Debates of March 8th, 2021

Employment Insurance Act

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the House how excited I am to hear that the Liberals have a concrete plan to help us reopen. That is really exciting. Businesses are asking for certainty, because that is how we can go forward.

I have one concern. We are about to start vaccinating in B.C. For that to begin, we have to delay second doses for some of our seniors. Earlier today, Pfizer was at the health committee and said that was absolutely not recommended. Could my colleague guarantee that this national experiment will absolutely not create vaccine resistance going forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I can absolutely guarantee my friend is that the Prime Minister and this government will continue to listen to health experts and work with the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders. Ottawa is responsible for getting vaccines into the country, and we are meeting our plan of six million doses by the end of March. The good news is, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will be getting closer to eight million vaccine doses by the end of March.

I would have no problem whatsoever, if only time permitted, possibly at the health committee at some point in time, to expand on why I believe Canadians have good reason to be optimistic, to understand that the Government of Canada has in fact done its job over the last 12 months, that there is hope around the corner. I believe we will meet the vaccination demands. We will continue to work with the provinces to ensure that as many doses as possible get administered as quickly as possible.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats are always pleased when we see any kind of legislation that will help working people in our country, so we will support this legislation.

I found it passingly interesting to hear the hon. colleague say that he would have liked to have seen workers better treated over the last 30 years. The Liberal Party has been in power for 21 of the last 30 years. In fact, it has been in power for 100 of the last 150 years. In the time it has been in power, we have seen that six out of 10 workers who pay into EI are unable to claim benefits. We have seen no minimum wage in the Canada Labour Code. We see no guaranteed paid sick time in the Canada Labour Code. There is not even a paid lunch break in the Canada Labour Code. If there is a desire to see better treatment for workers, one would ask the Liberal Party why it has been so reluctant to make that happen.

My question for the member is this. If the Liberals truly want to pass this legislation quickly, why did they have the parliamentary secretary spend 30 minutes of House time talking about this instead of getting to the issue and a vote so we could get this help out to Canadian workers as soon as possible? Is it not a little inconsistent for him to talk about other parties holding up the legislation when he just spent half an hour of valuable House time instead of just getting to the vote?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if I believed for a moment that the Conservatives would pass the bill if I did not talk on it, I would do that. However, I do not believe that to be the case.

When I reflect on the 30 years, the member needs to be aware that 20 of those years were when I was in the Manitoba legislature in opposition, most of which was when the NDP was the provincial government. That is why I talk about my disappointment with respect to labour. There was a so-called labour-friendly party, but I did not see it acting on the initiatives that were so important to labour. For example, regarding those sick days, whether it was Premier Doer or Premier Selinger, they had that opportunity for many years. I sat when Doer was in opposition and we wanted to see more changes to support workers. I walked picket lines when I was an MLA to see what kind of pensions were there.

In comparison to my experience in the provincial legislature with the NDP and the Conservatives, my experience with Stephen Harper in Ottawa and what we have seen regarding the treatment toward labour in the last five years, we finally have a leader who understands the needs of labour and is taking tangible actions to support labour and workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I also look forward to getting this legislation passed through Parliament as quickly as possible.

A lot of workers need help and they needed help before the pandemic. People have brought this up. The extension of EI support is important for people who have cancer, for example, or have loved ones at the end of their lives who they need to care for, or people in other difficult circumstances or those who are self-employed. There are a number of areas where we need to improve EI. Why are we not doing this on a permanent basis to help people after the pandemic as well?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would not want to give a false impression that the only time we help workers is during the pandemic. The member referenced EI. Members will remember that on CPP, Ottawa worked with all the provinces, after Stephen Harper had done absolutely nothing for a decade, and we were able to get an agreement through stakeholders to increase CPP. By doing that, it means that as workers retire in the future, they will have more disposable income. In answer to a previous question, I referred to a day I was out walking on a picket line with labourers, who talked about not having enough money in their pension fund when they retired.

