which lays out aspects of the government's fiscal agenda. Part of the bill is for correcting errors in previous bills. The government has put forward other bills and pushed hard to rush them through quickly, but they have had significant technical flaws or other flaws. They have had a big negative impact on individuals and businesses. We are carefully reviewing and understanding this legislation to make sure we do not create more errors in the process of the government correcting errors it has made in the past.

The Conservatives are supportive of providing essential support to people in the midst of very challenging circumstances. However, our major concern, as we look at the government's fiscal plan for the present and for the future, is that it does not have a plan for jobs, growth and getting Canadians back to work.

There is a discussion of providing various kinds of benefits without thinking about jobs and growth. However, the government misses the reality that if we do not have a plan for jobs and growth over the long term, inevitably we are going to run out of the fiscal capacity to provide Canadians with the support they need. We have to be growing the economy and creating wealth before we are in a position to redistribute it. That is where I want to focus my arguments today.

This is the frame through which I see questions of fiscal policy. The cost of government programs depends on two things. It depends, first, on how much those programs allocate to individuals who need them and, second, on how many people need them. If we have very generous unemployment benefits when a very small percentage of the population is unemployed, it is going to cost us less than if a larger percentage of the population is unemployed in the midst of lower benefits. It is not just a function of the size of benefits we are providing; it is a function of the level of need for those benefits, as well as the size of them.

Logically, then, if we notice enormous levels of government spending and runaway deficits, as we see right now, and we need to reduce government spending at some point, then there are two ways of doing that. One might be to reduce the amount of money allocated to individuals or as part of individual benefit programs. The second might be to strategically think about how we can reduce the need for government benefits. If we can find ways of increasing the employment rate, there will be less need for unemployment benefits and it will cost the government less even if it is providing sufficient benefits to help people in those situations. Similarly, we might say this with respect to criminal justice: If we can reduce the crime rate, we will need to spend less money on responding to crime.

If we look at the causes of the need for government response and can find ways of addressing the underlying need, then it costs government less and we have more fiscal capacity to provide resources to people in situations of significant need. I think we would all generally agree that reducing people's need for or reliance on government services is a much better route to go than simply reducing the availability of those services without taking into consideration how we can address the issue of people's real or perceived need for them.

This underlines the point that we should not be measuring the success, effectiveness or commitment of government in terms spending alone. We might have a government that is spending a lot of money on providing benefits to people but doing so in a way that is poorly targeted and does not address the underlying root causes of the need. It is therefore not there for those who are in a position to need support. On the other hand, we could imagine a situation where a government has very generous and targeted benefits in situations where people have need and at the same time is addressing root causes such that there is less need for government services. In the latter case, that government would be spending less money. It would be spending less money by having more targeted benefits and by thinking about the need for government services, not just about the magnitude of the services in place.

As we think about the current dynamic with COVID and the various economic challenges facing our country, it is important that we think about creating jobs and growth, reducing the need for government services, strengthening communities and strengthening the supports individuals face independent of government. We would have a greater capacity to focus the public resources we have on those who are not able to find assistance any other way. If we have a lower unemployment rate, it stands to reason that we can provide more, better, longer-term effective supports to those who are not employed. However, if we have a higher level of unemployment, our collective capacity to do that is somewhat reduced. Unfortunately, what we see right now from the government is the lack of a plan for jobs and growth. That is really what is going to get us moving.

There are many different ways we can think about what that plan could and should include. What we need to keep in mind is that a great deal of our jobs are coming, and will continue to come, from resource extraction and manufacturing. There are a variety of sectors in our economy that people are working in, but there are many people in my riding and across the country who are working in resource extraction and manufacturing. We need a government that appreciates the value of that work being done, one that does not live in some fantasy world where everybody is working in an office behind a computer. The hard work people do with their hands in resource extraction and manufacturing are the jobs of the present and future and require our protection and support.

What we see from the government is a piling on of regulation and red tape that nominally is often about the environment but is very ineffective at allowing us to reach our environmental objectives. We also see a sense of unwillingness to defend the rule of law in cases where natural resource development projects have been through an appropriate review process and have been signed off by affected communities, but there are a few people trying to physically blockade them. We have cases of end runs, where projects have gone through the whole process and people are trying to stop them, even if they meet the existing requirements. That undermines investor confidence in the Canadian economy.

In a conversation I had with an ambassador regarding the opportunities in Canadian energy development, the person said that, more and more, Canada is being seen as a country of political risk. People can do all the work and have all the technical pieces in place and the project can make sense and conform to regulations, but there is a risk that some political factors will come into play and the rug will be pulled out from under them. That kind of environment makes it very hard for investors to want to invest in Canada.

