Debates of March 9th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Workers

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

That is all the time we have for the member's speech.

Continuing with questions and comments, we will go to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil for speaking to a very meaningful and important discussion on the opposition motion that has been brought forward.

My question for the member is quite simple. When I was asking a question of the finance critic, who the member shared his time with, I asked him about debt. The critic said that debt is a good thing. Would the member for Barrie—Innisfil agree that debt is a good thing?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is not the first circumstance that Canada has been in an economic crisis.

As we know, in 2008, during the great meltdown of the economic markets, the government at the time, led by Prime Minister Harper, did in fact incur debt. It incurred debt to provide stimulus to the economy, which worked and helped Canada recover faster than any G-7 nation.

This is an unprecedented circumstance, and the level of supports for families has been needed. However, let us make no mistake, this is not a debt that has been incurred by the Government of Canada. The Prime Minister likes to say that the government took on debt so that families did not have to, but this money will have to paid back.

This debt will have to be paid back by Canadian families. The way that can be done is by raising taxes. I do not expect that the government will do anything less than that if it is re-elected. We have to be concerned about what we are imposing on future generations.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are trying to do whatever we can to save our businesses and reduce this unprecedented debt.

I have a question for my hon. colleague.

My question is about the Conservative Party's solutions and promises around economies of scale. The member's own leader said it would be a good idea to create economies of scale amounting to a considerable $425 million by switching to a single tax return for Quebec, an idea that has unanimous approval. Why, then, did his party trash the idea at the Standing Committee on Finance?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know the circumstances or the context of the discussion at the finance committee, so I do not think I am qualified to speak to that.

The one issue the hon. member did bring forward was the issue of the power of business. I wholeheartedly believe that it will be, as I said in my intervention, the power of Canadian business, the people they employ and the products that they produce, that will propel us out of this, as long as government does not get in the way, and as long as government is allowing regulations, legislation and policy that create investor confidence, both domestically and from foreign investment as well. That includes every sector of the economy, firing on all cylinders, because government supports it.

It is not about reimagining the economy into something of the Prime Minister's idyllic view, but to use those sectors of our economy that have traditionally propelled this country to great wealth, great opportunity and great hope for Canadians. This is what we need to do as a government, and this is a plan that Conservatives are working on and will be providing that option to Canadians as we move forward in the next election.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on the issue of passenger refunds, and this is something that really concerns us.

Other countries acted swiftly last spring to mandate the airlines to provide passenger refunds, but Canada did not. As a result, billions of dollars in passenger refunds have become a bargaining chip in the current negotiations between the government and the airlines.

The Conservatives were silent on this issue for months while the other parties raised concerns. Going back to last spring, what would the member have liked to have seen the government do differently on the issue of refunds?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, that is probably one of the most largely misunderstood, unintended consequences of the passenger bill of rights, which was implemented by the government in 2019. I think this is widely misunderstood among consumers, and it is right in the passenger bill of rights, but if there is a situation that is non-controllable than it is not incumbent upon the airlines to provide those refunds.

That is not to say that they should not provide them. One of the things we talk about in this motion as part of the potential sectoral relief to the airline sector is providing refunds to passengers.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am able to take part in this debate. I was tempted to say, “to rise in this House”, although it has been more or less a year since we have had the opportunity to be there in the flesh, and maybe that is a good point to begin my remarks.

It was a little more than a year ago when the world did not know what COVID-19 was. As I mentioned, a year ago we were physically attending debates in the chamber of the House of Commons, but it feels as though it were a century ago. So much has changed in the world since that time as a result of this pandemic, which has turned the ordinary lives of Canadian workers and families upside-down.

The motion before us today highlights a number of areas where the Conservative Party would have us seek to develop supports for individuals, families and certain industries, and I think it provides a healthy starting point in the conversation. Although, quite frankly, the starting point for us was more or less a year ago when we were arriving at solutions for some of the issues that are now coming up in debate.

