Debates of March 22nd, 2021

Opposition Motion—Long-Term Care

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that this specific motion does not give wording to that aspect, but I think she will find through our previous interventions in the House on other days and through our votes that we fully support increased transfers to the provinces. The two are not mutually exclusive.

What we are calling for in the motion today is recognition of the sorry state of Canada's long-term care system and using an existing model, the Canada Health Act, respecting provincial jurisdiction, but also acknowledging that we need more intervention. We need better standards of care and there is plenty of room for the federal government to show some leadership on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

In the usual fashion, if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them now to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote on the motion by the member for Burnaby South.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no interpretation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Was the interpretation not working just for the statement by the member for London—Fanshawe?

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No, there has been no interpretation for a few minutes now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will indicate such by way of a statement.

Is the interpretation working now?

I will ask again if the interpretation is working for those who are listening to the French channel. It is okay.

I will now go back to the hon. member for London—Fanshawe if she does not mind.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I would like a recorded vote on the motion by the member for Burnaby South.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, March 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the awkward question that you and I seem to have an exchange over quite often, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your incredible service to the House, in particular over the last session. When I have been here you have sat in that chair. I know you told me a couple of weeks ago you were not planning on running again. The House will certainly miss your presence.

I will never forget that, within the first couple of months of me being here, I accidentally brought a drink into the House that was not water and placed it in my holder. I then got a note from the page that said, “Mark, I hope you are doing well and are settling into the House well, but I noticed that you had a drink that did not look like water.”

You have been so good, and you have done an incredible job of being a Speaker. I wanted to have the opportunity, because in a minority government you never know when the House will fall, to thank you for the incredible work you have done.

With that, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I realize it is a rather roundabout way of requesting the clock be seen at 6:30 p.m., but I appreciate very much the heartfelt comments of my colleague.

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands, foreshadowing the big desire the Liberals have to go to an election, sooner rather than later, in the upcoming months. I wish a fond farewell. That is an interesting conversation, but we will have that on a later date.

Today, I want to address a question that I brought to the House in question period a few weeks back. Referring to the Minister of Finance, I said, “Canadians do not believe a word that comes out of the minister's mouth. There are 213,000 more unemployed Canadians. The government has the worst job-creation record in the G7. Canadians are tired of empty platitudes and broken promises. It is time for the Liberal front benches to get to work so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast can get back to earning paycheques“ instead of receiving pink slips.

Right now people across the country have a desire to go back to work and one of the things that is holding them back is a plan from the government. I cannot believe that more people are not talking about the fact that the Liberal government has not brought forward a budget for two years. That is two years without a financial plan for Canadians during a pandemic. People are looking for hope, optimism and a safe return to work. The government has sat on its hands and not brought forward that safe plan.

When I asked the finance minister when would the Liberals get to work and deliver a plan, this was her rebuttal:

...if the member opposite does not want to believe my words, let me quote David Parkinson from The Globe and Mail. Here is what he has to say: “For the economy as a whole, there are remarkably healthy signs. Unlike last spring's lockdowns...it appears we've learned how to keep the economy rolling.... The underlying recovery remains largely intact.” Thanks again to all the hard-working, innovative Canadian business owners...

Regarding the comment “remains largely intact”, a CTV article says, “One year into the pandemic, Canada's job market is 599,100 short of where it was in February of last year, or 3.1 per cent below pre-pandemic levels.” We saw a bit of optimism in the return of jobs in February, but we are still almost 600,000 jobs short of where were last February. It is incumbent on the government to bring forward a plan so Canadians can go back to work.

Canadians are desperately wanting some hope and optimism from the government and it has failed to bring anything forward. The Conservatives have a plan to secure jobs, secure our future and bring back jobs that we lost, not only the 600,000 but the million jobs that were lost during the pandemic. Canadians are looking for that. They are looking for a government that is ethical. We know ethics problems are running rampant in the front benches of the Liberal government. Canadians want to have some certainty and clarity on where we are going in the future and how the government is going to help lead them in the direction of jobs and prosperity.

The answer I received to my question was far from satisfactory. I am hoping that whoever stands up for the Liberal government tonight can answer this question. I do not want the member to trumpet the fact that the Liberals had one good month of job creation. Where are the 600,000 jobs that Canadians were going to before the pandemic hit in February 2020?

