Debates of April 26th, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members about the use of their colleagues' names, their given names, that is. He had her title right, but the second part was not necessary. I am sure the hon. member understands that. It does happen from time to time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the chamber to take part in one of the most basic responsibilities of Parliament, which is to discuss the authority of the Crown's government to spend its citizens' money. It has been a long time, over two years. The last budget was seven months before the last election, which seems like a lifetime ago.

It is easy to forget that in the third quarter of 2019, the Canadian economy was then teetering on the brink of recession. The economy had stopped growing in the fourth quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 was grim, even without the pandemic. Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was rising, our triple A credit rating had been cut, and the government had already racked up $100 billion in new debt during a booming global economy. All of that was before COVID.

We were then expecting Bill Morneau's deficit targets would be significantly blown in the 2020 budget, but then the pandemic was declared and the budget was cancelled. We had to wait 13 more months for this budget.

There was no question that the government then had to support those who had been ordered, or even recommended, not to work. Businesses that were being asked or told to close needed to be supported. Massive emergency spending was necessary public policy at the time, from the moment public health orders took away people's paycheques and business revenues, yet that is not an excuse for refusing to table a budget, and it does not forgive the lack of fiscal discipline and lack of financial stewardship in this budget.

The borrowing contained in this budget staggers the imagination. Another $330 billion over the next five years, on top of the $355 billion in the last year alone, and there is no end in sight, merely a hope that this will mean, eventually, a return to a declining debt-to-GDP ratio starting next year. This anchor is one that had already been discarded before COVID and has no credibility coming from the government in this budget.

I do want to mention that I had intended to split my time with the member for Steveston—Richmond East, so I hope it is all right to bring it to your attention now, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard the government say over and over again, both before and during COVID, that deficits are all right because interest rates are so low, but Canada's accumulated debt, the majority of which is not locked in long-term, is extraordinarily vulnerable to interest rate volatility. To this, the government also responds that it expects interest rates to stay low for the foreseeable future, so there is really nothing to worry about until there is an economic recovery. Therein lies the threat to the sustainability of Canada's public finances. The sustainability of this unprecedented debt is jeopardized if interest rates rise, and yet economic recovery is precisely what will trigger interest rates to rise. Having to service such high debt at higher rates will threaten the economy all over again and eventually necessitate higher taxes or cuts to services that Canadians depend on.

This budget is claimed to contain over $105 billion in stimulus to ensure economic recovery, but that is not true. The single largest line item in the $105 billion of stimulus is actually emergency support funds for this year's continuing payments alone. In other words, more than a quarter of the so-called “stimulus” is really just emergency response spending because the government could not get its act together to protect Canadians from a third wave.

That is perhaps the biggest criticism I have about this budget. The budget does not contain what Conservatives have been asking for since last May: that the government have a plan rooted in measurable data to have a safe and permanent reopening of the economy. The very reason that this budget contains tens of billions of dollars in continued emergency COVID spending is that the government has failed to use the tools that already exist to help Canadians live safely in a COVID-19 world.

When the economy first shut down during the first wave, there was no other sensible option based on the information available to policy-makers in March 2020, but since then the government has failed to procure vaccines in time. It has failed to procure, approve and ensure the wide distribution of rapid, at-home test kits approved for screening purposes. The only meaningful and timely response that the government has had to COVID is to spend, while hoping that things will get better.

There is no question the government's vaccine procurement is a disaster. Canada is taking surplus vaccines from other countries and raiding the COVAX system for developing nations. This is because even its terribly slow delivery schedule from the manufacturers is not coming through. The inadequate health response is what is driving the dangerous levels of debt contained in this budget, and the absence of a plan that would have avoided the ravages of a third wave threatens to destroy thousands more small businesses.

I have said it before in this House many times. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, they are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and the owners, workers and customers are our neighbours and our friends. These small businesses are the ones that have borne the brunt of COVID.

