House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the NDP knows I have a great deal of respect for him. We do agree on some issues here and there.

On his comment about that, I will go back to my comments before. We need to have supports as people begin to recover. I am frustrated that we have to offer CERB as we go into this summer, because parts of our country will be reopening.

We have made it very clear that we need to be there for our businesses, we need to be there for individuals, but for me, that means getting more vaccines into arms quickly so we can safely reopen. July is almost a year and a half after this started. We are months behind the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel and other countries that have had successful rollouts. The fact that we need to have this and the fact that are businesses are not allowed to reopen, flourish and regrow our economy is a failure in itself.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all his hard work. I share his concern with this budget. There are a lot of things that have been promised time and again that have not shown up, and we are losing our ability to do things in the country. One of the things that was really absent in this budget was something to inspire the natural resources sector. There was zip-a-dee-doo-dah in the budget. Considering the contribution to our GDP and the fact that the industry has been decimated, I would have expected the government to identify some package. What does the member think about that?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton with respect to our natural resources sector. I have spoken in the House many times about the importance of our natural resources not just for those in Alberta and Saskatchewan but for our entire country. We are lucky from the east coast to the west coast in a wide variety of jobs and industries.

When we look through the budget, the sector is absent. More than ever the sector needs our support. We talk about the environment and the opportunities to do better environmentally. Investments in our oil and gas sector, investments in research and development and investments in technology can make Canada a world leader on emissions reductions and job retention. People in Alberta, Saskatchewan and across the country look at this, and it has certainly been missing in this federal budget.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I will follow up on what was just discussed.

It is interesting to hear that the most polluting sectors need help making this transition. I do think that may be a good idea. However, the government continues to take taxpayers' money and put it into these industries while in regions like mine, in Matane, wind turbine manufacturing plants are closing because these businesses have no more contracts. They have to lay off their employees because the different levels of government believe that investing in the wind industry is not a good thing. The government may not believe that it is enough.

I have a problem with continuing to subsidize the most polluting industries. I believe we must take action on several fronts at the same time. Yes, we must make the energy transition, but in several ways, by investing more in renewable energy sources. Oil is not one of them.

I would like my colleague to comment on this.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Madam Speaker, I think we will agree that the environmental plan presented by the government has not done what it said it would do. Every target that has been set has been missed. To my colleague from the Bloc's point, if she speaks to the oil and gas sector workers, they do not want government assistance, they do not want any subsidies; they want the government to get out of the way and allow them to grow the sector. We can do that, as we recently announced in our environmental plan, by investing in the sector and in the technology. It is amazing out there. Every opportunity we get, there is so much technology and so much potential for the industry. The government just needs to stand back and let the sector flourish.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, inequalities have increased. The ultrarich are becoming richer, while those in need of help are still struggling to get by.

We have learned a lot about the Liberals in the last few years. They talk a good game, but time and again we see they have little intention of walking the walk when it comes to taking bold action. The Liberals choose to continue to give their rich friends a free ride, when what we need is for them to pay their fair share.

This is evident in budget 2021, which brings no wealth tax, no excess profits tax. If anything is clear in this pandemic, it is the fact that Canada needs a wealth tax on the super rich to rein in extreme inequality and contribute to crucial public investments in the wake of COVID-19. A wealth tax is economically and technically feasible, but it requires breaking with a status quo that all too often is just there to serve Bay Street and the wealthy few.

According to the Canadian group for fair taxation, three-quarters of Canadians surveyed are in favour of a wealth tax. What is clear is that the only thing lacking in bringing in a wealth tax is the political will to make this bold change. One has to ask what is wrong with this picture: According to the CCPA, Canada’s 87 richest billionaire families control 4,448 times more wealth than the average family and as much as the bottom 12 million Canadians combined. Budget 2021 will only serve to perpetuate such inequalities.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that if a 1% wealth tax was brought in for those with a net wealth of over $20 million, as proposed by the NDP, it would raise $5.6 billion in the first full fiscal year, rising to close to $10 billion per year by 2028.

In addition to a wealth tax, the NDP is also calling for a profiteering tax. Members should try to wrap their heads around this: The ultrarich made $78 billion over the course of the pandemic. Surely they can afford to pay a bit more to support Canadians in need. We also know that the ultrarich often stash their wealth in offshore accounts so they can avoid having to pay their fair share on their massive wealth.

It is a disgrace that budget 2021 only seeks to consult instead of taking action on tackling the problem of tax havens. Meanwhile, big banks are going unchecked, with no oversight. They are making billions during the pandemic, while hiking bank fees. This is wrong. We have to remember that Canadians were urged to avoid cash transactions during COVID-19, and now they are being dinged with increased bank fees.

All this is happening when one in five Canadians does not take the medication they need because they cannot afford it. As people continue to struggle, the call for a comprehensive universal public pharmacare continues to go unanswered after 24 years of promise by the Liberals. Not only that, but one in five Canadians avoids the dentist every year because of cost. The community is desperate for dental care, and that is not even mentioned in budget 2021.

As these basic needs are ignored by the Liberals, they have chosen to continue to provide fossil fuel subsidies to big corporations, and Canada continues to fail to meet its Paris accord targets. It is also disgraceful that the Liberals chose to turn a blind eye to the abuses of large companies that received the wage subsidy despite cutting jobs, increasing dividends to shareholders and increasing the salary of their executives.