Over the course of my remarks, I hope to highlight some of the measures that the government has actually implemented to help Canadian workers, families and businesses get through this pandemic and discuss briefly where we go from here. I do have some criticisms of the motion before us, which I will be happy to share as well.

However, I think it is important to begin by addressing the significance of COVID-19 and what it has done to Canadian households and families. The starting point is obviously the public health consequences that have stemmed from a global pandemic, the likes of which the world has not seen in a century at least.

There are 22,000 Canadians who are no longer with us as a result of this illness, despite the heroic efforts of front-line health care workers in long-term care facilities and community-level decision-makers to keep their communities safe. Nevertheless, despite these efforts, there are grieving families in Canada today, and to those who may be tuning in, please know that I extend my sympathies to those who have lost their loved ones.

In the early days of the pandemic, before the full scope of this emergency had made itself apparent, like most MPs who are attending virtual Parliament today, I was taking phone calls from small business owners. They were asking if this was going to last a couple of weeks, and if there would be some support coming through so that they could enjoy this and show some solidarity with their community members.

However, a week or two after that, people started to appreciate just how serious this really was. They were worried whether their business would survive this pandemic. I remember being on the phone with family members who were sincerely worried about whether they could afford groceries, and whether there would be food at the grocery store at all, even if they could afford it.

I talked to people with the most human concerns possible, and they were asking, “Will I be able to keep a roof over my head and food on the table for my family?” The small business owners I spoke to were by and large concerned with the well-being of their employees, more so than they were concerned for themselves. I saw an enormous sense of community come out of those early conversations.

Across parties, across regions of Canada, I thank those who reached out to me, because of my position on the team of the Minister of Finance, to tell me what they were hearing in their communities. We heard what people in different regions of Canada were reaching out to their MPs about, and those concerns reflected what I was hearing in my community.

This provided good examples of the areas we needed to be tackling: income support for people who lost income as a result of COVID-19; support to businesses, so they could keep their doors open; and, perhaps most importantly, a response to COVID-19 that spared no expense, because everyone knew that the best economic and social policy we could have was a strong public health response. That remains the case today.

Going back to shortly after this time last year, one of the first things we decided to do as a government was to figure out how we could replace lost income for Canadians who had been impacted by the pandemic. Initially, there was some consideration around the employment insurance system to help people in affected industries. However, we very quickly realized that the infrastructure of the federal government was not sufficient to deal with the sheer volume of people who would need to put in a claim, which was really the origin point for the Canada emergency response benefit. That program alone, up until it ended, serviced almost nine million Canadians between April and September. We are talking about close to half the Canadian workforce individually receiving a government benefit, which was designed in no time at all, implemented even faster, and nevertheless successfully reached the kitchen tables of nine million Canadians.

This was perhaps one of the most remarkable policy successes that I have been a part of, and may continue to be over my career in politics. I remember hearing from people at home that this was a godsend, and that this is what helped them keep food on the table. In my community, which has a comparatively lower household median income compared to much of the country, we have started hearing from people who work at food banks that there were fewer people attending the food bank because the government supports so effectively landed in those households. They could now afford to buy groceries rather than take them from the food bank.

This is not the case in every community across Canada, but I was very impressed that people, particularly at lower income levels, were able to survive some of the most significant economic challenges that had ever faced.

We realized as well that there needed to be additional supports put forward for businesses. One of the great strengths of the government's economic response was not any one given policy, but the willingness to iterate responses so we could adjust to reflect the reality of what was going on in Canadians communities.

I will point in particular to the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which started out as a 10% contribution to employees' wages. We realized very quickly that was not going to be sufficient to allow many employers to maintain a connection with their workforce. That particular program has the advantage of not just keeping people on payroll, but also ensuring those employees still have access to the benefits they may have been entitled to, so they do not lose opportunities that are tied within their company to seniority. Most of all, it kept cash coming into companies that allowed them to keep their workers paid throughout the most difficult portions of this pandemic.