Yes, this budget contains extensions to the supports many small businesses need just to survive through the summer, but that is not what small businesses want. They want their customers back. They want to be open. They want to serve the needs of their communities. They want to give their own friends and neighbours their jobs back. They want to at least try to put the hopes and dreams of their business shattered by COVID back together.

Small businesses do not want to take on more debt. The average small business has already taken on $170,000 in debt since the pandemic began, and these debts threaten their recovery. Some of this debt is in the form of low or no-interest loans from government aid programs, but the majority of this debt actually comes in the form of bills that small businesses just cannot pay, things like their rent or their suppliers' invoices. These debts threaten to cascade throughout the economy and prevent recovery.

By the end of last year, 60,000 small businesses had failed, and now nearly 200,000 more are hanging by a thread. There is one particular group of small businesses that has been completely, and at this point one must even conclude deliberately, ignored by the government, and that is the small businesses that had the terrible misfortune to have opened their doors in late 2019 or early 2020. In most cases, the owners of these businesses put their life savings into their businesses and incurred significant debt to pursue a dream to open, start or reinvent a small business, but these businesses have nothing, and there is nothing in this budget that will help them.

The Minister of Small Business and her parliamentary secretary have been saying for months that new businesses will be supported, but they have done nothing. This once-in-two-years budget still ignores these businesses.

Just this weekend, I received an email from the owner of a business who opened an auto service business in Calgary in October 2019. This business cannot even acquire a CEBA loan, which is among the easiest ones to qualify for, never mind access to the other aid measures. This small business is not going to be sustained by words. It needs cash, or better still, its customers from a fully opened economy and a vaccinated population.

Between platitudes such as “we have your back”, “we will stop at nothing” and “we will continue to work for new programs for new businesses”, the government will occasionally mention it is concerned about the integrity of its programs and is making sure businesses do not suddenly materialize and take advantage of its programs. Of course nobody wants anyone to game the system, but with all the red tape in this country, it takes months to even get a building permit to start a new restaurant.

Somebody who opened in March of 2020, spending their own money and exhausting their finances long before COVID began, is left out of the programs. There are thousands of these businesses. They are in every riding. I know every MP in this House is getting emails from these kinds of businesses.

There is so much more I could say, but I will end by pointing out there are many necessary economic support measures contained in this budget, but they are necessary precisely because the government has failed so spectacularly to protect Canadians from the third wave. It would be imprudent to support a government that adds so much debt without a coherent plan to manage this debt and reduce it over time. There is just no fiscal anchor or even any credibility with the government concerning its fiscal anchors.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member started his speech by talking about the government's desire to take on debt right now because of low interest rates. That is not entirely true. The reason why governments are okay with taking on and having deficits is because as long as they are growing their economy at a pace that outpaces that debt, it is realistic to take it on.

Members do not need to take my word for it. They can ask Brian Mulroney or Stephen Harper. Out of the 16 years that they were in government, they ran deficits 14 of the 16 years. In fact, the Conservatives' own plan says that it will take them 10 years to get back to balanced budgets. This is the current Conservative leader saying that he will run deficits for 10 years.

On spending, the member is absolutely correct. It is all happening right now because it is to help Canadians get through this. Therefore, on the other end of this, as soon as it is over, the deficits are going to drop considerably. Why do the Conservatives need 10 years to bring it back to a balanced budget then?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start with that. Has the member even looked at the chart that shows the deficit projections? The government will never balance a budget. There is no plan anywhere to come even close to it. The Liberals' plan, which is contained in this budget, hopes that they might get below 50% debt-to-GDP by the end of its projections. That is if nothing goes wrong between now and 2026.

That is a government that has broken through every fiscal anchor it came up with, right from the promise it made in 2015. The debt-to-GDP ratio was rising even before COVID. There is no credibility from the government on any fiscal anchor or any attempt to have a long-term plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for focusing on government priorities and spending. What does he think about wasting $18 billion on the Trans Mountain expansion project and another $18 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry when we are in a climate crisis and we know that we need to transition? Does he think that money would be better spent on that transition to a clean energy economy?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Government of Canada had to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline to get it built is a spectacular failure of policy on the part of the federal government. The federal government chased the private project builder, which was going to build the pipeline with private money, out of the country. I agree that this is a failure of the federal government. That pipeline should have been built privately and be up and running, getting our products to market, generating revenue that we could then use to fund programs that are important to Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Calgary Rocky Ridge for his very accurate speech of this complete failure on the part of the government in so many different areas with respect to the budget. One area that our province of Alberta has been hit particularly by is the government's anti-energy policies over the last six years.