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin with my rebuttal, let me first echo the comments of the member for Kingston and the Islands on your superior service in the chair as Deputy Speaker over the past five years, my entire time as a member of Parliament.

I will begin out of the gates by doing what I can to debunk the approach laid out by my Conservative colleague opposite.

He went to great lengths to try to diminish what has been one of the most successful economic responses to COVID-19 globally. The reality is that the Conservatives' argument hinges upon the belief that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada are responsible for the economic cost of COVID-19. The reality that we know is true is that the cost stems not from government decisions to spend in response to the pandemic but from the fact that a virus swept across the planet. This virus created an economic cost that we could not have comprehended just a few years ago.

What matters is not necessarily the existence of the virus, in terms of our debate in this House, but how we responded to it. When we had the opportunity to take calls, as I know he did, from family members who were worried about putting food on the table and from business owners who were afraid they could not keep workers on the payroll, we responded swiftly and effectively. We advanced a Canada emergency response benefit that reached the kitchen tables of nine million Canadians. We advanced the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which kept over five million workers on the payroll. We extended the Canada emergency business account to provide liquidity support to nearly a million small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. As a result of the measures that we have advanced, we have seen a serious economic recovery in Canada that many of our comparator economies around the world would be jealous to have within their own borders.

The reality is that the member diminishes the month of February, which saw 259,000 jobs return to the economy. However, that is only part of the success story of our response to date. If he is not satisfied with one month's job number, let us pick a comparator. Let us look at the United States, which has seen 57.6% of the jobs lost during the peak of this pandemic recovered today, and compare it to Canada, which has now in excess of 80%.

We know it may not be perfect, but many of the jobs that are still to be recovered are not back in their communities because of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The reality is that we know that certain communities are doing the difficult thing, but the right thing: closing their doors, limiting their services, and yes, sometimes reducing the hours of their employees to keep their communities safe. In fact, the best economic policy that we could adopt is a strong public health response.

I would urge the member to dig into the job numbers, where he will realize that we do not just have 80% of the jobs recovered but also a higher labour force participation rate than our neighbours. If we actually look at certain provinces, including my own province of Nova Scotia, which has seen literally a world-leading public health response to the pandemic, we have recovered almost all of the jobs that we have lost during the course of this pandemic. In fact, there are more full-time workers in my home province today than there were in February of last year, before the pandemic. The reason is that the province took the right steps to manage the public health conditions, and the federal government was there to support households and businesses so they could come back when it was safe to do so.

The long-term impact of the economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic will be told a few years from now, but from where I sit and given the statistics that I am observing month over month over month, I have all the confidence in the world that Canada's pandemic response will be held up on a pedestal as an example for what the rest of the world ought to have done.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a tremendous orator and I know he has won awards for being able to spin numbers. People really enjoy listening to this member speak.

One question he did not answer is how come it has taken two years to bring forward a budget? Other countries across the world have delivered budgets. My home province of Saskatchewan delivered a budget. Actually, it is probably going to deliver two budgets before the federal government delivers one, which goes to his comment about how this country will be looked to for how we handled the pandemic.

Are we that far ahead of everyone in vaccinations? Is our safe reopening plan that far ahead of other jurisdictions? Did our Prime Minister deliver a plan, like Boris Johnson, who delivered a data filled plan of how the U.K. was going to unveil and reopen its economy? Maybe I missed it. I do not remember our Prime Minister standing in this House delivering a scientific plan with data points on how our economy was going to open.

If I missed it, please, I would love to have the parliamentary secretary refresh my memory of how well that plan is going to roll out for the people of Canada.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be lectured on the importance of following evidence and data from a party that muzzled its own scientists, tried to end the long-form census and literally destroyed research in my home province at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. If the member is looking for a reason that we did not have a budget last year, I remind him that he voted in favour of a measure that allowed the government to launch an emergency spending response. The COVID-19 special committee provided parliamentary scrutiny over those spending measures.

Since that time, we have launched a fall economic statement that is 237 pages and includes a five-year fiscal outlook with varying scenarios that could come to pass. The estimates process, which the member is still able to take part in to provide scrutiny, remains available to him. In addition, the government operations committee is receiving monthly reports on spending from the government, and, in fact, most of the details of our spending are available online.

