Debates of March 23rd, 2021

Opposition Motion—Plan for Reopening the Economy

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, even though my colleague and I are on opposite coasts, we have a shared interest in this very important issue. When the Prime Minister said that every Canadian would be able to be vaccinated by September, the cruise industry thought that could be good news for its industry. For Transport Canada and the Liberal government come forward and say there will be no cruises whatsoever in 2021, and 2022 looks very bleak, is very troubling. My hon. colleague and I need to get answers from the government on that, because I have not seen the rational.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Fundy Royal, New Brunswick, for his very interesting speech.

I would add that he is doing a great job in the official opposition shadow cabinet. I would therefore like to thank my esteemed colleague from the beautiful riding of Fundy Royal, which is not as nice as Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, but is beautiful nonetheless, because it is our neighbour.

I think it is always important to reread a motion so that people watching know what we are talking about. Today's motion reads as follows:

That, given that,

(i) COVID-19 restrictions have had serious economic and mental health impacts on Canadians,

(ii) COVID-19 restrictions have been advised by the federal government, including specifically by the Prime Minister on three separate occasions in November of 2020, as temporary measures to alleviate pressure on the public healthcare system,

(iii) public health tools, such as rapid tests, shared data on how COVID-19 spreads and vaccines, have not been positioned as permanent solutions to replace COVID-19 restrictions by the federal government, including in areas of federal competency like air travel and border restrictions,

(iv) the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have both released public plans for economic reopening, while Canadian officials have not yet given Canadians clarity on when regular economic and social life will be able to resume,

the House call on the government to table within 20 calendar days, following the adoption of this motion, a clear data-driven plan to support safely, gradually and permanently lifting COVID-19 restrictions.

I know that there were some great initiatives. Not everything was tossed in the trash. Some things were done right, but now we need to make adjustments.

Canadians need hope. They need it even more during this unique, historic, unprecedented time, a time we hope is not to be repeated. The risk remains great, however. This situation has been going on for a little over a year. We are in a public health crisis, and everything has been disrupted.

Let us give Canadians clear information. Let us give them hope. It is the government's job to put forward a responsible plan for Canada's economic reopening. I want to stress the word “responsible”. It is in capital letters right here in my speech. We are not calling for an irresponsible reopening. We are asking for a responsible plan.

The President of the United States has released his plan. The same is true of the British Prime Minister. I would remind the House that our Prime Minister here in Canada has been in power for six years. The President of the United States has only been in the position for two months. He was elected in November, but took office in January.

The Liberals better not try to blame the weather or COVID-19, although COVID is being blamed for a lot these days. A new president in the United States took two months to submit a plan, while in Canada we are still dragging our feet. We are trying to move forward, but it seems to me that this government is not very proactive. Even South Korea, Germany, France and many other countries have released stimulus packages.

Let me be clear. This is not about asking the federal government to impose guidance on the provinces. The official opposition believes that it is up to the federal government to issue guidelines, because the lockdowns and restrictions were put in place to give the federal and provincial governments time to find permanent solutions.

We have the vaccines, we have the rapid tests and we have the variant tests. We finally have everything we need to present a clear plan to Canadians—everything except a government capable of recognizing that our people desperately need a plan of hope.

Under the circumstances, Canadians have been very resilient and very co-operative. I think they deserve to have transparency and a plan. Having a plan does not mean opening the doors wide and letting everyone rush into agricultural fairs and movie theatres. Having a plan means having deadlines and benchmarks. Also, a plan can be adjusted. That is part of planning. We need to have this starting point.

As the representative of the people of my riding, Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, I, like every Canadian, believe we need hope.

It has been over a year now. People around the world are celebrating the first anniversary of this bug that has unfortunately infected the entire globe.

We are talking about a plan to support gradually and permanently lifting COVID‑19 restrictions. As I just said, this is a gradual plan. It is not about going in blind or being irresponsible. It is about developing a data-driven plan, and these data exist. The idea is not to put our health in jeopardy or diminish protections for Canadians. The idea is to give Canadians hope.

There are indicators to meet in order to gradually reopen. Some provinces use a colour-coded system, in which the colour changes in relation to the number of people who are hospitalized, the number of deaths or the number of confirmed COVID‑19 cases. These are indicators and benchmarks. We all experienced the first wave, and we adjusted. We came out of lockdown last summer and then went back into lockdown in the fall, but now can we have some hope?