These are tangible examples of what this government and the Prime Minister put in place prior to the pandemic. During the pandemic, numerous measures were put in place to support Canada's middle class, workers, people who are retired, people with disabilities and students. I could go on and on about how we have helped—

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

There are more questions for the parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the parliamentary secretary with respect to the delay tactics we are seeing from the Conservatives. The truth is that whether it is pushing forward with a concurrence motion, or stalling on points of order or putting up various different roadblocks, it is quite clear that the Conservatives are interested in slowing down the legislative process as much as they possibly can. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition recently said in the National Post that he was willing to work day and night to get the job done. However, for four days during the last sitting week, I moved a unanimous consent motion to have the House sit until midnight so we could do exactly what he said. Guess who voted it against it every single time. The Conservatives.

Why does the parliamentary secretary think the Conservatives want to slow down the legislative process?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party today is more of a destructive force within the House of Commons than I have ever seen, both in Ottawa and in my years as a parliamentarian in the Province of Manitoba. The Conservatives do that by trying to frustrate the government in getting anything passed, anything at all.

The member referred to extending hours. It was for the MAID legislation, after all. It was literally a life and death piece of legislation and the Conservatives said no, that they did not want to sit extra hours because it might mean the bill would pass and they wanted to continue to filibuster. I was supposed to debate Bill C-19 on either Thursday or Friday of the last sitting week and the Conservatives brought forward a concurrence motion so the bill would not be debated. That bill would ensure Canadians would be safe during an election.

There are all sorts of things one could cite with respect to what the Conservative Party is doing today to frustrate the House of Commons being able to get the important work done. I hope the leadership of the Conservative Party will review the question that was just posed, maybe entertain some thoughts I have expressed during my speech and change its ways.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, sometimes we have seen it all in politics. I just listened to a 30-minute speech by the member for Winnipeg North talking about how we should quickly pass legislation. That member consistently gets the award for the most words spoken in Parliament, yet all of a sudden, it is time for no one else to speak. It is time to rush legislation through and we should not debate anything. Some days we have seen it all in the House of Commons.

When we talk about Bill C-24, we are looking at three important things that the government is trying to do. I will agree that they are important. The government is trying to increase the number of weeks available to workers through EI, it is trying to make changes to rules for self-employed workers who have opted into the EI system and, of course, it is trying to fix its original blunder in the recovery sickness benefit that, because of a loophole, allowed leisure travellers to come back to Canada and claim the recovery sickness benefit after their vacations, while they were quarantining.

The question might be asked: Why did that happen? Maybe it was because of exactly what the member for Winnipeg North was just asking us to do: speedily pass legislation without review or debate. When that is done, we end up trying to patch the holes in the leaky ship five months later. That is what we are doing here today.

I want to talk about that a little. The speech we just heard from the member for Winnipeg North is the epitome of what is happening in the House of Commons these days. Legislation gets dropped, then we are told that it is urgent, important legislation, and that it should not be debated but should be rushed through committee, because we have to help Canadians.

Of course we have to help Canadians. That is what we are all here for. That is why we vote in favour of the majority of legislation for benefits for workers from the government.

However, the process is the problem. These bills could have been introduced at the start of Parliament. We have been here for two months, since the session resumed. Where was this bill? Why was it not here?

We have known of the problems with the Canada recovery sickness benefit for five months. Why was it not introduced five months ago? We have known of the loophole.

Instead, we get a piece of legislation put forward to us, then all of the proxies go out about how the opposition, especially those terrible Conservatives, are delaying this legislation and obstructing Parliament.

When there is a failure to plan, there is a plan to fail. That is what the government repeatedly does. It does not plan its legislative agenda properly. All of a sudden, it wakes up one day and says, “Oh my goodness, we need to introduce legislation on this. Let's get this passed quickly. Let's not review it. Oh, there are problems with it? Well, we will fix that someday.”

This is not the way that things should be run. It is a cynical pattern, and it is a clear pattern. We have seen articles on this as recently as February 28. “Conservatives accused of 'playing politics' in the House: Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of systematically blocking the government's legislative agenda.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Bills are introduced. We have procedures to debate them. In debate, we find problems with legislation, such as the problems with the recovery sickness benefit.