The wage subsidy was clearly to protect Canadian workers and their jobs and was not meant for bonuses for top executives. Here on the west coast, the Pacific Gateway Hotel has terminated 140 workers. At the Hilton Vancouver Metrotown, another 100 workers have lost their jobs. The Sheraton Ottawa has fired 70 of its workers.

Any federal relief to be provided to big companies should require the companies to include an agreement on recall protections for workers who lost their jobs during the pandemic. This includes the new federal hiring subsidy, which should prioritize rehiring laid-off staff over replacements.

Speaking of supporting workers, the increase of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks in the budget implementation act is not enough. Not only that, but it would not take effect until 2022. For those suffering from chronic illnesses, 26 weeks is not sufficient. I have heard from constituents who are recovering from cancer or from a stroke and they are in dire situations because their EI benefit has run out. Since they did not lose their job because of COVID, they did not qualify for the CERB or the CRB. These families are falling through the cracks in their time of need. I am calling on the government to increase EI benefits to 50 weeks so that people can get the help they need.

On the CRB, while the government will extend the benefit for 12 weeks, for the last eight weeks, from July to September, the support will be reduced from $500 per week to $300 per week. This will be detrimental for workers in sectors that are slow to return. For many, $300 a week will not even cover rent, let alone ensuring that there is food on the table.

Similarly concerning is the fact that the Liberals have chosen to create two classes of seniors: those who are 65 versus those who are 75 and older. The increase for OAS should not be just for seniors over 75. We can afford to ensure that all seniors, 65 and older, are lifted out of poverty.

Also, it makes no sense that the Liberals have decided to study the needs of people with disabilities for three years instead of taking action now to lift them out of poverty. Most people living with disabilities have been excluded from some of the financial assistance offered by the Liberal government. Even the one-time payment to people with disabilities, a meagre $600 offered by the government, is difficult to access. For many people, because of the requirement to provide a disability tax credit certificate, it is not feasible for them to access this support. It is incomprehensible that the most vulnerable are not getting the help they need, while top executives are allowed to get big bonuses using government wage subsidies.

As this pandemic drags on, many Canadians are faced with significant rent arrears. The last thing we need to see is more people displaced without a home. That is why I fully support the National Right to Housing Network's call for action, which includes the call for a residential tenant support benefit. I also support Acorn's call to stop predatory lending.

On the issue of loans, the Liberals have finally taken the baby step of eliminating interest on student loans this year, although I have to note that this is not permanent. The Liberals need to stop making money from student debt, period. Not only do I want to see the interest gone, but I would like to see the government forgive student loans to help struggling students during the pandemic.

There is money to support Canadians in need. It is a matter of priorities.

As we look to the recovery, every effort must be made to support small businesses. There are huge gaps in the programs right now. Many new businesses that opened just prior to the pandemic did not get the support they need to get through the pandemic. Many of those businesses had to shut their doors.

Artists, musicians, performers and cultural workers have been among those hardest hit by the public health orders and advice issued in order to curb the spread of COVID-19. I have connected with many of my constituents and labour groups that represent theatre workers, like IATSE and ACTRA, to discuss the need for the federal government to provide better emergency pandemic supports in those sectors. I am in full support of their call for action on the #ForTheLoveOfLive campaign, which includes extensions of the wage subsidy and rental subsidy to the end of the pandemic, as well as additional sector-specific funding specifically for the live performance sector.

I am also renewing my call for the federal government to support the PNE. It needs to be able to access the wage subsidy. This 110-year-old institution in Vancouver East must be saved. Aside from the wage subsidy, I am also calling on the government to support the PNE with a grant similar to what was provided to Granville Island. Likewise, Vancouver's Chinatown needs support and this—

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

I am pleased that she mentioned how much attention the budget pays to seniors, namely none. In my opinion, the Liberal government's reaction shows a blatant lack of respect.

I would like the member to share her opinion on the following. Why did the government abandon our seniors?

Could this possibly be an attitude the government is adopting because there is going to be an election? Is the government going to show up in August with something more for seniors than the small amount of $500 and the 10%?

What does she think about that?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, it is shameful that the Liberal government has left seniors out. It promised seniors during the election that it would support them, but of course after the election it forgot all about that promise. Then, in the face of the pandemic, what did the government do? On the eve of another election, the Liberals said they will give a bit of support to seniors who are 75 and older, to entice them to vote Liberal. Maybe that is their message; I do not know. However, what about seniors who are under 75? Do they not deserve support as well? All seniors should be treated fairly and equitably and with respect and dignity. They all deserve support.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to enter into debate today on the budget. I would like to share my thoughts and what I am hearing from the people who I represent about how disappointed they are.

They are disappointed that this budget, two years late, has nothing in it to get our economy back and rolling again. It is immensely frustrating, coming from Saskatchewan, to see that, if we look at the sectors that have been ignored over the years by the Liberals, this has continued with this budget. It is frustrating because of what this budget would do for future generations, or what it unfortunately would not do.

It is a budget that unfortunately adds more debt. The Prime Minister will add more debt than all other prime ministers in the history of Canada combined, which is a shocking amount of money, and we are going to have to pay that back. It is generational theft that is occurring here.