I remind members that back in spring 2020, the provincial governments gave us hope. We can therefore ask that the federal government table a plan within 20 days. What we are asking for today is very simple. We want a data-driven plan to support safely, gradually and permanently lifting COVID‑19 restrictions. The current government has no vision.

Last April, the members of the official opposition pressured the government to significantly increase support for small businesses and workers. At that time, the Conservatives promised to keep pressuring the government with respect to CERB. We kept that promise, because it was important to ensure that Canadians could quickly get the help they needed throughout this pandemic.

From the start of this crisis, the members of the official opposition have said that in addition to dependability, Canadians needed clarity and leadership in times of crisis. One year later, that is still true. Now, Canadians need clarity and leadership regarding when and how the restrictions can be lifted.

Fittingly enough, this Thursday is International Procrastination Day. Procrastination is the tendency to keep putting things off until later, either in one specific area of daily life or in general. I think the government will have no trouble embracing this concept, since it is always putting things off until later. We see it in all of our rankings, which are constantly dropping. Canada was leading the way on many indicators, but now our rankings keep dropping. It is embarrassing to see Canada dropping in the rankings of the number of people who have been vaccinated under the current Liberal government.

I want to remind the House of a bit of history. It was this Liberal government that prorogued Parliament last summer, in the midst of a crisis. Was that to serve Canadians properly, or was it to protect itself from the damaging effects of the WE Charity scandal? The answer is simple: The government wanted to serve its own interests.

In the midst of a crisis, the government shut down Parliament for two months. Was that responsible? How can we trust this government?

There is plenty of evidence to show that our businesses, including those in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, need help and need to know what is happening.

Here is a short message I received from a business about opening the borders:

Dear Member of Parliament,

We would like to tell you about a major problem.

Company X operates internationally, and much of our revenue comes from outside Canada.

Canada must open its borders to business now. The problems associated with the extended border closure are getting serious. If we want to keep competing with the U.S. on a level playing field, the borders must be reopened as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention.

Cordially,

It is signed by the company owner.

Here is another example. A company was benefiting from the commercial rent subsidy in the spring. The building owner was eligible, but now the business owner who is renting premises to the company is not eligible because the tenant is not at arm's length. The father could do it in the spring, but now the son cannot.

In closing, I just want to say that we need a clear plan, just to give people hope. We need a responsible plan that can be adjusted if the incidence of variants rises.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear my colleague's remarks about procrastination day. This is the first I have heard of it.

To procrastinate means to put something off until tomorrow. Rather than always opposing ideas and thus putting them off until tomorrow, why can the member not be proactive and helpful and offer some concrete ideas? He is an elected member, too, and it is not just the Liberal government that governs. He is part of it. Instead of procrastinating, can he come up with any constructive measures?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny.

We moved a motion today calling on the government to take concrete action, come up with a response plan and give Canadians hope. If that is called procrastination in my colleague's riding, Repentigny, then I do not understand.

Procrastinating is being on the job and constantly putting off things and tasks, either because you do not want to do them or out of cowardice. I have to say that my colleague's comment is not really relevant considering the speech I gave.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and for the opportunity to practise my French a bit.

I appreciate a lot of the comments my colleague made. Obviously the pandemic has had a devastating toll from an economic point of view, and it speaks to the importance of having a plan for getting our economy back on track and a plan for reopening.

I am wondering if my colleague has any thoughts on the mental health toll of this pandemic. It has obviously had a devastating toll on mental health as well. Does he have any comments on how important a reopening plan is for mental health as well?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague. I appreciate his question. If he can practise his French, I can practise my English.

Yesterday, TVA relayed the following comment on femicide: “It is a frightening situation.” Who said that? It was the mayor of the second-largest city in Canada, Montreal. It is a huge problem and we do not see what is happening in homes across Quebec and Canada.

It is clear that we need to provide some hope and that is why I talk about hope in my speech. Hope does not mean having a plan with very specific criteria saying we are going to open at this hour and close at that hour. However, can we at least have some guidelines, some indication to help us see what is coming? I trust Canadians. We are smart enough to make up our own minds and respect the guidelines put in place by the federal government.