The members of the Liberal government say that debate has so little value that it should not occur. They want this legislation to be debated for two hours, and the member for Winnipeg North just added his 30-minute contribution. It was a valuable contribution of course, but he wants a quarter of the debate to be his. I am not sure what we would say if we were in kindergarten, but we might say that the member was trying to hog all the toys.

We can look at February 24 and see the same thing. The Liberals went out to the press and said:

Unfortunately the work of the House has been held up by Conservatives obstructing [this legislation].... We are calling on the Conservatives to put politics aside.

I am calling on the government to better manage its calendar, to better manage its legislation and to introduce legislation on a timely basis. We have been in the pandemic for a year and we know these things have to get done. We had a big break at Christmas, and the government probably could have done some work and prepared some legislation so that it would be ready to go when we came back, instead of just dropping it on the Order Paper and telling us that we better pass it in two hours. That is not the way we should govern.

There is a question we might want to ask: Why did the Liberals do things this way and what is their end game? Well, one, this is political. They want to shamelessly blame the opposition parties for holding up the benefits for Canadians, who, of course, need those benefits. Two, we have issues with the government's transparency. It is a big problem. The Liberals do not want transparency, because they do not want us to know what is actually going on with legislation and other things. It is very well documented.

Members might recall that the government said it would be open by default. It was a signature promise by the Prime Minister back in 2015. I know that was six years ago, but it was his big thing. Guess what has happened since then? As noted in an article in the Telegraph-Journal:

In its latest edition, Canada’s Access to Information Act ranks 50th out of 128, behind stalwarts of transparency such as Russia (43rd), Pakistan (32nd) and South Sudan (12th). That’s hardly a spot we want to find ourselves in given just how important a strong right to information is when it comes to holding our leaders accountable.

Another article from February noted, “Government and its information should be open by default”, as the Prime Minister promised. “Data paid for by Canadians belongs to Canadians. We will restore trust in our democracy, and that begins with trusting Canadians.” Who said that? It was the Prime Minister, a mere six years ago.

However, when do we get this transparency? For example, all the opposition parties have been calling on the government to release the vaccination contracts. Have we received those contracts? No, we have not, because there is an absolute lack of transparency.

Why is this lack of transparency so important for Bill C-24? Well, the Liberals are making changes to the Canada recovery sickness benefit, and they are making the changes because they rushed through legislation that allowed people on a leisure vacation to come back and, during their mandatory quarantine, claim the benefit. Constituents in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon find this absolutely outrageous. It was raised repeatedly with the government, and it has taken months and months to try to fix it. Here are my questions. How much did this cost taxpayers? How many people have claimed this benefit? How many millions of dollars have been spent?

We know the Liberals like to filibuster at committee. They accuse us of filibustering legislation, but boy oh boy we are rank amateurs when it comes to that. Look at any committee demanding information from the government and it is delay and obstruct. It refuses to give the information. We have seen it in the WE Charity scandal and when we ask for vaccine contracts. The health committee has been filibustered for ages over that issue.

Why do I think that is important? It is because governments make choices during a pandemic, and during this pandemic the government has made a really big choice. I have raised this question with government members many times: Why are they not providing any funding to new businesses and start-ups? They had clearly made the decision that they are not going to do it. Is it an economic reason? We do not know because they will not answer the question. If it is an economic reason, they are saying they have made the economic choice to let these businesses fail. However, how much money did the government waste on giving vacation returnees access to this benefit? That money could have been given to support new businesses.

When I spoke to this with respect to Bill C-14, I told members opposite that they should spend some time talking on the telephone with new businesses that are going bankrupt. People have invested their life savings and their family's savings. They may have taken out a mortgage on their home to fund a business, and they are going to lose it all.

I have written pleas and letters to the finance minister, the Prime Minister and to the small business minister. None of those letters get answered and nothing changes. We do not end up with any support for small business.

I bet they would be grateful for the $5 million, $10 million or $50 million spent on this benefit to people returning from vacations. Will we see that information? Will my colleagues on the other side of the House commit to looking into how much money was spent on this benefit for returning vacationers and inform the House? I doubt it because it is very difficult to get information from the government, whether it is vaccine contracts or how many people accessed this benefit who should not have accessed it.