People try to make the argument in the House that resource extraction and manufacturing industries are industries of the past. On the contrary, these investments are being made in other parts of the world; we are just not seeing many of those investments happen to the same degree in Canada. When we see growth in energy sectors outside of Canada but not the same kind of investments being made in Canada, we see that the problem is political.

In conclusion, to be able to provide support to Canadians who are unemployed, we need to have more Canadians who are employed. That means respecting and supporting our resource extraction and manufacturing sectors. That means working to have reasonable regulations, not unpredictable, constantly changing red tape for people who want to pursue projects. That is what we need for jobs, growth and opportunities—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am paraphrasing, but toward the beginning of his speech, the member said the government has not been doing much to support existing jobs. That is probably one of the most ludicrous statements I have heard in the House.

I will recap for the member. In period one, there were 3.6 million jobs; in period two, 3.9 million; in period three, 4.2 million; and in period four, 4.1 million. The job numbers stay consistent up to periods nine, 10 and 11: there were 3.3 million, 2.5 million and 1 million jobs. These are the job numbers in the country, and each period is reflective of a one-month period from the beginning of the pandemic. This is the number of jobs in this country that have been supported by the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

How is it possible, when so much of our economy is being supported by the government right now through this program, that the member can say the government is not doing anything to support existing jobs?

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

Madam Speaker, despite the volume, the reality of what I said is completely true. It is evident in the member's question. He is measuring success by the amount of money the government is shovelling out the door, instead of looking at our unemployment rate and seeing that Canada has a very high unemployment rate, even relative to many other countries that are similarly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have spent substantially more than many other peer countries, yet we have higher unemployment.

What I talked about in my speech is the importance of measuring results, not just saying that we spent a bunch of money so look at how great we are. We should be measuring the results and the impact.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am reminded of Félix Leclerc, who said the best way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing.

What is needed in order to jump-start the economy are vaccines. Two provisions in Bill C-14 will help speed up distribution, but our dependence on foreign vaccines will increase further because the Patent Act was not updated before September 30.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of reviewing the Patent Act, in relation to the highly specialized resources we have in Quebec and Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the quotation that my colleague shared at the beginning of her question. I think it underlines the fact that work is not just about earning money. Positively, for many people work is about their engagement with and their investment in the community. It is a way of earning income but is so much more than just a way of earning income.

To her question about the Patent Act, perhaps a longer discussion can happen on that at some point. I do think we need to work to increase domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity. We have called on the government to have a plan on vaccines and are regularly doing so, recognizing how far behind the government is. We see clearly the government's failure in procuring a necessary supply of vaccine, as now it is trying to draw supply that is generally focused on helping developing countries. This demonstrates how much it has failed to secure the necessary domestic supply of vaccine, and it is showing up in the numbers as well.

There are many areas we need to look at about how to do this better.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we have seen over the decades, a number of trade agreements have gutted our manufacturing base in Canada and refocused us on exporting raw materials, such as raw bitumen and raw logs. We are seeing this problem right now with vaccines and the lack of pharmaceutical capacity in this country. We used to have a lot of capacity for this. We used to be a leader in vaccine manufacturing and providing vaccines around the world.

What does the hon. member think we should be focusing on here? Have we had the wrong focus? Should we be doing more on the value-added side and less exporting of raw materials? As we are seeing with the death of a pipeline—

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to underline, in response to that question, that generally the data suggests Canada has benefited significantly as a result of most of the trade agreements that it has entered into and that they have been associated with significant economic growth in Canada.

There are many opportunities in different industries, including in value added, but we have to emphasize competitiveness as opposed to building up insulation—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House.

As part of the discussion on the November 30 economic statement, I would like to provide some concrete examples of the impact the crisis is having on my riding, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, and the measures that need to be put in place to help the people and organizations back home.

There is also the issue of the need for the current government to be transparent on spending and the fact that it is unacceptable that it has not introduced a proper budget in more than two years. I think this is an ideal opportunity to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's calls for a green economic recovery.

The opposition does more than just criticize. As parliamentarians, it is important to acknowledge the government whenever it does something right. I must say that, as far as the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé are concerned, the fact that Bill C-14 promises additional funding for the regional relief and recovery fund is important because many of our businesses still need support.