Maybe the government is waiting until Thursday, procrastination day, to table something on Friday, since Thursday will be a day off. We know that the government has taken a lot of days off. I hope that all parliamentarians will vote in favour of our motion so that we can get a plan that gives hope to all Canadians.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as of today, 9% of Canadians and 11% of Quebeckers have been vaccinated. With the threat of variants, every country with a vaccination rate of around 8% to 9% is locking down again. That is the case for France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Germany and the Netherlands, and Belgium is seriously considering it.

Joanne Liu, who has a lot of experience in the field with pandemic management, told us many times a few months ago that we had to stop playing yo-yo with people because it has a serious impact on their mental health. Today's motion mentions mental health. Yes, we do have to give people hope again, but we cannot toy with people and give them false hope.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his comments.

Indeed, we should not be playing yo-yo with people. The number of active cases is on the rise in the Lower St. Lawrence region of Quebec. The provincial government is adjusting its strategy. The people in this region were asking to be moved from the orange zone to the yellow zone. If the numbers keep rising, they will be put in the red zone.

I understand that we should not be playing yo-yo. However, we can set benchmarks. The people of the Lower St. Lawrence can understand that. The infection rate in this region is very low, and the people of this sector, this area, enjoyed a privilege, but now must adjust. There are no demonstrations in the streets of the Lower St. Lawrence region.

We do not want to play yo-yo, we want to give Canadians hope.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (FedDev Ontario and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Yukon.

I rise in the House today to speak to the opposition motion and, more specifically, on Canada's current border measures. To combat the continued introduction and spread of COVID-19, the Government of Canada has taken extraordinary action and implemented a comprehensive border strategy with many layers of precautionary measures. However, as the pandemic has progressed, new risks have been identified that require Canada to take even greater measures to limit international travel and strengthen our border measures.

The reason for this action is that new, more infectious variants of the virus that cause COVID‑19 have been detected in all 10 provinces. The extent of the spread and the health impacts of these variants of concern within Canadian communities is not yet fully known. It is now more important than ever to ensure that strong measures are in place to reduce the risk of importation and community transmission of COVID‑19.

Some Canadians, and I would say some residents of my community of Orléans, have voiced concerns about the stringent border measures in place. However, the Government of Canada has been very clear. Now is not the time to travel. With the emergence of new and reportedly more transmissible variants, domestic transmission rates of COVID‑19 are expected to rise. Unfortunately, even here in our great nation's capital, we have seen the province changing our status from orange to red and the implications it has on many of our local businesses.

Also, following many conversations between the Government of Canada, the provincial ministers of health, our Minister of Health and our health experts, we know that our health care systems have limited capacity and infected travellers could burden them. We know that many travellers have and will require clinical care and can also transmit the disease in their households and communities.

Travel continues to present a clear risk of imported cases, including cases of new variants of concern, and this increases the chance of community transmission of COVID‑19 in Canada. To monitor the importation of variants of concern, and to allow our health care system to recover, these border measures are necessary to reduce immediate risks and protect Canadians. I would like to take a moment to thank all of our health care heroes in Canada, especially in Orléans.

To date, we have enacted 47 emergency orders under the Quarantine Act to minimize the risk of exposure to COVID‑19 in Canada. We have limited inbound travel from other countries, repatriated Canadians and strengthened measures at the border. We have twice made amendments to the Contraventions Regulations to include offences under the Quarantine Act, first to introduce new fines and then recently to increase these fines. I will say it again. Now is not the time to travel.

The measures we have implemented have reduced the volume of travellers arriving at Canada’s ports, airports and land borders by nearly 95%. This has shrunk the daily number of imported COVID‑19 cases, but despite this decrease in travel, with the emergence of new variants of concern, stronger measures have become necessary.

The Government of Canada introduced new emergency orders imposing stricter testing and quarantine requirements. I will remind Canadians that travellers who are entering our great nation by land or air are required to provide proof of a negative COVID test result for a test taken up to 72 hours before their arrival, or a positive result from a test taken at least 14 days, and not more than 90 days, prior to arrival. Upon arrival, they must take another COVID test. Air travellers must then also reserve and stay in a government-authorized accommodation for up to three nights while they await the results. A third test must be taken on day 10 of their mandatory 14-day quarantine period.

All travellers are required to submit their travel and contact information, including a quarantine plan, electronically using ArriveCAN before crossing the border.