For small and medium-sized businesses, we created the Canada emergency business account. There have been over 800,000 Canadian businesses that have now been supported. We are looking at record numbers of Canadians who have been supported by these programs, including nine million with CERB, more than five million workers with the wage subsidy and nearly 900,000 businesses with the Canada emergency business account. That number is closer to a million if we include a similarly styled program offered through the Regional Development Agencies, the regional relief and recovery fund.

We were hearing loud and clear that businesses needed support to address the fixed expenses of staying open. The emergency business account has literally helped businesses in my community keep the lights on and deal with Internet bills, allowing them to maintain some cash flow during a time when revenue had completely dried up. We realized as well that we needed to establish further supports, which justified initially the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, which has transitioned into the Canada emergency rent subsidy. It provides more direct and accessible support to tenants, who can actually stay on their premises as a result of the federal support that has been offered.

In cases where public health measures have actually locked businesses down, this particular program can provide up to 90% of the cost of rent. We have looked at the fixed expenses that businesses were telling us they needed support for, and we came up with new programs to help support rent, keep the lights on, pay the utility and Internet bills, cover the cost of keeping workers on payroll. As well, when workers were laid off, we established programs that supported them in their time of need.

However, there are particular programs that were more specific to the areas they targeted. I know the motion discusses certain hard hit industries. I will draw attention to tourism and hospitality, the arts and culture sectors, and charitable sectors. Statistics Canada put out numbers recently that indicated Canada's GDP has returned to about 97% of pre-pandemic levels, and it has broken it down by industries. The shocking piece of the graphic it published shows the severe impact that remains on sectors that depend on getting people together or coming from different places to travel.

Tourism, hospitality, arts and culture in particular are still very much feeling the pain of the pandemic because we cannot gather in spaces in large numbers. We cannot travel from one jurisdiction to another safely without the potential to spread some of the variants of concern that have caused so much difficulty.

We did develop certain programs that were designed to help these industries over and above the fact that these industries qualify for the cross-sector support programs, which I have canvassed in my remarks today. We developed programs like HASCAP for highly affected sectors to make sure that there was liquidity support for businesses that have been hit particularly hard.

We developed the large employer emergency financing facility, or LEEFF, as a last resort program to ensure liquidity for large employers that had high operating costs to keep them in a position where cashflow enabled them to meet the expenses they would come across so they could remain open and keep Canadians employed.

I mentioned the regional relief and recovery fund, which was tailored to help businesses that may not have qualified for some of the other supports for various reasons. It was offered through the regional development agencies, which, at least in Atlantic Canada, I can say with confidence have an intimate knowledge of the people in communities, who are doing business and need help, and what the regional nuances may be.

Some of these programs have been very successful in their delivery. Others are still rolling out, and we are continuing to hear about how they can be improved, but more work needs to be done.

I want to draw attention to the comments of the previous speaker, who indicated that there was some great exercise in reimagining the Canadian economy in a radical fashion. To be clear, the path forward requires us to look at some very important strategic challenges facing the Canadian economy, which may have been made more apparent as a result of this pandemic. However, I see nothing radical about fighting climate change as part of the economic strategy for Canada going forward. I see nothing radical about investing in housing to ensure vulnerable Canadians have a roof over their heads. I see nothing radical about investing in transit, which disproportionately benefits seniors, low-income Canadians and Canadians living with disabilities, to create more livable communities. I see nothing radical about implementing a strategy to increase women's participation in the Canadian economy. To me, these are sensible and obvious things that the federal government needs to tackle if it wants to maximize our opportunities for success on the back end of this pandemic.

We have learned things through this pandemic, such as social deficits we have accepted for generations at which we need to look, but addressing problems that have been made apparent is the job of government, not some radical agenda. I wanted to ensure that point was put on the record as part of my remarks.