Another great concern of mine is how the Liberals are paying for this debt or how they are accounting for it. It has been commented on that in our history regimes around the world have tried to print money to get out of the fiscal issues those countries were facing. Those regimes in other parts of the world all failed, and they failed miserably. They failed their society and their citizens because of what printing money ultimately does. When we print money, additional currency enters into the system, which means existing money is worth less, and that ultimately leads to inflation. We are already seeing this.

When I meet with seniors, they are mostly concerned about the cost of living. When I meet with young families, it is the cost of living they are concerned about. This is combined with professionals who are concerned there will be to be fewer opportunities for them or their children because of the decisions that are being made right now in Ottawa.

On that backdrop is the item I am most concerned with. Once we create this inflation by printing currency, and that is what the Liberals would be doing, the government will attempt to tap it down by measures, which are usually interest rate increases. That would have a cascading effect throughout our country. It would have a cascading effect on other levels of government. Consumers and citizens who are just holding on by the skin of their teeth right now are paying record low interest rates, which we know will rise because of inflationary pressures to combat those effects.

What we would have is an effect of layering on misery with citizens. That mortgage payment for families that are just scraping by right now would be increasing. For anyone who has personal debt, that would be increasing. What choices are those families going to be making because of this budget? I shudder to think what the country would look like.

Let us examine what will happen to other levels of government. The provinces are all running deficits throughout Canada, and some of them are near record deficits because there is a pandemic going on. There are all hands on deck, and we need that to get through this pandemic. Conservatives have been very clear that we support short-term emergency relief, but what we would be getting out of this budget is much more, unfortunately.

The provinces are fighting this pandemic with everything they have and any extra dollars they may have are going into health care. That is probably the most disrespectful and shocking part of this budget. Not one thin cent is going to health transfers to the provinces. We have the provinces on the front line paying for nurses, doctors and everything that goes along with providing health care, and there is not one additional dollar in health transfers from the federal government to the provinces, which are on the front line of this pandemic.

If we go a step further, we are hopefully rounding a corner, but we are severely lacking second doses in Canada. We are 50th out of 70 countries when we look at fully vaccinated people. It is a mammoth mistake that the government has done such a poor job of procuring vaccines for our citizens, worse than any other G7 country in the world.

Another unfortunate aspect of this pandemic is that a lot of health care has been delayed. We know that diagnoses of cancers have been delayed, and that one is quite scary for me. We all know that health outcomes, especially with cancer, improve with early diagnosis. If we push back diagnoses, what does it mean for patients and families?

Let us also consider the elective surgeries that have been pushed back. Other health concerns out there are not getting attention right now in our health care system because every additional dollar in capacity is going to fight this pandemic, and the feds are nowhere.

There is not $1 in health transfer increases this year. They all point out that they are paying for the vaccines and PPE. Of the contracts we are aware of that we have paid for as a country, we paid a premium for slow delivery. We can see the slow delivery in the world.

Now that we are into the playoffs, I hope we are all taking a bit of a breather from our schedules to watch a little hockey. If we turn on the highlights of the teams in the states, because their government procured enough vaccines, they have fans in the stands. This is compared to the stark reality of arenas in Canada that lay empty. The excitement is there, but there are no fans. That is all at the feet of the federal government failing to procure enough vaccines.

Even the aspects the federal government is responsible for, it has failed us. It failed us in getting enough vaccines. Of the contracts we are aware of, we paid a premium for late delivery. One has to ask why that is. Was it the three months wasted at the start of the pandemic when it was negotiating with the Chinese Communist government for vaccines? Why did we pay a premium? Were we late in the negotiations and other countries already had their orders in?

I have never heard a reason for us paying this premium. I am not against paying a premium for vaccines if we have them already. The delay of getting them into the country means the lockdowns and economic hurt is going to continue. That is most disappointing to the people of Saskatchewan.

The VIDO centre in Saskatoon did receive some funding. Members may remember that facility was the first in the world that isolated COVID-19. The leading scientists and doctors working on this vaccine are in Saskatoon, and they isolated COVID-19 first among all other countries in the world. It is a renowned centre. Within days, if not weeks, after isolating it, it had a prototype for a vaccine.

One of the most frustrating days as a member of Parliament was meeting with its representatives. They asked the federal government for additional dollars and they had to wait for the budget before getting the dollars. We are in the middle of an emergency—

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. We are almost over time.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has time for a short question.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Charbonneau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saskatoon—University for his speech.

As he pointed out, this budget increases inequality for all classes of voters. As he also mentioned, the government refused to meet the expectations and needs of the provinces and territories when it comes to health care transfers.

What does he think about the premiers' requests to increase health care transfers from 22% to 35%?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

We have time for a very short answer from the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Madam Speaker, during a pandemic is not the time to keep baseline health transfers flat, and that is what has happened. It should tick off more Canadians that they have kept it flat for a number of years, but we are in the largest health crisis of our times, and they did not increase it. Yes, they should be increasing it this year and they did not.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

It being 5:58 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Etobicoke North for bringing forward this motion.

The member for Etobicoke North and I have a history of trying to help science in Canada, which began when I was elected in 2015 and was named the critic for science. At the time, she was the Minister of Science. We got together and said we needed to make a plan that is good for science in Canada, because then whatever party is the government of the day will be doing the right thing in an area that is so important for Canadians.