It is critical to our collective safety to further reduce the risk of importation of COVID and variants of concern, both before and after travellers arrive. Pre-departure testing, combined with testing all travellers upon entry and subsequently in the quarantine period, have shown to temper this risk. Identification of positive cases and genetic sequencing of the virus will help Canada detect novel variants of concern and support public health efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19 in Canada.

Requiring travellers entering Canada by air to stay in government-authorized accommodations until they receive their on-arrival test results will help to identify and isolate those who may be infectious before they can spread it at home and in the community. Most importantly, changes to international travel restrictions and advice are based on scientific evidence and are developed in consultation with provincial, territorial and international governments.

The Government of Canada recognizes that entry prohibitions, mandatory quarantine requirements and testing protocols place a significant burden on Canadians, including mental health implications, and on the Canadian economy. However, these measures remain the most effective means of limiting the introduction of new cases of COVID-19 into Canada. With new, more transmissible, more severe, and possibly vaccine-resistant variants of the virus in Canada, this government continues to take a precautionary approach that will preserve domestic health care capacity and save lives.

The Government of Canada continues to monitor and review the available scientific evidence to determine further border measures, including the use of testing and vaccination to protect the health and safety of Canadians. The Government of Canada remains committed to working closely with provinces and territories, industry stakeholders, indigenous partners, and health care professionals on plans related to border and travel health.

We will continue to leverage international partnerships in order to ensure that we can effectively protect the health and safety of Canadians, and Canada’s health care capacity.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple questions in hearing her speech. I really want to ask her about travel. Travel is one of those things that Canadians have said that we need to lockdown on, but at the same time, we also have to continue to think about what travel means in our society. Travel means, of course, external affairs and making sure we have international business.

Prior to this latest lockdown, there was a protocol in place at many of the airports in Alberta, particularly in Calgary where I live, that actually did have testing in place that was very effective in making sure that we continued international business and abided by the best testing protocols.

Did the government consider the results of that protocol and how we were actually succeeding in maintaining international business before it decided to come up with a new protocol? Can it compare the two results it has seen so far, in terms of the effect on the economy, as well as if there has been an associated effect on less transmission. We have not seen that yet, so I would love to see that.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, the first priority of this government has always been to protect the health and safety of Canadians. I know the pilot project he is referring to in Alberta. However, we have also seen, unfortunately, as we were studying this and evaluating the risk of these variants, numerous times in other jurisdictions international government being really afraid of this new variant. I will ask my colleague to listen to the evidence, and to listen to his province and all provinces, as this government has done since day one.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am always surprised to hear my colleague say that her government is working closely with the provinces to find ways to deal with the variants.

A government needs to be like a responsible parent. A responsible parent would not let their child walk towards a staircase with an open gate. A responsible parent anticipates that their child might fall and closes the gate.

Similarly, in the context of the pandemic, the government should have quickly closed the borders. We would not be talking about variants right now if the government had been the responsible parent it is meant to be and had closed the borders when necessary, instead of taking a laissez-faire approach.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this statement, which seems reasonable to me, in light of current circumstances, as we are under the threat of a third wave of the COVID‑19 pandemic.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

That is exactly what the Government of Canada has done from the start. At the very beginning of the pandemic, we knew that this was a worldwide problem, and we took extraordinary measures with respect to border restrictions. They were unprecedented. For the first time in history since the Second World War, the border between Canada and the United States was closed.

I am rather surprised to hear my colleague's comments because we listened to the provinces and others. The Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada are working in close co-operation and are in regular communication to prevent the spread of COVID‑19 in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, most of the opening levers we know, other than the international travel quarantine and economic benefits, are at the provincial, territorial and municipal levels. However, the federal government can play an important role through setting data-driven guidelines, as outlined in the motion.

Another huge issue is the need for proof of prior infection vaccination. We know there are lots of practical and ethical challenges there. Maybe the member could talk about what the plan is on these fronts. The question of children is important too. With no licensed pediatric vaccine yet, what is the plan there?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's questions are very relevant. This is a conversation that is very live right now among G7 and G20 countries. As vaccinations are made available throughout the world, we know we will have to address this issue.

I know the Government of Canada is certainly reflecting on this, based on the evidence and the science that will be brought forward, not only here within our borders, but also by our international partners.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.

I stand in the House today to speak about the work our government is doing to enable a safe restart of the aviation sector and the work it has done to put in place strong public health measures within the sector to address the risks posed by COVID-19. I think what I say will answer some of the questions that were just provided.