In the budget, there was almost no mention of the oil and gas sector. Could my friend speak to that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing that in 730 pages of the budget the Liberals could not discuss an industry that contributes so much to the Confederation. It is as if the government thinks that the primary industries and export industries that fund services in Canada are not important enough for substantial mention in a 730-page budget document. It is very disappointing to my constituents, so many of whom have struggled with unemployment since the Liberal government came to office in 2015.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business has complained that I complain too much about how the government spends like there is no tomorrow. I am here again to do just that. After all, having seen the recent budget, how could I not. Let me point out a few points beforehand.

Budget 2021 proposes overspending by $143 billion, enough to sign up every Canadian for nearly $4,000 in extra debt, an equal albeit an unwanted opportunity for each man, woman, child and senior. A deficit of $143 billion for one year is already an unfathomably large number. To put that into perspective, 143 billion years ago, not even time existed. Cosmologists say that our universe and the time that goes with it only came into being about 14 billion years ago.

Let us pull ourselves back from fantasy and to reality, a reality where the Liberal government says to the average Canadian that the government knows best how to spend Canadians' money. A whole-of-government approach from cradle to grave might be a valid and perhaps worthy discussion in this chamber when our nation is drowning in budgetary surpluses.

However, when we are looking at the immediate future, figuring out how to get the millions of struggling Canadians back on their feet, it is clearly not the time for introducing utopian, socialistic, imagineered and unproven projects. We owe that to our future generations when we are deciding to subject them to the evermore massive debt burdens to not surrender to our reckless binge spending desires on their credit card.

Instead of this reasonable and responsible approach, we see an effort to blindly push forward policy to grow the state and the state's control over our lives. To paraphrase Khrushchev, we will be fed small doses of socialism until we finally wake up and find we already have communism. I, for one, will fight to keep that from happening, and as a parent, I would say parents know better than politicians what is best for their families. Canadian families do not need an Ottawa-knows-best, one-size-fits-all child care system. For those who support this idea and do not share my concerns, be prepared to be let down.

For decades, Liberal governments have been promising a government regulated child care system but have not delivered. This promise will be no different than the promises to introduce electoral reform or holding off Canada's carbon emission, having the budget balance itself or planting two billion trees. I bet that if money did grow on trees, we might finally see the government start planting those trees. It is no wonder the Liberals have not updated the “promises kept” page on their website since 2016.

What do they have to show besides making people feel let down? With budget 2021, unemployed Canadians hoping to see an atmosphere for new job creation and economic opportunities for their families are going to feel let down. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed, workers in industries like forestry, tourism and hospitality or work within the B.C. fisheries industry who have lost jobs and were hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy are going to feel let down. Families that cannot afford more taxes, that are struggling to save more money for their children’s education or to buy a home are going to feel let down.

Additionally, they will suffer from the inflationary effect of pumping hundreds of billions into the economy. Costs will go up, interest rates will go up and we will see the social spending dry up. When that happens, feeling let down may be overshadowed by more imminent threats such as staying afloat.

Budget 2021 is not stimulus spending focused on creating jobs but spending on Liberal partisan priorities. What has been proposed is a reimagined Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas, like abandoning Canada’s world-renowned and sustainable natural resource industries, leaving our economy in a precarious position.

We must approach COVID emergency spending with a lens of compassion, recognizing that what we do now will have lasting effects on the lives of countless Canadians. Acting responsibly now will save them from suffering later in the medium and longer term. Unfortunately, this budget does nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians, and when I say “unfortunately”, I mean it.