For members of the government to say that Parliament is so small, that we do not need to debate legislation, is an insult to all Parliamentarians that—

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

The hon. member will have eight and a half minutes remaining when we resume debate on this bill.

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

Air Transportation

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here this evening to talk about the question I asked the Minister of Transport, which was:

...Nav Canada is planning to close air traffic control towers across the country. One of those control towers is in Regina at the international airport.

I met with Nav Canada officials on December 4 to talk about the process to close these towers and how it would decide which ones would be shuttered. It said that this process would take months.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Why is it that Regina airport employees received notice of layoffs on January 14, if this report is not even finished yet?

The response I received from Minister of Transport was less than satisfactory. He said:

Nav Canada is undertaking several studies to assess the level of service needed. No decision has been made. It is important to note that any changes in the level of service proposed by Nav Canada will be subjected to a rigorous safety assessment by Transport Canada. The process provides for full consultation with all affected stakeholders.

The problem I have with this answer is that I believe the decision has already been made, as do the workers at the air traffic control towers at the Regina International Airport. They are just trying to find ways the report confirms their biased decision to have these air traffic control towers closed.

I have heard often now from members, including the members for Kingston and the Islands and Winnipeg North. They talk about a team Canada approach. I want to bring up one thing that we should all have in common. A letter came from premiers across the country where these air traffic control towers are going to be closed. These premiers included Sandy Silver from Yukon, John Horgan from B.C., Jason Kenney from Alberta, Scott Moe from Saskatchewan, François Legault in Quebec and Doug Ford in Ontario.

All these premiers have asked a question, and I believe it is a reasonable ask. I would like it answered from whoever will be representing the Minister of Transport this evening. Premiers of all political stripes coming forward and asking for a delay in this review until we can know what will happen to air traffic, complex flights and the flights returning after COVID-19 is not an unreasonable request. The premiers and I are asking to delay this review until we get to pre-COVID-19 flight status across the country to see which airports will be active and which will not.

The next question I have to whoever will be answering the questions this evening is concerning the 15 Wing air base in Moose Jaw. It is in the same flight zone as the Regina International Airport. It is imperative that the Department of National Defence take into consideration what would happen if there was no air traffic control tower in Regina. There are complex flights going through there and the safety of the trainees at the 15 Wing airbase is of paramount importance. The safety for all air travellers should be important. I ask that a decision not be made until the Department of National Defence takes into consideration safety at 15 Wing Moose Jaw.

The fact that the people of Regina think this air traffic control tower may be closing has already affected flights and possible flights. We have travel agents who say that Air Canada has said there will not be some trips taken, and it is affecting people throughout the City of Regina. I talked to travel agents Laura Lawrence and—

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

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, first let me reiterate that the safety of Canadians is Transport Canada's top priority, and no compromise to safety will be tolerated.

The onset of the global pandemic has brought many challenges for all industries, and the air sector in particular has taken a grave hit. Transport Canada has been communicating with Nav Canada regarding its proposed level-of-service changes at select sites from the very beginning of this crisis. Prior to making any decision, its proposal will be thoroughly reviewed and all aspects of safety will be rigorously analyzed by civil aviation experts. I can assure the member that the minister will not hesitate to reject its proposal if it is deemed that the changes would result in an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

Although Regina is in fact one of the sites that is being considered for a service change, no layoffs occurred on January 14. Some employees were provided with notices indicating that their positions may be impacted as a result of the aeronautical study. Nav Canada is actively engaged in a consultation process where stakeholders are invited to share their concerns, and Nav Canada will present its aeronautical studies and conclusions to Transport Canada, which will review them in detail.

In light of the ongoing pandemic, Canadians continue to be advised against travelling abroad and face mandatory quarantine for 14 days upon returning. Since January 6, 2021, travellers aged five and over arriving in Canada must provide proof of a negative COVID-19 molecular test prior to boarding a flight to Canada. In addition, new travel restrictions and additional measures were recently announced to help limit the spread of COVID-19, including suspending all flights to sun destinations until April 30, and restricting the point of entry for inbound aircraft flying to Canada to four major airports. The individuals coming in will be required to reserve a room in a Government of Canada-approved hotel for up to three nights at their own cost and take a COVID-19 molecular test upon arrival.