In Chaleur Bay, in the Gaspé, the Maison d'aide et d'hébergement L'Émergence, which provides emergency support for women who are victims of domestic violence and their children, will soon open a second-hand shop that will fund the organization's services and help women return to the job market. L'Émergence has already received $80,000 from the RRRF program. That is not peanuts. I applaud the commitment of the organization and its director to helping women and families dealing with domestic violence. Without this funding, this project would have been in jeopardy.

In Matapédia-et-les-Plateaux, the Corporation de développement économique also received funding from the RRRF program. This spring, a welcome centre will be set up for visitors touring the Route des belvédères, a route of magnificent locations in the Gaspé that are still not very well known. The $56,000 provided by the RRRF program is vital to the coordination of the project. The fact that the federal government is maintaining and enhancing its investments in this program, which gives the RCM a lot of room to manoeuver, is all important.

On a somewhat less positive note, I want to talk about health care. The flaws in Quebec's health care network were exposed by the pandemic, but this situation is completely ignored in the Liberal government's economic statement. Bill C-14 does not provide a substantial and sustainable increase in health transfers, but it does allow for additional restrictions and oversight from federal government. My colleagues who have already spoken have made it clear that the federal government's approach does not respect Quebec's jurisdictions, especially with respect to health care. This government wants to interfere in how the provinces manage themselves, but it has yet to present a clear and transparent budget since the beginning of this pandemic. Transparency is a whole other story. I will get back to it later.

Quebec's experience with long-term care for seniors, for example, is a prime example of the impact of underfunding health care. A report on the investigation of a seniors' residence in my riding, Résidence des Bâtisseurs de Matane, was released last week. The investigation had been done in response to complaints, and the report outlined some serious issues with the care provided to residents, and in particular the most vulnerable and incapacitated ones.

Let us be clear. We are not talking about a lack of standards or a flawed monitoring system within the institution. The report is clear. The crux of the problem is the lack of resources to ensure the well-being of seniors. There is therefore absolutely no point in having the federal government create more standards. What the government needs to do is invest to address the desperate shortage of qualified personnel.

The shortage of workers in health care, and, incidentally, in many other areas, is a major problem in my region. The heartbreaking situation of seniors living in the Résidence des Bâtisseurs de Matane is a perfect illustration of the results of federal cuts to health transfers. Perhaps the current government needs to be reminded that with an aging population comes an increased need for long-term care. Since the health care transfers to Quebec were not increased, services for the most vulnerable seniors in our society have gone downhill throughout Quebec's health care system.

Successive Quebec governments have had to adjust to a decrease in available funding for health care. They have turned over responsibility for some care to private companies, but private means profit. That is how things work in a capitalist society.

I think it is fairly obvious that privatization is not the best approach to health care for a population as vulnerable as the elderly because it prioritizes profit over care.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's expectation for increased health transfers for Quebec and the provinces. They are united in their demand for more money, Quebec's National Assembly supports that demand, and if the federal government is truly concerned about our seniors, it must agree and increase its annual share of Quebec's health care costs to 35% on an ongoing basis.

The Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec supports this demand. Members may recall that in 2019, the provinces, Quebec and the territories were covering 45% of health care costs compared to the Canadian government's measly 22%.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, the way things are going, the federal share of health care funding will slide to 20% by 2026. We need to stop the bleeding now.

Another sector that could certainly use some extra attention is tourism. The tourism industry is vital to the Gaspé and Bas-Saint-Laurent, two regions that overlap in my riding. The tourism industry in the Gaspé accounts for more than 3,000 jobs in high season, 1,300 businesses, more than 785,000 visitors per year, and revenues estimated at more than $380 million annually. In the summer of 2019 alone, the economic benefits of this industry totalled $271 million, making that a record year. In the Bas-Saint-Laurent region, tourism is also an essential economic sector, accounting for some 850 businesses, 7,800 jobs, 1,143,000 visitors per year, and over $345 million in economic benefits annually. We must absolutely support this industry, which is among those most affected by the pandemic.

Hotel operators, promoters and presenters of cultural events, restaurant owners and tour operators have been asking us for many weeks about the terms and conditions of the highly affected sectors credit availability program. More than two months after the program was announced in the fall economic statement and one month after the launch of the HASCAP by the minister responsible, the government finally announced the terms and conditions of the program.

However, from day one of the pandemic, the Bloc Québécois has talked about the importance of developing assistance programs that are adapted to the reality of each industry and each region. Standardized approaches are not working. In May, the Bloc was very clearly calling for targeted assistance for seasonal industries, the tourism industry in particular. Some programs such as the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program were not well suited to these sectors.