Conservatives do not want to see Canadians let down. Yes, we critique the government for spending too much and we critique it for spending not enough, but this is obviously not a contradiction. Surely even the Liberal members can see how the government is spending too much on its pet projects and not enough on what matters to ordinary Canadians.

Conservatives represent the real people this government has lost touch with. We give voice to their concerns and align with their priorities, which I emphasize include putting food on the table and keeping resources like gas and electricity affordable so that people can continue to drop off and pick up their kids from soccer or hockey games once the pandemic is over. We need to focus on keeping families safe and keeping Canadians gainfully employed.

My home province of British Columbia is in the middle of an opioid epidemic, which occupies merely half a page among the 725 pages of the Liberal budget. It does not do much to enhance opioid addiction treatments. The Liberals have failed to deliver a comprehensive, recovery-oriented plan to tackle Canada's addiction crisis. This is an area of life and death where help is needed. This is a priority.

Conservatives had been advocating for mental health supports long before this budget was introduced. Many Canadians are facing mental health challenges as a direct result of the pandemic. Many wonder why budget 2021 has not provided much-needed support for provinces to tackle mental health issues or other direct COVID-19 consequences. These are two areas that could be greatly expanded. Canada would benefit from seeing comprehensive approaches taken to these issues and seeing them treated as priorities now and going forward.

Like the George Massey tunnel replacement project in Richmond, Canada's infrastructure is in desperate need of reinvigoration, but new spending on ideological Liberal vanity projects does nothing for it or for projects like the SkyTrain extension or further diking in low-lying, populated urban areas such as Richmond. These are real, on-the-ground priorities. B.C. is a priority.

I believe that Canadians can be confident that the Conservatives know what their priorities are. With a Conservative recovery plan, we will secure their future by recovering millions of jobs and introducing policies that result in better wages and help struggling small businesses get back on their feet. We must show progress in safely reopening the Pacific cruise routes, classical tourism and associated industries, which employ, by the way, tens of thousands of B.C. residents directly or indirectly.

Canada's Conservatives kept Canada from being dragged into the pits of despair and brought us out of the last recession. Canadians who are worried about their future know that we will do it again.

Let us stay down on earth with our budgets, away from grandiose and intangible, undeliverable promises. If the government keeps spending as it is, there will be no bright tomorrow for our future generations. Canadians deserve a government that brings hope and confidence in the future. I intend to work with my Conservative colleagues to deliver them such a government.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his very passionate comments.

I am interested to know what the member thinks about the recent report on the 2021 best countries, where Canada has taken first place. Canada jumped two spots over the last year and it beat out 78 other countries for first place, including Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Australia. I would like to think that our government, since 2015, has been a major component of how happy Canadians are.

Could the member comment on how he voted on the CERB? Did he support the CERB? We are trying to take on the debt and not put it on the average small business owner and household. Did the member support the CERB?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vimy for asking me this repeated Liberal question.

To start, if we are to amortize Canada's younger generation's future we could always spend more. If money can solve all the problems and we can engage in reckless spending as the Liberals have been doing, then we can actually raise our ranking here today, in this moment, but our future generations are going to be in a dire situation.

For the member to ask me questions respecting the CERB and CEWS, in my speech I am trying to address that there is a priority. Just as an idea, the Liberals could for example push out CEWS first and freeze the jobs that are in trouble and therefore have fewer Canadians on CERB, so when the businesses are returning, they would—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will need to leave that there and get on with some additional questions.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Steveston—Richmond East. I have the good fortune of serving with him on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. It is a pleasure to work with him.

I noticed that he talked about an election budget in his speech. I could not agree with him more. The Liberals are about as subtle as a fire truck. They plan to send a $500 cheque to seniors aged 75 and over in August, just before the election they hope to hold in the fall.

That is a problem because only seniors aged 75 and older will get a cheque, while seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 will not get anything. I am getting calls at my office from people who are angry, but oddly enough those calls are not only from seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. Seniors aged 75 and over are calling because they are angry that their cousins or brothers or sisters are not getting anything even though they are also seniors.