Before I address some of the shortcomings of the motion, I want to provide a bit of context to those who may be listening. This motion is directed, when I read the language contained in its text, at supporting workers and families, and I have mentioned certain areas that have some common ground between different parties. However, when I look at some of the measures that have actually been advanced in recent weeks to support workers and families in various industries, the Conservative party in particular has been implementing delay tactics and playing partisan games in the House of Commons to delay the passage of certain very important supports.

Bill C-14 and Bill C-24 are perfect examples. Thankfully Bill C-14 came to a vote at second reading and will go to the finance committee in short order. That bill would provide direct financial support to families through an increase in the Canada child benefit. It would enhance the quality of support for local businesses through the regional relief and recovery fund. It would allocate a billion dollars toward fighting the spread of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities. I think my Conservative colleagues support those efforts. Nevertheless, they are trying to implement delay tactics to prevent us from getting these supports where they are needed, which is in Canadian communities and Canadian households.

Some of the tactics to delay this kind of bill have included forcing three hours of debate to concur with a report on the competence of the Canadian Tourism Commission president, which could have been dealt with in a second. These kinds of things have no place in our legislative deliberative body. We would be far better served if we could get on with it.

We have seen delay tactics implemented for Bill C-24, which includes the extension of very important supports through our employment insurance system. I would urge my colleagues of all parties to do this. If they have objections to the bill to raise them in debate, but to not use procedural delay tactics to prevent supports from reaching Canadian households, where they are desperately needed.

Substantively with the motion, although I support many of the areas it covers in spirit, there are some deficiencies that are important.

First, the text of the motion ignores many of the programs I have canvassed in my remarks to date. It calls on the government to effectively do things we are already doing. When I look at the call to support the hospitality, tourism and charitable sectors, the motion forgets that we have advanced hundreds of millions of dollars to the charitable sector to date and are willing to look at other additional solutions. The motion ignores the fact that many of these sectors benefited immensely from the Canada emergency wage subsidy. For those who have been laid off in those sectors, support has come to them through the Canada emergency response benefit. It ignores liquidity support we have provided through the Canada emergency business account.

If we are going to be called on to support specific industries, it should be specified what we should be doing to incrementally improve the programs that exist today. The motion creates the impression that here has been no support for these sectors to date, which is patently not the case on the face of it.

Second, one of the problems I have with respect to the piece that deals with airlines, and I deeply value I think the all-party support for finding a solution for the Canadian aviation sector, is that by including what the solution may be in the text of a motion on the floor of the House of Commons could jeopardize negotiations that have been going on for months with the Canadian airlines. Declaring what outcomes should be will interfere with the negotiations the government is currently undertaking.

We have stated publicly that to secure support from the federal government certain conditions ought to be met, including the restoration of regional routes, the refund of passenger tickets that have already been booked and support for the Canadian aerospace sector. We have already established certain things, and prejudging the outcome of those negotiations in the text of an opposition motion is not the best strategy going forward.

Finally, although the motion highlights a few areas, if it purports to be any kind of comprehensive look at what the federal government's strategy ought to be to support Canadian workers and families, it falls woefully short, in particular in the strategy to support families that have been affected, that have lost jobs and that will need income support.

I expect there may be some ideological divisions within the House of Commons on whether the federal government has a role to provide direct income support to families. I can certainly speak for the government side of the House that we do believe the government has role, which is why we implemented the Canada emergency response benefit, why we are moving with certain reforms to the EI system and why we repeatedly state at every opportunity that we plan to be there for Canadians, no matter how long it takes or no matter what it takes, to see them through this pandemic.

We are accused sometimes of not having a strategy to deal with this pandemic. That is obviously not the case. The strategy, in simple terms, is as follows. First is to make every investment that is necessary to defeat COVID-19 as quickly as we can, because we know the best economic policy is a strong public health response. Second is to extend the support to Canadian households and businesses they need so they are still here on the back end of this pandemic, so we can limit economic scarring in the interim and ensure the recovery will be robust. The third phase, which we are not quite at because of the continuing impact of COVID-19, is to make investments that will be focused on job creation and economic growth that is sustainable and inclusive so we can ensure Canada's recovery will actually help ordinary Canadian families and ordinary Canadian communities.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary's recount of history and I almost expected a soundtrack of music to show up at the last minute. He was speaking of the past which made me think of the past.