I can assure colleagues that since the earliest days of the pandemic, our government has been dedicated in working with our vital transportation industry to introduce a comprehensive, layered system of measures and guidance to protect Canadians and those working in the transportation and shipping sectors. For the air sector specifically, this layered approach includes health screening measures and temperature checks to prevent symptomatic passengers from boarding flights to, from and within Canada. This approach also includes requiring passengers on all flights departing from or arriving at Canadian airports to have an appropriate mask or face covering throughout their journey. Canada was the first country to require such a measure, which we now see is standard practice globally.

In addition to ensuring that we had the right public health and border resources meeting those passengers arriving in Canada during the earliest days of the pandemic, our government issued a notice restricting most overseas flights to four airports in Canada: Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.

To summarize these measures and the many more our government and industry were implementing to assist in mitigating COVID risks in the aviation industry, in August our government released “Canada’s Flight Plan for Navigating COVID-19”. The document was the foundation for aligning Canada’s efforts to address the safety impacts of COVID-19 and was developed in collaboration with industry partners. It demonstrated to Canadians the extensive and multi-layered system of measures we had put in place and was based on the comprehensive standards and recommendations from the International Civil Aviation Organization’s council aviation recovery task force report, the CART, and its guidance, in order to ensure Canada is aligned with the gold standard of international best practices.

More recently, in an effort to further curb the spread of the virus and new variants of COVID-19 into Canada, we added new rules on international travel. Under these new rules, all air travellers must also provide proof of a negative COVID-19 molecular test before boarding an international flight to Canada. Upon arrival, these passengers must take another COVID-19 molecular test and reserve a room in a Government of Canada-approved hotel for three nights, also at their own expense, while awaiting the test results. We are working hard to make improvements to ensure that this system is working effectively.

Our government also recognized that it was not the time to travel as Canada’s public health officials worked to stem the increase in infections and began to roll out the largest immunization campaign in Canada’s history. That is why, in addition to these measures, the government and Canada’s airlines agreed to suspend all flights to and from Mexico and Caribbean countries until April 30 of this year.

Our government realized that the pandemic was also disproportionately affecting the aviation industry, including those in remote and northern communities like mine that depend so much on small air carriers for essential services. That is why the government announced funding of up to $191.3 million for provinces and territories to ensure that remote fly-in communities continue to receive essential supplies. This includes the northern essential air services subsidy that has been in place for much of the pandemic.

To help mitigate the decline in business at Canada's airports, the government also provided rent relief for the 21 airport authorities that have ground leases with the federal government. Moreover, through the fall economic statement, an additional $1.1 billion in financial support for the air sector was announced. This will be provided through a series of targeted measures designed to support regional connectivity, critical infrastructure investments and the continued operation of Canada’s airports.

Air transport stakeholders have also benefited from relief programs that are general in nature, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the large employer emergency financing facility.

As we look to the future, we know that a strong and competitive air industry is vital for Canada's economic recovery.

Now I just want to digress for a moment as a northern MP. Coming from the north, in my personal opinion, there are two things that mainline carriers can do to help themselves during this pandemic, over and above all this other support. They must provide reasonable interline agreements with northern and regional airlines, with end-to-end airfares for those regional airlines. This would help both the major and the regional airline. The major airline could pick up remote passengers to add to their system, and they would not have to lose money by running partially filled flights where the other airline exists.

The northern and regional airlines would get seamless baggage transfers, protected connections and throughfare itineraries around the world, so it is a win-win situation for everyone. Why would anyone want two airlines, a major and a regional one, to lose money by running half-empty planes at the same time on the same route, costing the taxpayers even more subsidy?

This is just my personal view, but this is a better option than requiring capacity reduction in the markets where there are thin numbers of airline customers during this pandemic.

While preventing the spread of the pandemic will continue to remain the top priority of our government, we are looking to prepare for the restart of the air sector. Our government is working with industry to explore risk-based opportunities that will allow Canada to ease travel restrictions and reopen our borders when the time is right to travel, a time that we can begin to see is on the horizon.

Many of the measures I have outlined here, including testing, health screening, masks and quarantine, will likely remain in place for the near future. However, there may be room in the coming weeks and months for adjustments to support the aviation system and Canada's recovery from this pandemic, again when the time is right. This includes implementing a sustainable approach to reducing public health risks today and building resilience to safeguard the system against similar risks in the future. An example would be leveraging opportunities for safe contactless processing of passengers. These approaches will help rebuild public confidence in the safety of air travel.