I want to know what my colleague thinks about the Liberals' approach, which creates two classes of seniors and second-class citizens.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too enjoyed participating in the Subcommittee on International Human Rights with my fellow member.

I am speechless. I do not know how to answer a question that the Liberals have put in place. However, drawing from my experience, knowing that the Liberal Party enjoys playing class struggles in politics, perhaps the Liberals' research finds that they have more potential to get votes from people aged 75 and above. I do not know. Perhaps the member would want to consult the Liberal side.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to have the last word.

I want to take these last few minutes to talk about veterans in this budget. There are over 15,000 veterans waiting for their disability claims to be processed. Last year we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did an in-depth review of this wait time, and I want to be clear: it is up to two years for some of our veterans.

The feedback was very simple. The just-over 300 people who VAC has hired temporarily need to be put in place permanently. To address this backlog, even more need to be hired very rapidly. We are already behind. With the government opposing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, I am not sure when these veterans are actually going to see the resources they rightly deserve delivered to them. The budget does list $29 million for VAC to hire permanent case workers, but this is a reannouncement of money set aside in budget 2018.

Now we have the budget offering veterans yet another program to fill in the gap. The veterans I hear from are very clear. They are tired of new programs. What they want is simple: one case worker who stays with them. They want to call that one person who knows their file and understands their situation, their family and the situation they are in, so they do not have to keep repeating themselves, starting over from the beginning.

This budget would provide $140 million for this program to fill in the gap, but I have a lot of questions. Will this new program simply be available to everyone who is stuck on the backlog of the disability claim? If it can do that, why can they not just approve the original claim and make the actual resources available, instead of another patchwork program? Are we just going to see another program that has to be applied for and takes a really long time to process, putting people on another list, waiting?

Another important gap in the budget is that there is absolutely nothing to deal with the “marriage after 60” clause. The gold-digger clause was created in the early 1900s to prevent women from marrying older veterans and getting their pensions when they died. The reality is that this has always been unfair and very sexist. Many veterans live well into their 80s or more, and their loving partners care for them. I think most Canadians support love when it happens, and we should respect that. We now know that some veterans are living in poverty because they married after 60 and are giving up part of their current pension to put aside for the future. Why are we punishing veterans for getting married at any age?

I want to remind everyone in the House that the RCMP is included in this. Recently I spoke with the RCMP's veterans association and heard loud and clear that this issue is urgent and needs to be dealt with now, so I hope this gets on the Order Paper for the minister very quickly, and I want to thank members for allowing me these very few minutes to talk about how underserved our veterans are, and how the government needs to do so much better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Ways and Means Motion No. 2.

The question is on the motion.

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

I see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not see anyone else jumping up to do it, so I will.

I would request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #96

The Budget

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

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

International Development

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that vaccines are available for all vulnerable people around the world is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity today. I do not want to be an alarmist or want this to be seen as a partisan attack. Rather, I am speaking from my heart in the most urgent way I can to say that we, as human beings, are facing an existential, ethical, moral and intellectual threat. I am deeply afraid that the Liberal government is making the wrong choice to protect Canadians and the world.

As we all know, we are in the midst of the third wave of the COVID-19 global health pandemic. COVID-19 has killed close to three million people so far worldwide. Countries have had their economies crippled and their health care systems demolished. Of course, we have spent countless hours in the House debating the impacts on our economy and the measures we need to take to address those impacts.

What we have not addressed, and what the government refuses to address, is Canada's critical role in combatting COVID-19 around the world. This is a global pandemic that will require a global solution. It will require that wealthy countries do what they can to protect the health and well-being of citizens and the economy. Perhaps more importantly, it will require that wealthy countries such as Canada recognize this and work to help citizens in every country to ensure we can all recover from COVID-19. That is simply not happening in Canada with the current government.