Our plan from day one remains the same today: support households and businesses to get through the pandemic, spare no expense to defeat the virus and ensure that households and businesses are here to contribute to the economic recovery when the pandemic is behind us.

Natural Resources

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, several months ago I asked a question on behalf of the thousands of workers and their families employed at Chalk River Laboratories in the upper Ottawa Valley, and on behalf of the thousands of other Canadians who are employed in the nuclear sector.

I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to talk about Canada's world-class nuclear industry and the tremendous opportunity that awaits Canada in the new build nuclear power market. Specifically, my question focussed on small modular reactors, SMRs. I acknowledge that after I prompted the federal government with my question, the minister announced the government's Canadian small modular reactor plan.

I want to assure the Minister of Natural Resources that he has my continuing support when it comes to good jobs in the nuclear sector. The nuclear industry is a big employer in my constituency and has been since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Not only does the Minister of Natural Resources have my full support for Canada to get into the game and join the other advanced western nations, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which are investing in next-generation builds, he has my full support to fund a replacement for the National Research Universal reactor, or NRU. That piece of critical infrastructure was recently decommissioned after almost 60 years of faithful service. Canada should be investing in national infrastructure, like a modern version with NRU capabilities.

Canadians are suffering today from the short-sighted policy decision made in the 1970s by the Liberal government of the day to cripple medical research by reducing patent protection. Decisions today affect the generations of the future. We do not want to make the same policy mistake with nuclear.

Canada will be a poorer country if we have to wait for the benefits of nuclear research done in other countries in the same way Canadians have had to wait for medicines manufactured in other countries due to our limited domestic capacity to produce safe Canadian vaccines in Canada using Canadian know-how.

Whether we like it or not, energy will be the currency of the future. I recognize, as do many Canadians who respect the science, that the only way Canada can make a real contribution to a clean environment is through the use of dependable, greenhouse gas-free nuclear energy to generate the electricity that lights our streets, heats our homes and powers industry.

Unlike the members for Ottawa Centre and Ottawa South, who are opposed to real action against pollution by opposing SMRs, I agree with the founder of the environmental group Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore. Dr. Patrick Moore has written another book recently called Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom, which I recommend all MPs read.

I agree with James Hansen, the NASA scientist who is held in high esteem by environmentalists, when he states that based on science and facts, the world cannot tackle threats to the environment without nuclear energy in the mix. I urge members to trust the science and the facts.

I am pleased to quote Deep River mayor, Suzanne D'Eon. Deep River, in the Ottawa Valley, is a willing community to host a demonstration of small module reactor. Mayor D'Eon said:

As both a mayor and concerned global citizen, I believe there is a need for more urgency by the federal government and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in the development and safe deployment of SMRs [and] vSMRs in Canada and I wholeheartedly endorse the Statement of Principles for the SMR Action Plan.

The town of Deep River is keenly interested to do more to encourage and facilitate the accelerated development and roll-out of SMRs locally, throughout Canada, and globally. We are passionate about becoming the first host community of a vSMR in Canada and to be ambassadors and a real-life demonstration example for small or remote northern communities who may not yet have a comfort level with nuclear.

The town's interest and motivation in vSMRs comes both from our history as Canada's first nuclear community and our vision for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that it may not be often that we find ourselves in agreement, but I thank the hon. member for her statements of support for the government's direction at the beginning of her remarks.

I am pleased to address an issue that is important to Ontario and New Brunswick, and indeed the entire country. The timing of this question could not possibly be better.

We are contemplating the building of a low-emissions energy future for our entire country. We need energy systems that are reliable, secure, clean and affordable for Canadians. They have to be competitive as well, with the potential to attract investment, as financial markets are increasingly looking toward jurisdictions that value strong environmental, social and governance principles, also known as ESG.

This is where small modular reactors fit in, an emerging technology that holds the potential to deliver the baseload power that can pull more renewable electricity into our energy mix and help us move away from conventional coal and fossil fuel power generation. This is the context in which our government launched an action plan for small modular reactors in December. It is an initiative that involves a range of partners, including industry and provincial and territorial governments.