As we eventually move from response to recovery, we will continue to have the latest in science and data drive the decisions that we make. Public health measures that mitigate risks posed by COVID-19 will remain a priority, and our government is committed to implementing and revising existing measures, when we are able, to allow the recovery of our vital aviation sector. We will continue to work closely with the aviation industry to do this, as we have done since the beginning of the pandemic.

I congratulate all those who have spoken today who understand the uncertainty that scientists have about the various waves and the transmission of the pandemic, but we we will base our decisions on what they come up with as things evolve.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just before we go to questions and comments, members, especially those online, will see that there is great interest in posing questions for the last three speakers this afternoon, so I would ask hon. members to keep their interventions as short and concise as they can, hopefully at less than a minute.

We will first go to the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments from the member for Yukon. He said that someday, maybe, there will be adjustments. I am going to use the border as an example.

Each month the Prime Minister simply says “It is closed.” There are families on either side of the border desperately wanting to reunite. There are property owners and many people in difficult circumstances. Would it not be reasonable to make some decisions around vaccinations and negative tests and have criteria that are laid out in terms of numbers, and to state whether it is going to be a phased reopening or will open the same way it shut down? It is time. Why have the Liberals not told Canadians what the criteria are going to be, instead of just saying, “We are going to adjust it someday, maybe.”

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing up those difficult situations. We have a number of people in my community who have boats in Alaska, but they cannot visit for health reasons and to protect Canadians. We certainly want to get that situation solved as soon as possible, as soon as it is healthy.

I know the member was on the indigenous affairs committee. I will let her know that the airline in the north that I was referring to for improvements is half owned by the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, and we would certainly like to see interlining to support that airline.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the indisputable lessons of the pandemic is that our health care systems have been weakened because of chronic underfunding, and that occurred even before the pandemic struck. They will be further weakened during the pandemic and afterward.

If health is a priority for the government, why does it not immediately provide a substantial and sustainable increase in health transfers so that Quebec and the provinces can quickly recover their ability to take care of their people?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I could get the figures for the member, but the federal government has made huge increases in transfers to the provinces to deal with health care during the pandemic, and the Prime Minister has agreed to have discussions on the post-pandemic environment once it occurs.

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

Mr. Speaker, as New Democrats, we have been calling on the Liberal government to fix the Canada recovery sickness benefit and its flaws to make it easier for people to access the program and get help faster. Workers need and should be able to receive full replacement income as soon as possible when they need it. They need to be able to take a day or two off at a time and have the protection of their job and have help when they need it.

As well, we find it totally unacceptable Canadians are not aware of the program due to the lack of publicity. Does my colleague agree the federal government needs to fix the flawed Canada recovery sickness benefit to make it easier for workers to access the program and get help more quickly?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we provided quick access to a lot of the programs. I have not had that input from my constituents, but if the member would send me a detailed email with the things that are not working and what he suggests could improve it, I will definitely get it to the right places.

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

Mr. Speaker, many of the Liberal speakers, although not this particular parliamentary secretary, have been talking about climate change and climate change science and contrasting it with COVID.

To my hon. friend, whom I regard as an environmental champion and who is the member of Parliament for Yukon, with permafrost thawing and the various threats we face right now, I am troubled by Liberal triumphalism on the subject of climate crisis when our targets are still the same ones put forward by Stephen Harper and we have the worst record in the G7 and about the worst record in the industrialized world.

Is there any reason for hoping that the government will improve our target to what is required, which is doubling it if we are serious about holding to 1.5 degrees?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for being a champion in relation to climate change, as we are in the Liberal Party, as well as for being a champion of the Porcupine caribou herd, which affects the Vuntut Gwitchin in my riding very seriously.

We do a terrible job at explaining all the various programs. I would be surprised if anyone in the House could mention all the initiatives. For instance, how many transit projects are there? As we know, one transit project reduces a lot of greenhouse gases; well, we put in place over 1,400 transit projects. We do a terrible job of outlining the over 50 major initiatives under way right now that are reducing carbon and greenhouse gases.

My understanding is that we have also said that we are going to increase our targets to be even lower than what we promised in the Paris accord.