Instead, we know the government is refusing to support a proposal to the World Trade Organization that would waive certain intellectual property rights and allow low-income countries to manufacture their own vaccines and medicines to combat COVID-19. While millions suffer and die, variants develop and the global economy crashes, the government delays and deflects. It has been over six months since the intellectual property waiver proposal was first made to the World Trade Organization by NDN South Africa. Over those six months, the government has delayed providing a concrete response, instead asking questions for which it already has the answers and tiptoeing around its refusal to support the measures.

We do not have the luxury of time. While the government is delaying and taking the side of big pharma, ensuring record multibillion-dollar profits for these companies, the virus is evolving. It does not care whether one lives in a low-income or high-income country. It does not care about big pharma's profits. It will continue to spread around the world and continue to evolve as long as we fail to recognize that this is a global crisis that requires a global response.

This is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. We are in a global race between vaccines and variants right now, and the variants are winning. The intellectual property waiver is not just about giving poor countries the tools they need to combat COVID-19 for their own citizens. It is also about protecting Canadians. Our health, well-being and economy depend on defeating COVID-19.

Canadians are not asking the government to protect big pharma. Canadians are asking the government to protect them. When will the government sign on in support of the intellectual property waiver at the WTO?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite from Edmonton Strathcona for this opportunity to deliver my first remarks as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

The Government of Canada is committed to a comprehensive global response to COVID-19 that leverages the entire multilateral system in supporting the research, development, manufacture and distribution of safe and effective COVID-19 diagnostics, equipment, therapeutics and vaccines.

With respect to the proposed COVID-19-related waiver from certain provisions of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS, Canada has not rejected the proposed waiver and is working with an range of WTO members to seek to understand the specific nature and scope of any concrete intellectual property, challenges experienced by WTO members related to or arriving from the TRIPS agreement such that concrete and census-based solutions can be found.

Canada also continues to engage WTO members on the use of existing public health flexibilities under the TRIPS agreement and as affirmed by the Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health and continues to share its own experiences in this area.

As the Doha declaration emphasizes, the TRIPS agreement is part of the wider national and international effort to address public health problems. In addition to ongoing discussions on the waiver, Canada is actively engaged in the work of the WTO Ottawa Group on the trade and health initiative, which aims to strengthen global supply chains and support the delivery of essential medicines and medical supplies around the world.

Canada is highly supportive of the access to COVID-19 tools accelerator and its vaccine's pillar, the COVAX facility. In parallel to the ongoing TRIPS waiver discussions, Canada has also encouraged the WTO director-general's efforts to enhance the WTO's role in dialogue with the pharmaceutical sector toward accelerating the production and distribution of affordable, safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines and other medical products in coordination with the World Health Organization and other relevant organizations.

The Government of Canada remains actively committed to a robust, multi-faceted and global effort to address the pandemic that draws upon all the necessary resources and tools available in the international rules-based trading framework as well as new mechanisms for global co-operation on the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines and other medicinal products.

As equitable, timely and affordable access to testing treatments and vaccines will be critical for controlling and ending this pandemic, Canada looks forward to continued engagement with all members of the international community to find solutions to these global challenges.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Liberals have not rejected the TRIPS waiver, but by delaying, by deflecting, by asking for more information that they already have, they are failing to support us. They are failing all of the people who are looking for the COVID vaccine.

Now, when the world needs Canada to step up and support global efforts, the government is failing. I am beyond frustrated. I am beyond exasperated by them. I am tired of these excuses. Over 280 European parliamentarians support the waiver. Even members of the his own party, their own members of Parliament, have called upon them to support the waiver.

There are no more questions left unanswered. The government needs to do what is right. It needs to support Canadians. It needs to support our lives, our economy. It needs to stop supporting big pharma at the risk of so many people being able to get the COVID vaccine.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has long supported the ability of WTO members to use existing flexibilities under the TRIPS agreement to respond to public health emergencies and stands ready to find solutions to any concrete challenges in WTO members' responses to COVID-19-related to or arising from the TRIPS agreement and which cannot be addressed through existing TRIPS flexibilities.

Meanwhile, Canada continues to work closely with international partners like COVAX and plays a leadership role in the ongoing effort toward ensuring the timely, equitable distribution of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to middle and low-income countries.