Science creates jobs and opportunities. Canada is a leader. There are many areas of science where we are leading the world, and there are many areas of science where we need to participate, along with the rest of the people in the world. Then there are industries that we have where we need to maintain our scientific effort as we go along. All of these things are worth doing.

How does the government learn about all these things and study these things? This motion is calling on the House to put in place a standing committee that has science as its mandate. I think this is a very good thing.

In addition to the plan that I mentioned, I would say that as the first female engineer in the House of Commons, I have a great interest in science. In my career, I was involved in research. One of the first things I was involved in doing was developing artificial kidneys for dialysis. Later in my career, I developed plastics for the electronics industry and for personal care products. I worked in many industries, including medical and pharmaceutical, developing products there as well. I see the good effects that science can have for Canada.

The Naylor report, as members may recall, is a report that looked at science in Canada and made recommendations to the government on things that we should do. Happily, some of those things have been followed up on. The recommendation that is in the motion is something that would really advance the cause.

The way it works today in the House of Commons, we have science as sort of a sub-subject under the industry committee: innovation, economic development, whatever name of the day members want to talk about. The problem is that things are changing quickly in the world, and there are lots of things to focus on. When we look at that committee, it is looking at things from broadband Internet, which we know is a huge issue, to things that are affecting trade, areas of emerging economy, and all kinds of different studies are involved there. Many of them overlap with science, but if we start putting them in priority, science falls lower on the list.

I was also on the health committee when I was the shadow minister of health. This is another area where there are huge amounts of research being done in Canada. We are such a leader in brain research and vaccine research, and all kinds of hugely advanced things in the bioindustry. Again, when it is the health committee and we are in the middle of a pandemic, that has to be number one. The health committee has studied a huge number of things: pharmacare and a bunch of very important topics. Again, science ends up falling to the bottom of the pile, not because it is not important but in a relative sense. That makes it difficult. Some of the things we need to look at need to be looked at in detail. They are not simple to solve.

This is where a standing committee that looks into these things in detail and can provide the government with recommendations that it can then act on would be very helpful. Obviously, we have a chief science officer now. I am sure the work that is being done by her is excellent, but I am not privy to what that is. However, I expect that as she is being consulted in different ministries for different legislation that is coming forward or on issues of the day, there would be things they are not too sure about that need to be studied. That is an area where recommendations might be put forward to the committee to look into, things of that nature.

Again, we have the huge climate change task before us, how we are going to meet our targets, and the technology that is coming out of the green tech, clean tech, new energy, all these very exciting areas that might fall under another standing committee's portfolio, but likely would not have the priority to really get the attention they need. If we get this right, we would be able to take the leap.

There was a time when Canada was much more of a leader. As the competitive nature of science goes on, and considering that we are a smaller country, the amount of money that has been put into science has not always kept us at the front of the pack. There was a period of time when we slid from our position in the top 10 and went back a bit. We are starting to regain that. We have identified areas where Canada is leading. It is sitting at the table with other nations and is able to leverage what they are doing back into our plans.

When we look at the climate change issue, our own carbon footprint is less than 1.6% of the world's total. We could eliminate the whole thing and it would not have a huge, significant impact. What we can do, as Canadians, is leverage our technology. There are all kinds of carbon sequestration methods. There are all kinds of emissions reduction technologies out there, and there are the nuclear technologies that we have. All of these sectors will need things to drive them to success.

Over the full spectrum, some people want to focus on applied science while others want to focus on fundamental science. The reality is that both of those approaches are wrong. If we do not have fundamental science, we are not discovering the things that become the aha moments that give rise to some of the space-age technology that has been hugely profitable and created a lot of jobs. If we do not work on the applied science part of it, we do not get the collaboration among industry, universities and all the different areas that come together with concrete solutions that help in the shorter term. That is important.

Considerations such as the way companies are launched in the science industry, and how to make Canada competitive there, would get lost at some of the other committees. They simply would not be talked about.

As a woman in engineering, I would say that getting more women into science, technology, engineering and math is a big priority. Although we have come a long way in that respect, there is a long way to go. I can remember when I first started in engineering, I had to build a women's washroom everywhere I worked because there were none, and there were girlie pictures on the walls. I would say we have made lots of progress since then.

However, that is not to say we are at the percentages we need. I am disappointed to see that we are falling back, in some cases. We get women to enter these areas, but they do not stay. Why do they not stay? How do we motivate them to stay? Who will be looking at that? That is another area for a committee on science, which is dedicated to looking at this area and specifically the culture in it that may be very different from other workplaces, to work out.

When we think of crises of the day, a committee of this nature would provide extra flexibility for the government. In this pandemic, there was a lot to think about. There was testing to think about. There were vaccinations to think about. There were different protocols and looking at all the therapeutics that were coming forward. It is a lot for the government to take on. This is another instance in which having a committee dedicated to science to look at some of these specific mandates would be very helpful.

The government invests a lot of money in science. In the latest budget, $3 billion was brought forward. That was in line with what the Naylor report was calling for, and that is good. When we think about the amount of money it takes for a standing committee to operate, we are not talking about a lot of money in comparison to $3 billion. A lot of members of Parliament would have great interest in participating in such a committee.