We have an airport in Saskatoon, which I have been flying out of for 35 years. It has taken many years to build up the flights that come into that airport. I remember when Northwest Airlines first flew out of Saskatoon and gave us the ability to fly south, and then United Airlines did the same. Many other airlines have flown in and out of Saskatoon.

In one fell swoop, all of that was gone, 30-plus years of hard work of getting more and more flights and building up the airport. We are now faced with trying to rebuild that infrastructure and I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments on that. The infrastructure and the economic development provided by the airport in Saskatoon is massive, which is true in all cities across the country. I wonder what the parliamentary secretary feels about the lack of support and the impact it will have on the economic development in Saskatoon.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I had my first opportunity to visit his hometown just a couple of years ago. It is a beautiful city and I find there is hardly a person I have met from Saskatchewan with whom I do not get along. We Nova Scotians have a natural affinity for our friends in Saskatchewan.

With respect to the support for the aviation sector, including in his province and mine, I point out that $1.8 billion has gone to the aviation sector through the Canada emergency wage subsidy. Another billion dollars for the aviation sector was committed to through the fall economic statement, but we know there needs to be more.

In the short term, we have taken steps for very good public health reasons to encourage Canadians not to be travelling, particularly internationally. There will come a time when we have a reopened economy, where we will want to encourage people from around the world to choose Canada as a destination.

I understand the aviation sector is facing serious challenges. That is is why we are negotiating with the airlines to find a long-term solution to the problems it is facing, including the cash crunch, and that is why we are insisting that if we are going to support the sector, those airlines will make good to compensate passengers for tickets booked and they will restore regional access to different airports, including in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

When I hear the Liberals talk about their record before the pandemic is even over, and about the millions of dollars they have put directly into the pockets of Canadians and Quebeckers, I feel like they just do not get it. That really drives home the importance of the opposition's role in the House because, without the work of the Bloc Québécois in particular, programs would not have been improved to the extent they have been. I shudder to think what the outcome would have been otherwise.

Targeted programs are needed for different industries. My colleague talked about tourism. The programs currently in place are not specifically designed to save the tourism industry. Specific programs are needed, and it took quite a while for the government to introduce measures for the tourism industry, for example.

Another example is the corporate sector, including franchises, for instance. Before the pandemic, in times of full employment, they had to bring in foreign workers to fill low-wage jobs. The criteria have changed because of the pandemic, and these foreign workers are no longer eligible. Meanwhile, no employment incentives have been created to encourage Quebeckers and Canadians to take on these low-wage jobs.

Does my colleague not think it is time to create serious incentives so that, if we cannot bring in workers from abroad to fill these positions and save these companies, we can at least fill the positions with available workers from here?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question was bifurcated. It covered two specific areas: the role of the opposition and the tourism sector.

First, let me put on the record my appreciation for my opposition colleagues, who I have worked with recently, including the Bloc Québécois, on the issue facing sugar shacks in his province and for raising issues to educate me and my colleagues on our side of the House about some of the unique regional needs that have come up in their communities to ensure the government is aware of the challenges. I have spoken with members of every party represented in the House of Commons. Each of them has provided value to the government's process of deliberation in developing the emergency responses. I am very grateful for that kind of cross-party co-operation.

Second, on the tourism sector, the member is absolutely right. The sector is facing serious challenges. Let me be clear that those challenges come from COVID-19 which have prevented people from travelling, but the government's strategy has been to support businesses to get them through this pandemic. In a lot of ways, at the outset of this pandemic, everyone's revenue was lost and certain programs that may have been more blunt in nature were able to provide support to those sectors. As we look to the transition of a reopened economy, we will have to look at strategies that will encourage people to visit communities where it is safe to do so, perhaps near where they live, and in the long term to encourage international travellers to choose Canadian destinations and destinations in Quebec as well.