It is no surprise that all these measures, while necessary to limit the spread of the virus and maintain the safety of the travelling public, have resulted in a reduction in passenger volumes by almost 90% and in major reductions in air traffic, both internationally and domestically. These reductions have a direct impact on Nav Canada's revenue and, as new measures continue to roll out, they will likely bring further financial losses to the air navigation service provider.

As an attempt to mitigate losses, Nav Canada has already conducted staffing cuts, increased its fees and borrowed money. It will likely need to implement additional measures and strategies as it forecasts further losses in the current fiscal year. Transport Canada will continue to work closely with Nav Canada to ensure the safety of air transportation in Canada as Nav Canada works to implement any proposed changes.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for reading those speaking points. I have two quick questions.

First, will the parliamentary secretary take into consideration the request from six premiers from across Canada, in a team Canada approach, to delay this review and ask that the minister do that?

Two, what does he say to my constituents Laura Lawrence and Audra Langton? They are travel agents and depend on flights coming into and out of Regina. Their business is at risk because of decisions made at the government's hands, such as closing the air traffic control tower. They do not have services and cannot provide those services to their clients.

These are women who have risked everything to start businesses. One started as recently as December 2019. She is looking to the government for support and to maintain the quality and safety of the Regina International Airport, so that she can support her family and have a business.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating that the hon. member is accusing me of reading notes when he had to look down to check the names of his own constituents.

As I said, the primary objective of Transport Canada is safety. This is a crisis that has been brought on by a virus. It was brought on by COVID-19, which has caused devastation. The air-travelling public and their safety is the primary concern of the minister. As I said, we will not hesitate to take any action required to ensure their safety going forward.

Telecommunications

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the adjournment proceedings this evening. I want to talk about the issue that I raised in the House and heard from the parliamentary secretary on. That of course is access to reliable high-speed Internet.

Now, more than ever, Canadians are counting on having access to reliable high-speed Internet. The strain of the pandemic has forced many people to work from home and students to learn from home. In rural areas in eastern Ontario, particularly in my riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, this has caused an issue with the amount of bandwidth available for folks who are running their businesses on already very limited options, including by getting their Internet over the air, for example.

Small business owners need to be able to connect to the virtual marketplace, and lockdowns have really exacerbated that problem and created a much bigger need than we had before. Farmers, who are on the cutting edge of sustainability, need to be able to connect for crop, herd and soil management. That really is essential so that they continue to feed our families with the highest quality product in the most effective way possible.

We have also seen during COVID-19 the need of seniors to be able to connect to and access their health care services. More and more we are seeing an increase in the use of telemedicine services, which is fantastic, in more urban areas where high-speed Internet is the rule and not the exception. That is a wonderful thing, but here in eastern Ontario, as an example of many places across rural Canada, it is a tremendous challenge and greatly reduces access to care, especially when people are very concerned about their health and unable to travel to medical appointments.

Family members have been forced to be apart from each other for a year now and we expect to continue to be apart for months to come. For many people, connecting virtually using FaceTime, Skype or Zoom is their lifeline. That is how they are seeing updates, whether from their loved ones who may be in quarantine or self-isolation, or even just grandparents getting an update by connecting with their grandkids.

The need for high-speed Internet is pronounced. We have really seen an increase in that over the past year. The universal broadband fund was announced well over 700 days ago and people in my community and across eastern Ontario are still struggling to connect. Following the announcement of that fund, we heard a subsequent announcement and then again, in late 2020, a further announcement of that fund.

What we need from the government is action. We have heard the talk. We have heard that it wants to do it. The government is very eager to compare its record for connecting Canadians against previous governments. I think it is pretty clear that the need for high-speed Internet has only increased and the need for action has increased. Comparing the government's record on high-speed Internet connectivity with any other government's record before it is not really an apples-to-apples comparison.