I thank the member for Etobicoke North, and fully support having a committee dedicated to science to take Canada into the future and make us a leader there. It would be good for Canadians, it would create jobs and it would create prosperity. I urge everyone in the House to support this motion.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, it is good to see you again. I noticed earlier that you were so eager to hear from me that you might have called on me a little too soon.

Just for your enjoyment, Madam Speaker, before I get to Motion No. 38, I would like to share an image that came to me today while I was thinking about the motion moved by the member for Etobicoke North, a motion I support, incidentally.

It made me think about my first day at my old job, when I showed up at the university to teach. I still remember that day, August 29, 2005. There was a poster that read, “One day, I'll have an office on the top floor. The knowledge economy”. That stuck with me. I wondered how anyone could distort the university's role to that extent when the institution's purpose was to provide a platform for all fields of knowledge, not just to serve the economy.

The reason I mention that is that this motion might solve the problem. The problem is that science has kind of gotten buried under economic interests.

People often ask academics what the point of social sciences, philosophy and the arts is. They also ask us what the point of basic science and discovery is unless there is an application. That is why I think we need a scientific perspective.

That is why I welcome the motion so heartily. Not to pat ourselves on the back, but my party's leader had the great foresight to make that distinction already. I am my party's critic on science, whereas my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue deals more with the innovation and industry side of things. In committee, I generally field the questions on science-related issues.

I also think this is an excellent motion because it allows us to give the chief science advisor a forum, which is essential.

On what grounds can we as legislators make decisions?

I sometimes criticize colleagues because many people seem to be experts in everything. We cannot be experts in everything. When we are called to speak, we must be very diligent about it, and that means considering the science. We might have the opportunity to talk about the much-vaunted green recovery. I will come back to that.

We went through this with the vaccines. No one here can call themselves an expert on vaccines, and yet everyone speaks to this issue. If we want to be effective, we have to listen to the science.

The motion would provide a forum to the chief science advisor and free up the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Judging from the work being done by this committee, it has one of the broadest remits of all the committees. For the simple reason that it would slightly free up this committee, which has a very broad remit, and provide a forum to the chief science advisor, I think this motion is fantastic.

However, we have be careful. There are some caveats. A committee specifically dedicated to science must not become an excuse to interfere in scientific work.

One concept I still remember from a political philosophy course I took is that according to Pierre Magnan, science reigns supreme in western countries right now. He equated it to a religion. In ancient times and in the Middle Ages, individuals were governed by religion. However, there is a fundamental separation between religion and politics. Similarly, we must see a separation between politics and science. It is not up to politicians to decide how things work. We may not like the idea of climate change, but that does not mean we can turn to scientists tomorrow morning and ask them to alter their calculations and their approach in order to suit our economic interests.

I think most people would agree that interfering in scientific work is also a problem.

Moreover, splitting the committee must not create a silo where research and science are isolated from the rest of society. Such a siloed vision is not advisable, especially since we have just done some fairly in-depth studies on vaccines and we have seen how long and tedious the process is, in terms of basic research, applied research and clinical trials, and how it intersects with different realities.

If I could recommend one thing to my colleague, it would be to consider what several experts refer to as translational research. Many steps are proposed along the way from the starting point of basic research to its application. As public decision-makers, we must be aware of this.

The committee specializing in science must not create a silo, because there must be interactions with the other steps.

I have read the mandate of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which, in my view, is one of the broadest of all committees. The mandate of the industry committee covers 17 departments and agencies and 36 acts. Its responsibilities are very broad and very disparate. I will quickly list a few of the topics it studies: business assistance; industrial policy; regional development, a topic that is very important to the Bloc Québécois but that the committee has not had much opportunity to address; scientific research; domestic trade; competition and the effective operation of the marketplace; telecommunications; the functioning of federally regulated businesses; and tourism.

Clearly, science is taking a back seat, buried under a massive pile of different types of studies. I think this is similar to what happened during the previous Parliament.

Since the fall, the committee has studied the accessibility of Internet and cellular coverage in the regions; vaccine manufacturing, during which some scientific questions arose, but certainly not enough; the aerospace industry; foreign investments; and business regulations. The committee studied all of these topics, but others were left untouched.

For example, there is the much-vaunted green recovery plan, which says anything and everything. It took a lot of effort for me to figure out the government's strategy for the green recovery, a key component of which is apparently hydrogen. There are three types of hydrogen: green hydrogen, blue hydrogen and grey hydrogen. I want to thank Professor Karim Zaghib, who explained this to me. Grey hydrogen is actually hydrogen derived from oil or gas. It is anything but green. We need scientists if we are going to do this.

I have had many meetings with the Canadian Association for Neuroscience; with Rémi Quirion, Quebec's chief scientist; with the Canadian Society for Molecular Biosciences; and with the Canadian research forum. They all told me the same thing: we need an entire department dedicated to science.

The pandemic has shown us that we are somewhat unprotected on the science front. The government must also restore funding to 2000s levels.

During the discussions, we heard from a young researcher who will be presenting a research project to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. If memory serves, just seven out of 48 applications get approved. With the United States poised to do a considerable amount of research, Canada is quite behind. We have a 30% success rate for research funding, but that is because of the pandemic. We need to get back to the 30% rate we had before the 2000s, before the Conservatives sadly gutted the sector. The committee would be a good place to study this issue.