I would be happy to continue to work with members of the Bloc or other parties to understand the regional nuances of the supports that will be required in their jurisdictions to ensure that tourism plays a meaningful role to help the Canadian economy not just get back on track but thrive for the long term.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important for us all to remember that when the programs the parliamentary secretary went over were first put on offer, it was only through significant and sustained interventions by the opposition that we got to see improvements that were sorely needed. I am very proud of the role of the New Democrats in improving things like the emergency response benefit, the wage subsidy, ensuring there were increases to the CEBA and that the much-maligned commercial rental assistance program was changed into a subsidy. We have to remember that this was a collaborative effort.

I want to talk about the wage subsidy. Like the parliamentary secretary referred to in his remarks, I have spoken to a lot of small business owners who were struggling through some of the rules put in place to access the wage subsidy. Those small business owners were absolutely flabbergasted when they saw large corporations like Imperial Oil and Bell pay dividends to their shareholders while posting multi-million dollar profits, but still receiving things like the wage subsidy.

My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is this. Does he think it is wrong at least that those companies were violating the spirit of the program and what will his government do to fix that? That subsidy was in place to help struggling businesses, not to give payouts to shareholders.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, again, I have a two-part answer to a two-part question.

I will be the first person to acknowledge the value provided by parties from all corners of Canada and different partisan persuasions to the development of the emergency programs. I have spoken with a number of the member's NDP colleagues, who certainly were adding their voices to calls from different parties, and to those within our own caucus as well, to ensure that the benefits targeted people and businesses in need.

I will remind the member that at the outset of this pandemic the goal was speed of delivery as much as the generosity of benefit, because we knew that if we did not get money to people quickly the consequences would be serious and long term. I appreciate his and his colleagues' feedback and the feedback of many of my colleagues within my own party who have helped us tinker with some of the parameters of these programs to improve the quality of the benefits we have delivered.

On the wage subsidy, the member raises an important point. He suggested that the wage subsidy was a program to support vulnerable businesses. One of the things I will point out is that it was actually a program to support workers. Every penny of the wage subsidy delivered to a company has to go to the wages of the workers on the payroll. We have put certain parameters around that to ensure that the wage subsidy goes where it is needed.

On the issue of dividends, that is a serious issue that we need to look at to make sure that the supports provided by the federal government have been used exclusively for what the rules allow. I also want to point out that the issuance of dividends, in and of itself, is not necessarily a problem, but I do think there are cases the member has pointed to that raise serious concern that the federal government needs to continue to look at to ensure that Canadians have faith that the emergency programs—

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary always does such a great job in delivering his points. I certainly look forward to seeing him back in the House.

He talked about some of the games he saw the Conservatives playing in holding up various pieces of legislation. In particular, I note he referenced Bill C-14, a very important piece of legislation for small businesses in Canada. As a matter of fact, Dan Kelly, the head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said that “Bill C-14 has some important measures.... CFIB urges all parties to ensure this support is passed quickly”, and yet the Conservatives voted against it.

Does the member have any thoughts on why the Conservatives would allow it move as slowly as possible and then, when push came to shove yesterday, voted against it?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will do my best to avoid impugning the motives of my political opponents, whom I view as friends and colleagues. However, I will register my disappointment with their approach of insisting on multiple hours of debate to affirm a unanimously supported report that dealt with the competence of the Canadian Tourism Commission's president; to extend debate on a unanimously supported motion on human trafficking; and to delay a vote on the passage of Bill C-14.

Let me remind the House that Bill C-14 would provide direct cash support to families and parents of young kids, and provide direct support, through the regional relief and recovery fund, to small businesses and—

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

That is all the time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Today in the House, we are debating the motion moved by the Conservative Party, which is calling on the government to do a number of things, including introducing in the next federal budget a number of measures to support workers in the highly impacted hospitality, tourism and charitable sectors; providing repayable loans to airlines with certain conditions; and improving support programs for small and medium businesses to prevent bankruptcies.