This action plan builds on our support for an industry that sustains more than 76,000 Canadian jobs. As the member opposite knows, Canada is among an elite group of nations that have the full spectrum of nuclear capabilities, from building reactors to the manufacturing of fuel to conducting world-class research and development in establishing long-term solutions to radioactive waste. We also happen to be the world's second-largest source of uranium, and our regulatory system is internationally respected for its commitment to evidence-based decision-making that places safety at its core. All of this contributes to our global brand, making us ideally placed to tap into a vast market, one expected to be worth $150 billion to $300 billion annually by 2040, delivering $19 billion in economic benefits to Canada between the years 2030 and 2040 and creating in the process over 6,000 Canadian jobs annually. Demand is driven by the growing need for smaller and affordable nuclear energy sources to generate electricity with zero emissions, to power resource extraction in remote places, to desalinate water, to replace coal and to offer clean alternative sources of light and heat in indigenous, rural and remote communities.

For Canada, SMRs could help us meet our Paris targets, all while creating good middle-class jobs and continuing to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples at the same time.

We are making significant progress. I think back to 2018, when we hosted our first international conference on SMRs, where we launched our SMR roadmap. We now have more than 100 partners in the nuclear industry and in other sectors of the economy, including petroleum and mining, and among indigenous leaders, universities, labour groups, civil society and most provincial, territorial and municipal governments. They know Canada has what it takes to be a world leader.

I want to cite just a few examples of our progress.

First, we announced a $20-million investment in SMR development by Terrestrial Energy. This funding will help the Oakville, Ontario-based company reach a new milestone in the exciting development of its generation IV reactor project. Second, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is focusing as I speak on a number of SMR vendor design reviews, including Terrestrial's. This will allow commission staff to provide feedback early on a company's design process to ensure it is on the right track.

I will conclude by sending my thanks to two people in particular. One, the member for Saint John—Rothesay, I will thank for his advocacy for SMRs in his home province of New Brunswick. Second, thanks go to my former physics professor at St. Francis Xavier University—Go, X, Go—Michael Steinitz, who continues to provide advice to me in my own community on energy policy and what the future may look like for Canada 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also am pleased to confirm the County of Renfrew passed a resolution regarding small modular reactors, stating that:

County Council supports Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd. in their efforts to pursue research and development initiatives for Small Modular Reactor and very Small Modular Reactor; [and that] the Country of Renfrew supports and encourages the hosting and safe operations of SMR and vSMR technologies at Chalk River Laboratories....

What is needed now is a funding commitment from the Government of Canada to make this happen. Canada cannot afford to be not in the game. Too much is at stake. Canadians should not have to wait for an election budget full of short-term spending promises. The time to build for the future is now.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that there is no conversation about SMRs that will be short-term spending. This is a long-term part of the energy mix as we go forward to establish a potential for a net-zero Canada.

Just to wrap up, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is moving closer to its goal to help prove the commercial viability of SMRs. It wants to host a demonstration project at one of its sites in 2026. The most advanced among the applicants is the Global First Power joint venture that includes Ontario Power Generation. The project is now undergoing an environmental assessment.

If the member wants to talk about funding commitments, just last week our government announced that it has invested over $50 million in Moltex Energy Canada Incorporated to support production of emissions-free energy through its “WAste To Stable Salt” process, which recycles existing used nuclear fuel to produce non-emitting energy.

Canada is on the path of this global trend to ensure that SMRs play a key role in the energy mix of our future and that they will be compatible with the net-zero legislation that we put forward last year.

Small Business

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see my colleague from Nova Scotia on this tonight. I appreciate his ability to respond to some good questions.

Small business is what I am talking about. The hon. member would understand this first issue. It is March, and spring is coming. We have tractors out. The planting season is already beginning in southern Alberta, but we are short some very skilled agricultural workers. These are not the temporary foreign workers whom he may have seen coming into the Annapolis Valley. These are Mexican and Mennonite people who have status in Canada, but are stranded in Mexico. We need to find a way to support our small businesses in the ag sector with these highly skilled people who, while back in Mexico, are working on their properties there. They have properties, extensive homes and places that they need to leave to come here, but they are stranded in Mexico. In southern Alberta, we probably have 100 families who need to return to Canada to be in our ag sector. This is a critical piece to our ag sector, as it is in many parts. These are not temporary foreign workers, like the member might be familiar with in the Annapolis Valley.