Of the 100 research chairs, nine are in Quebec and 50 are in Ontario. Quebec has the largest share of scientific value-added exports at 40%, yet it has 9% of the chairs. That is one more topic that could be extensively studied by a science committee.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of this motion, with great thanks to my colleague for Etobicoke North. We entered the House of Commons together in 2008 and it has been a privilege to serve with her in that time.

This motion's call for a new standing committee on science and research provides the opportunity to highlight how critical the need for this is and also some current examples that illustrate how dire the situation has been allowed to become in this country. First, Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been severely impaired by a lack of scientific capacity and literacy at the Public Health Agency of Canada. Second, our country's lack of domestic research and biomanufacturing capacity has delayed COVID-19 vaccine access for Canadians. We must ensure that this never happens again. I will speak to both of these examples that underscore the importance of this motion in highlighting this important gap in our national capacity.

The Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, was established in 2004 after the SARS outbreak exposed massive failings in our country's public health infrastructure at the federal level. The agency was specifically mandated to be Canada's lead organization for planning and coordinating a national response to infectious diseases that pose a risk to human health. However, last fall, several PHAC whistle-blowers told The Globe and Mail that they often struggle to communicate urgent and complex messages up the chain of command inside PHAC. One PHAC scientist told the Globe that key messages often had to be “dumbed down” within the agency because senior officials lacked an understanding of the science.

A series of scathing audit reports have since confirmed and highlighted this troubling lack of scientific expertise and literacy within PHAC. In January 2021, an internal audit of PHAC's COVID-19 response was released through an opposition motion for production. The audit revealed a serious and troubling lack of scientific capacity of PHAC. Among other things, the audit found limited public health expertise, including epidemiologists, psychologists, behavioural scientists and physicians, at PHAC senior levels and a lack of emergency response management expertise and capacity within the agency. It said that PHAC is missing sufficient skills and capacity for risk communications specifically for communicating uncertainty to support the agency's messaging around COVID-19.

The senior medical expertise needed to support Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, in navigating the rapidly changing science of the new virus was slow to be put in place and most likely remains insufficient to provide the support required at the time of the audit. There were a limited number of quarantine officers within the agency at the beginning of the pandemic and it was difficult to staff quickly because this position requires specific education and training. Dr. Tam's office noted that she often receives information in the wrong format and even with inaccuracies. The audit also found that the modelling information critical to the public face of the response and the foundation for strategic planning was mentioned as being problematic in its initial stages because of the lack of a coordinated or strategic approach to the work.

That audit was followed up on March 25, 2021, when the Auditor General of Canada released another audit report on the federal government's emergency preparedness and pandemic response. It also was scathing and, frankly, horrifying. Among other things, the audit found that PHAC had not tested or updated its readiness plans in direct violation of its own internal standards. PHAC failed to resolve shortcomings in Canada's health surveillance information and data systems first identified by the Auditor General in 1999, in 2002 and again in 2008. PHAC did not assess the pandemic risk posed by COVID-19 or the potential impact were it to be introduced in Canada.

As a result, the Auditor General found that the agency underestimated the potential danger of COVID-19 and continued to assess the risk as low until mid-March 2020, nearly a week after the World Health Organization had declared a global pandemic. By then, Canada had already recorded over 400 confirmed cases and community spread was under way. Despite Dr. Tam's assertion that PHAC's assessment that COVID-19 posed a low risk to Canadians was accurate in the moment, the Auditor General found the methodology used to reach that conclusion was neither formally evaluated nor approved.

Worryingly, Canada's Global Public Health Intelligence Network did not issue an alert to provide early warning of the novel coronavirus. The Auditor General was unable to determine the reason for this oversight. We have since discovered that the government inexplicably allowed GPHIN to be neutered in 2019, a failure that experts have said cost Canada precious time to prepare and worse, without doubt, cost Canadian lives.

Finally, PHAC failed to verify compliance with quarantine orders for two-thirds of incoming travellers, and did not consistently refer travellers for follow-up who risked not complying.

Michael Garner, a former senior science adviser at PHAC who left in 2019, recently told the health committee that the diminishment of GPHIN is a symptom of a bigger problem within the agency: Scientists are increasingly replaced or usurped by senior bureaucrats with no training in public health, resulting in decisions made on the basis of politics. Mr. Garner traced the root of this problem back to 2014, when the Harper government, which was perhaps the most anti-science government in Canadian history, installed a senior bureaucrat as president of public health, which relegated the role of the chief public health officer to that of an adviser. That change created a cascade effect throughout the department, he said. This misguided policy has been kept in place, unfortunately, by the current Liberal government.

I want to turn to research- and evidence-based policy-making, which the motion speaks to.

Canada once had a publicly owned drug and vaccine producer, Connaught Labs, which contributed to some of the biggest medical breakthroughs of the 20th century. This lab was profitable throughout its history and made significant contributions to medical research by allocating royalties to universities, where, by the way, most research and development take place today. More importantly, it produced essential medicines and vaccines for Canadians at very low prices while exporting to the world. However, Connaught Labs was sold to the French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi Pasteur by the Mulroney government in the 1980s for purely ideological reasons.