The Bloc Québécois has looked at the motion and, generally speaking, finds that what is being proposed is rather interesting and positive. However, we did not find it particularly ambitious, but it is difficult to be against apple pie. We might even say that the Conservatives are working with and helping the Liberals.

The Conservatives are asking for certain measures to be included in the next budget. We have heard that the government is not in a hurry to table a budget. They have not tabled one in two years and the Liberals do not seem to be in a hurry, which is something we have not seen in 50 years.

Canada is the only G7 country that has yet to table a budget. The Liberals think that they can do whatever they want. They seem to think that they are accountable to no one and that they do not need to share their plans. They prefer to have carte blanche and announce flawed programs at the last minute that need to be adopted quickly every time, which we find problematic. We are pushed to ram through flawed programs and then come back to Parliament to vote on something else. It never ends.

Why not propose real programs, a real budget and a real process for analyzing things and asking questions? The Liberals always do things willy-nilly. We would do things differently, but the Liberals seem to like this approach since they keep using it.

The Liberals have also forgotten that they are a minority government. Quebeckers should beware because if the Liberals are acting this way when they have a minority, imagine what they would be like with a majority. It would be unbelievable.

Let us come back to the Conservatives' motion. One of the things that interests me in particular as transport critic is support for the airline industry. I think it is good that the official opposition party's motion calls for such support.

I repeat: The Liberals have forgotten that they are a minority government and act as though they have a majority. Today the Conservatives moved a motion that I am sure will have full support from everyone. The Conservatives are becoming increasingly less ambitious here in Ottawa, especially with respect to the airline industry. The Conservatives are calling for this industry to receive assistance, and we agree, as, I believe, do all of the parties.

Parliament has shown a willingness to provide similar assistance to the airline industry, but the problem is that the government twiddles its thumbs and does not follow through. This pandemic has been going on for almost a year, and the government has yet to do anything for this sector. We are one of the only G7 countries that has not helped its airline industry because our government is twiddling its thumbs.

We also agree with the conditions set out in the motion. However, the Conservatives do not seem to have tried very hard, as it once again looks as though they just copied what the Liberals said.

In November, the government finally announced more or less the same thing as what the Conservatives are asking for. In other words, it said that it might, in fact, provide support for the aerospace industry, but such support would be conditional on ticket refunds and the potential return of Air Canada or at least some other airlines to the regions. What we are seeing in the Conservative motion is basically the same thing. I will have an opportunity to talk more about the return of national airlines, such as Air Canada, to the regions later.

For now, let us talk about the announcement the government made last November. In November, we had been in the midst of the pandemic for eight months. We had been badgering the Liberals in committee and in the House of Commons for eight months. We tabled a petition signed by 33,000 people. We also introduced Bill C-249 to refund cancelled air service. Eight months had gone by, but Ottawa still had not done anything. The transport minister at the time, who has since been transferred because I think the Liberals had had enough of having him there, finally conceded and announced that he might do something, that it had come to that.

Here we are, March 9, and nothing has happened yet. We were already at wit's end in November. We thought they had finally gotten the message and that the whole issue would be resolved in a week or two, especially since they had already given some indication of where they were headed and what they wanted to do.

However, nothing happened in December. In January, they said it was in the pipeline, but still nothing happened. Nothing happened in February either. Now it is March, and we were treated to a big reveal last week. The Liberals set up a leak to let us know that Air Canada has finally agreed to refund tickets in exchange for government assistance. It is not a done deal yet, though. Today is March 9, and the pandemic has been with us for a year, but all we are entitled to is leaks. That is unbelievable.

This government does not appear to have any backbone whatsoever. Over the past year, it could have brought in the rules, conditions, programs and proposed assistance and insisted on refunds as quickly as possible. Instead, we are dealing with a government that is paralyzed and incapable of doing what needs to be done. The government should not have to beg Air Canada to do the right thing and obey the law. Refunding passengers is neither a favour nor optional; it is an obligation.