Another small business sector with a huge issue is the travel agencies. The travel agencies are small, independent businesses. When the airline industry was shut down about a year ago, they had their commissions withdrawn and clawed back by the major airlines. Not only can they not get an income, but they have also lost the commission income they had from the year before. Do they qualify for programs? No. That is another small business sector in our communities that is suffering greatly because of the clawback from the airlines. The bailouts that the government talks about do not help those small business people in our communities.

Another one in our ag sector is irrigation. The irrigation industry is huge in part of my riding where people farm only 8% of the arable land, but produce 20% of the agriculture GDP in Alberta. With the $30 in carbon tax in one irrigation district out of the 13, and five in my riding, it has been calculated very precisely that they pay a million dollars in carbon tax. That is just in that one irrigation area, and there are 13. With the clean fuel standard carbon tax being increased by 500% now, can my colleagues imagine the tens of millions of dollars that will be leaving those small business operations in my riding?

There will be those operations that cannot spend the money in their communities. They cannot buy machinery parts. They are not going to shop at the stores. The ripple effect into the volunteer part of the community is huge. These small businesses need power for irrigation. There is no rebate or exemption for that power; none. These are small businesses whose impact is huge in my riding. They need the support, and yet the government with that 500% increase is taking the money out of the riding with no rebates and no exemptions. This is huge for these small businesses in the Bow River riding.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to applaud the incredible work you have been doing for the past five years. It is non-partisan work and you do it brilliantly in both official languages.

I am very pleased to respond to the question and comments from my colleague, the member for Bow River, regarding small businesses generally and some specific small business sectors in his community. I will go through some of the many ways that our government has supported and is continuing to support small businesses throughout the country, including in his riding. However, before I do that, I will respectfully point out a recurring inconsistency in the comments and questions from Conservative members.

On the one hand, there is often huge criticism and even some outright rejection of the approach taken by our government to spend in order to support our small businesses. Yes, that does cost money, and we are incurring a deficit that, to my understanding, the Conservatives are opposed to. However, many members seem to have found new ideas and programs for additional spending in order to support the small businesses in their ridings.

I hope that at the end of the day we can agree that we do need to spend money to support Canadians, and that one, three or five years hence, those same Conservative members are not going to accuse the government of having spent inappropriately. We all know, and are all rising in the House to confirm, the importance of spending to support our economy and our small business owners.

Some of the things we have done over the course of the last year are extremely innovative. I think back to the conversations that I had with entrepreneurs across the country. They regularly told me that thanks to government programs, they were able to keep the lights on, keep their workers employed and pay their rent, for example. All of these programs are supporting businesses in the agricultural sector, in the tourism sector and in all sectors of the Canadian economy, and we believe that is very important.

Our small businesses employ more than 10.8 million Canadians. They are by far our largest employers. It is enormously important for us to continue supporting them. I am thinking particularly of the wage subsidy, which is literally subsidizing the paycheques of Canadians right across the country.

I will point out a few other programs before getting into further specifics.

The rent subsidy program, which we recently changed so that our subsidy would go directly to small business owners, has a top-up that covers up to 90% of the rent of small business owners who are under lockdown.

I will also talk about the importance of our tourism sector. The member opposite mentioned the travel industry, which of course has been experiencing huge hardships over the last year because of the health and sanitary measures that we and the provinces and territories have put in place. In that regard, I will point the member to the regional relief and recovery fund, which is there to support all businesses but has an earmark specifically for tourism operators.

I will point to the very recently released HASCAP program. This is a new program, and thanks to the feedback and comments from the tourism sector, we were able to put it in place to provide 100% government-backed loans to tourism operators in particular. I have heard from credit unions and financial institutions that there is pickup on this program and that our tourism operators are being supported by it.

I will also point out that we added an additional $20,000 to our very popular CEBA loan program, which provides loans at a 0% interest rate. They include a portion that is non-refundable, which is, in order words, a grant. That came as a huge relief to small business owners who were concerned about taking on too much debt.

The range of supports we have for small businesses is the envy of the world. They have shown themselves to be—