The privatization of Connaught Labs was part of a broader package of market-based reforms to Canadian pharmaceutical policies that were billed as necessary to spur private investment and create jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, something I think all parties agree on. At the core of that approach was the 1987 agreement to extend patent protection in exchange for a commitment from pharmaceutical companies to boost their research spending in Canada to 10% of sales. However, no penalties were imposed for failure to meet this voluntary target. The Mulroney government's policy overhaul also included the start of a neo-liberal trade policy that has provided global pharmaceutical companies with increased protections and market access.

Unfortunately for all of us, the promised research investments and employment benefits never really materialized in Canada. In fact, the ratio of research and development expenditures to sales revenues for pharmaceutical patentees in Canada has been falling since the late 1990s and has been under the agreed-upon target of 10% since 2003. Although the federal government attempts to compensate for this bleak investment by funding medical research and development with public money, it rarely attaches public interest conditions to ensure that the resulting innovations will be affordable and accessible to all who need them.

The NDP believes it is time for a new Canadian pharmaceutical policy that reorients our market-based approach to one that facilitates access to vaccines and critical medications for Canadians in order to protect and promote public health. As a first step, the NDP believes the federal government should immediately re-establish a public drug and vaccine manufacturer in Canada. This would ensure a resilient domestic supply capacity in the event of future public health emergencies and shortages, while facilitating lower drug costs for Canadians through the production of affordable medications.

This re-establishment of public pharmaceutical manufacturing should be complemented by the promotion of an open science approach to drug development that promotes collaboration and data sharing, along with policies to ensure that health technologies developed from publicly funded research serve the public interest. Contrary to big pharma propaganda, most research and development and discovery of new molecules and technology come from publicly funded research at Canadian universities. By combining that research with public medicine development, we can better ensure that we produce innovative medicines in Canada by Canadians and for Canadians at reasonable costs.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Pontiac Québec

Liberal

William Amos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Motion No. 38 from the member for Etobicoke North. It is a strong motion with some positive consequences. I am really excited to support it and also speak to an issue that she has led on for years, both in her pre-political career and now over many years serving the Canadian public, including as minister for science.

I would note the important contributions from the MP for Etobicoke North since 2015. When our government was elected back then, we recognized right away that research, science and evidence should be the centre of decision-making and investment choices. There were several initiatives launched to demonstrate this commitment, many of which fell to the MP for Etobicoke North to lead, and I want to salute her efforts today on this.

In addition to reintroducing the long-form census on day one, we also invested more than $10 billion to support Canadian scientists, researchers and cutting-edge equipment between 2016 and 2019. We appointed a chief science adviser, Dr. Mona Nemer, as an independent adviser to the Prime Minister and Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. I consider myself very privileged to have regular conversations with our chief science adviser.

We also implemented a set of scientific integrity policies for federal scientists so that they could speak freely about their work. As well, we introduced the digital citizen initiative, which is a strategy to combat digital misinformation, including science and health misinformation, and instituted new requirements for openness and transparency in science and research in the federal government.

There are some major initiatives, and I want to credit the MP for Etobicoke North for her leadership in this regard.

We also took important steps to modernize the scientific ecosystem and federal supports. For example, we implemented equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives that create a more inclusive research ecosystem in Canada; focused more on funding multidisciplinary and collaborative research that reflects the way research is conducted today; ensured better coordination among our world-class funding agencies; and promoted co-operation among federal government laboratories, university research facilities and the private sector.

The global pandemic obviously brought science and research to the forefront. Our efforts to rebuild Canada's science and research capacity in recent years and to forge strong ties with the research community and the innovation ecosystem have been essential in our fight against COVID-19.

Our government has reiterated its commitment to making science-based decisions by mandating the creation of 11 expert groups and task forces, including those convened by the chief science advisor, to inform the government's response to pandemics.

We mobilized researchers and the life science companies to support large-scale efforts to combat COVID-19. As part of more than $1 billion for the COVID-19 response fund, our government invested $217 million in coronavirus research and medical countermeasures to advance projects undertaken by university researchers and others. We also committed $1 billion in support of a national medical strategy to fight COVID-19, which includes vaccine development, production of treatments and tracking the virus. Clearly, in the COVID-19 context, we are talking about a real focus on science in governance.

As well, we helped launch CanCOVID, a new Canada-wide network of health science and policy researchers to facilitate COVID-19 research collaboration and to expedite communication, and we did not stop there. We know that a plan for a long-lasting recovery post-COVID must be led by a growth strategy that builds on our unique competitive advantages in our Canadian economy and in the Canadian research sector.

That is why budget 2021 includes important new resources to strengthen Canada's position as a world leader in research and innovation by building a global brand that will attract talent and capital for years to come.

That includes more than $440 million over 10 years to support the pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy, $360 million over seven years to launch a national quantum strategy and $400 million over six years to support a new pan-Canadian genomics strategy.

We are talking about significant investments that are going to lead to distinct Canadian advantages in particular research sectors that really do speak to the importance of science in our approach to governance.

With the remaining time that I have, I want to focus on the importance of Motion No. 38, as advanced by the member for Etobicoke North. As I mentioned, our government since 2015, has had a total commitment to supporting Canada's science and research sector. Facts, evidence and data are informing all elements of government planning and decision-making. I think that, as I mentioned before, in relation to this legacy of science-based decision-making, the MP for Etobicoke North, through her service to the Canadian public as a researcher, academic and later MP, and then minister for science, really has established a legacy that is only going to be further cemented by Motion No. 38.