When will the government take the steps that are needed to finally—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister for rural economic development.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of all of us in the House, I would like to take this minute on International Women's Day to thank you for your leadership and support and wish you and all my female colleagues all the best. I am sure I can speak for all of us in the House on that.

I am delighted to stand and chat about our government's progress in improving connectivity for all Canadians and for the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. As we know and as the member opposite says, and I agree with him, high-speed Internet accessibility is essential for all Canadians, no matter where they live from coast to coast to coast.

I agree with him as well that the COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the importance of connectivity and has accelerated the need to connect all Canadians, and I am delighted to tell him that we are on track to meet our goals of connecting 98% of homes with high-speed Internet by 2026 and 100% of Canadians by the year 2030, years earlier than previously thought.

Our connectivity strategy, and we do have a connectivity strategy, includes several coordinated initiatives, including the Connect to Innovate fund and the universal broadband fund. By the end of the Connect to Innovate program in 2023, nearly 400,000 households will have the potential to benefit from improved Internet access. Over the last month alone, we have announced over 11 communities in Quebec that have benefited from investments, and they are now connected to high-speed Internet.

The $1.75-billion universal broadband fund, the UBF, is the program that Canadians asked us for. It was enhanced and scaled up to meet the challenges that everyone is facing. It was designed with partners, with colleagues, with small businesses, with farmers and with experts to ensure that it is flexible and addresses the needs of all communities all across the country, whether it is through mobile connections, fibre connections or satellite connections. It includes tools and services to help better plan projects and, more importantly, to track the impact while addressing challenges that can happen to delay progress, because we all know Canada is a wild and wonderful country.

The UBF is going to be used to fund broadband infrastructure projects that will provide rural and remote communities with access to high-speed Internet services to connect with loved ones, use virtual health care services—as the member opposite referred to, which is huge in my riding—manage a farm, help with children's homework, or, frankly, just stay connected. It is going to support the required network infrastructure, whether backbone or last mile, to better meet the geographical needs and regional connectivity needs throughout the country.

I am pleased to say that we have begun announcing projects under the rapid response stream. These projects are going to connect households in November of this year. Earlier this year the Minister of Rural Economic Development announced $6.7 million to connect 1,977 homes in communities in rural B.C. They were in Pemberton, Steelhead, Ryder Lake, northwest of Princeton and the north Sunshine Coast. In Starland County and Stettler County in Alberta, 7,179 underserved households are going to be connected, and northeast of Sudbury, 74 underserved households will be connected, including 68 indigenous households.

Furthermore, 190 households in the Perth—Wellington region and 120 households in the Niagara region will be connected and there will be more coming soon. These are exactly the types of projects this stream was intended for and intended to fund: small local projects that will make an immediate impact.

We know there is so much more to do, but we have a strategy and a plan to make sure that every Canadian will be connected.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard about some of those projects that the parliamentary secretary mentioned and I would like to draw her attention and the attention of the minister to the Eastern Ontario Regional Network's application under the universal broadband fund. I want to flag that for the parliamentary secretary. This program would allow 95% of the homes in the region, or more than 550,000 premises, to have gigabit service by 2025 if fully funded.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to commit right now to me and to all the residents in eastern Ontario that she will undertake to review that application and to flag it for the minister so that we can be assured that it has the government's consideration.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to finding out. I will contact the department and get an update for the member on that and reach out to him directly.

I want to assure him that we launched the universal broadband fund to provide Canadians with high-speed Internet. We accelerated our targets to connect them even faster. That was the rapid response stream. That will allow us to move quickly with projects that are already well advanced. As a result of these projects, many Canadians will have improved access by November of 2021. The impact of these projects is going to be felt far and wide by rural and remote communities that have limited or no access now.

I want the hon. member to know that I really understand this need. I come from a very large rural riding. My land mass is bigger than Switzerland. I have over 200 beautiful little towns. Many of them do not have connectivity, and they are excited about this. I am excited about the pathfinder service with the rapid response stream, because that allows small communities and small Internet service providers to call in and have their questions answered. It is a two-day maximum turnaround—

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

With that, we are done. I wish a happy International Women's Day to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable not being present in the House to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:51 p.m.)