When the government comes up with a game plan for the economic recovery it will have to consider the needs of the regions. In fact, it should be thinking about that right now. The federal government needs to understand how important the tourism industry is to the economic vitality of many regions in Quebec, including the ones I represent.

Let us now talk about the Canada recovery benefit. Many workers back home, including indigenous workers, have had to deal with unreasonable delays due to having to navigate the machinery of the federal government. I am thinking about a self-employed worker from Saint-Omer in Chaleur Bay who waited eight weeks for the federal government to verify whether she was eligible for the Canada recovery benefit, which blocked CRB payments. Finally, the lockdown was lifted in her sector and she went back to work. Nevertheless, eight weeks without income is a long time. We understand the need for these verifications, but the government assured us it had the necessary staff to do the work quickly. Obviously that is not the case, and it has not been since the start of the pandemic.

People without any income who need support are not getting anything. Others, who should not be eligible and who could be working, are receiving multiple cheques. We are asking for a little more diligence, and for the government to accelerate its audits.

Also, economic recovery goes hand in hand with significant spending. It is more crucial than ever that the government be transparent. The Parliamentary Budget Officer denounced the lack of transparency and accountability in federal finances. The government has not presented any fiscal anchors to ensure that spending is viable in the long term, nor has it presented a budget since the beginning of its mandate, which is not only unacceptable, but irresponsible as well. The federal government should be helping citizens, organizations and businesses, but it should also be accountable to the House and to the public. It should be accountable in particular to the younger generation, the young Canadians who will be living with the costs of this economic recovery, those who are also demanding a green recovery.

In its recovery plan, the Bloc Québécois puts forward green transition measures involving the use of hydroelectricity and other clean energies such as biomass, wind power, solar energy and geothermal energy. Canada must stop basing its economic recovery on the fossil fuel industry. The economic recovery should not be accompanied by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. We need to invest in sectors that reduce our environmental footprint and that will have long-term economic benefits for Quebec and Canada.

Businesses here, such as Lion Electric in Saint-Jérôme, a manufacturer of zero-emission heavy vehicles, are already benefiting from the transition. We can reduce our net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, as the government intends to do, but we need to implement policies that go well beyond what we have seen so far. Action is urgently needed.

The government should seize the opportunity and show that it is truly a green government, that it really has an ecological conscience and that it wants to ensure the well-being and survival of its regions.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc member's intervention should serve as an example to my Conservative colleagues as to what a proper speech should be like. She was by no means flattering to the government. She addressed her concerns and also mentioned at the beginning what she liked about the bill, but most importantly, she stuck to the content of the bill, which was extremely refreshing. If this ever gets to committee, I hope she will have the opportunity to have her concerns addressed there.

I did pick up on one particular thing the member talked about. That was about the possibility of delays with respect to the CERB and other government programs. This bill has been in the House now for seven days; most budget bills are only here for five days. There is no doubt that there are going to be delays in services to Canadians as a result of the tactics that the Conservatives are using right now.

Is the member concerned about the delays that might occur for Canadians as a result of this bill being held up by the Conservatives?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and his kind words. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I think it is important to acknowledge the government whenever it does something right. However, there are a number of times when it got it wrong, and we need to acknowledge that, too.

The government has a busy schedule, in particular because of the prorogation of Parliament last summer, as you will recall. As a result of the prorogation, several bills were put on the back burner, including the one on medical assistance in dying, which still has not been dealt with. Several businesses here are waiting for the assistance this bill, which we are still discussing, could provide. I would therefore not be too quick to blame the Conservatives for any delays, because I think that the government bears a share of the responsibility for the situation. Let us work together to pass these bills promptly.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to compliment the member on her excellent speech.

The member was talking a little about the long-term care crisis in Quebec and other provinces, and the fact that it has a lot to do with resources. Could the member expand upon whether she believes it is better for a few Ottawa bureaucrats to fix the Quebec long-term care health system or whether it would be better done in the provinces?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

We cannot repeat it often enough: There is plenty of health care expertise in Quebec and the provinces. The federal government's job is easy: All it needs to do is to increase health transfer payments and pay us the amounts we are still waiting for.

We see the problems this is causing. Certain colleagues have pointed out that only a tiny portion of the money spent by the government since the beginning of the pandemic has been allocated to our health care systems. In a cruel twist of irony, we are in the middle of a health crisis. I think that it is high time that the federal government funnel more funds into health care. Once it has done so, Quebec and the provinces, which have the necessary expertise, can hire staff for our long-term care facilities and perhaps even increase personal care workers' salaries. They can do what they want with the money. The role of the federal government is to provide the funds.