Instead of taking action, the government decided to leak information. Consumers are fed up; they have been waiting for a year. Airlines have been getting an interest-free loan for the past year on the backs of consumers, who paid money for services that were never delivered. Meanwhile, consumers have had to pay the balance on the credit cards used to purchase those trips. Anyone who decided not to pay their balance in full will pay dearly for it, a lot more than the airlines, because balances climb quickly when the interest rate is 20% per month, and that is tough on budgets. Meanwhile, the government remains paralyzed and is basically doing nothing.

Beyond air fare refunds, we have our own set of conditions for helping the airlines, including some that are in the Conservatives' motion, namely, introducing restrictions on executive compensation, imposing a ban on paying dividends or share buybacks, prohibiting outsourcing and layoffs, and maintaining contracts with local businesses and workers. We have to stop laying off people here at home and sending our jobs offshore. We must also stop the recall of travel agent commissions. We believe these are basic conditions.

We do, however, have a problem with the last item. It does not make sense for Air Canada to abandon the regional connections. Air Canada has eliminated 30 destinations across the country, completely abandoning our regional carriers who had continued doing their job. When Air Canada was there, we know that it regularly did incredible things, temporarily dropping its prices before—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member because it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a very heartfelt speech by my colleague.

He talked a lot about the airline industry and said the government has not been there to support it and the people who do business with airlines. My question is about the related industry of aerospace and aeronautics, which is important in my colleague's province and in my province of British Columbia as well. I am thinking of Abbotsford airport, which is right next door to my riding, and the Langley Regional Airport, which is in my riding. Thousands of people work in the aeronautics industry and support the airline industry.

How does the government's lack of interest in helping the airline industry also affect the aerospace industry and other related industries?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

One element that I was unable to address in my speech was assistance for the aerospace sector. If planes are no longer flying, airlines are not going to buy planes. That is the bottom line. There is also the fact that the federal government has completely abandoned Quebec's aerospace sector.

I note that there is aerospace infrastructure in my colleague's riding. We stand united on this issue.

I will also add that the aerospace industry consists of more than just airline companies. It also includes airports, suppliers, airplane maintenance staff and all those working in this sector. The repercussions are serious and permanent. These are good jobs for the future.

It is disappointing to see a government abandon a sector with such good jobs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one thing I think we will probably witness is the spreading of misinformation, as we see the Bloc work so closely with the Conservatives at times, which I often refer to as an unholy alliance.

Members are trying to give the impression that the Government of Canada has not been there for the airline industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have invested hundreds of millions of tax dollars to support the airline industry in a couple of different tangible ways. I have referenced the wage subsidy, with over a billion dollars going to that area, and the fall statement allocated hundreds of millions of dollars.

Does the member not feel that the Bloc has a responsibility to be more forthright with what is actually happening? The member says the government has not been there for the airline industry, but he knows that factually this is just not true. We have been.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.

The government often claims that it has supported the airline industry. That is true, but the problem is that the airline industry, like many of the industries hit hardest by the crisis, did not receive more assistance than the others. Why would the government provide the same level of support to an industry that is desperately struggling as it does to an industry that is not?

To use an example, the Liberals dipped into the wage subsidy to line their pockets and pad their election fund. The aeronautics industry was eligible for the same assistance program as the Liberal Party, which was not struggling. I do not think that is right.

Furthermore, the government gave money to these companies without requiring them to obey the law. People have still not been reimbursed for their plane tickets. Unbelievable.

This government talks out of both sides of its mouth but does not follow through.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention a story that made headlines today.

Apparently the Privy Council Office tried to submit thousands of pages of documents in English only to the Standing Committee on Health and thus to the House of Commons. Despite all their promises and talk, clearly the Liberals still could not care less about French and consider it a second-class language.

I think my colleague's expression applies here too. When it comes to respecting French and our official languages, does he feel that the Liberals are talking out of both sides of their collective mouth?