The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly highlighted the role that scientists and researchers play in our society and their remarkable work is obviously what has informed the global effort in the fight against the pandemic. I think the Canadian public has really come to appreciate how much they rely on good science being at the foundation of government decisions.

I believe that all parliamentarians appreciate the importance not only of listening to science but of convening a forum within this House where members from all parties and the public might benefit from the reflections of our scientific and research communities. The standing committee proposed by Motion No. 38 would serve as an important dedicated forum to study and report on scientific matters and relevant research activities. It would provide all governments, not only our own but future governments, with an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to the centrality of science and evidence in the context of Canada's legislative branch. It is not just government that needs to focus on science, it is legislators as well. The standing committee on science and research would provide parliamentarians with opportunities to incorporate scientific information in their work within their communities and in the House of Commons.

I think that it is fair to say that science has never been more important in our country's history, in the world's history. Whether looking at the immediate term of COVID-19, or looking at the immediate medium and long-term issues like climate change, science is going to remain our most powerful tool in fighting these crises. We need to make sure that we nurture science and research wisely and that we enable public discussion of science and research. I think that is one of the key pieces of this motion and I salute the member for Etobicoke North for this.

Canada has always had world-leading researchers and has a tremendous track record of scientific accomplishment. It is really remarkable that the House of Commons lacks a dedicated scientific-oriented standing committee to vote on and do scientific and research. I think it has probably been raised by colleagues previously that there have been five previous House of Commons standing committees with either science or research in their titles, but they have always been combined with distinct subject areas; for example, energy industry and energy, industry and technology or regional and northern development. In an era beset by fake news and conspiracy theories, I think that it behooves us as members of Parliament to stand with Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians, in my estimation, would support the idea that Parliament can serve as a better steward of and a better platform for the dissemination of scientific knowledge and facts.

By voting for this motion, I believe that we, as parliamentarians, have a chance to acknowledge our responsibility to protect science and research, and to bring the public to it, but also to bring—

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 38, which proposes to split the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in two after the next election. The Bloc Québécois welcomes this proposal. We need to recognize that the current committee's mandate is very broad, perhaps too broad, and that its responsibilities are numerous and disparate. The innovation, science and economic development portfolio for which the committee is responsible includes 17 federal departments and agencies, and it is responsible for the administration of 36 acts and a large number of regulations.

Creating a committee devoted exclusively to the subject would therefore ensure that science and research are given all the attention they deserve, in order to develop a truly comprehensive vision, which is sorely lacking at this time. In addition, it goes without saying that political decisions must be made based on evidence and critical analysis. That is precisely what is known as the power of science.

One need only recall the Stephen Harper government, under which government scientists were muzzled and ignored, especially on environmental and climate change issues. To this day, certain analyses by government researchers remain unavailable, including the Department of Industry's economic analyses of net benefit under the Investment Canada Act.

This new science committee would also free up the industry committee to focus on other issues that deserve more time and consideration than it is currently able to offer. I am thinking about support for SMEs and regional development, which are issues that are truly very important to the Bloc Québécois.

As we gradually emerge from the health crisis, fingers crossed, it is urgent and essential that we focus on the economic recovery, which must be green and based on innovation. This should be a priority file for the industry committee, whose work on the economic aspects of this recovery has not yet started and therefore could not be considered during the drafting of the 2021-22 budget, even though it was touted as the recovery budget.

Once it is freed from some of its current responsibilities, the industry committee could also study one blatant injustice toward Quebec and hopefully address it too. The government cannot claim to want a recovery based on innovation without acknowledging that Quebec accounts for roughly 40% of Canada's research and development intensive exports. Meanwhile, Canada has some of the lowest levels of research and development activity in the OECD.

Quebec is a leader and a trailblazer in artificial intelligence, information technology and transportation electrification, which are all fields of the future. The same goes for aerospace, of course, which is very important to me and which I often talk about in the House, as I am the critic for this file. Quebec is the third-largest aerospace hub in the world, after Toulouse and Seattle.

However, of the 100 National Research Council of Canada research centres, 50 are in Ontario compared to only nine in Quebec. This means that Quebec accounts for 40% of Canada's technology exports but only 9% of the federal research centres.

This does not add up. This lopsided distribution demonstrates that our strengths and ingenuity are being sidelined in favour of a federal strategy whose main purpose is to let Canada play catch-up, rather than allow Quebec to expand as it could if it had full decision-making power, as a nation should.

Despite the undeniable advantages of the changes proposed by Motion No. 38, we must ensure that the creation of two separate committees does not separate science from issues related to industry and innovation. It is good to have a new structure that will make it possible to conduct more in-depth studies on specific issues, but that does not mean that we should now say that science is not equal to industry, since there is a very fundamental connection between these two areas. The whole issue of developing COVID-19 vaccines showed us how basic research, applied research and bringing an innovation to market are all links in the same chain.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing a change to the motion, and we hope that the mover of the motion is open to the idea.

We are proposing the creation of a subcommittee on science and research that would study the scientific aspects and then report to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. That would make it possible to obtain much the same benefits while avoiding the risk of negative effects.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan LiberalDeputy House Leader of the Government

Madam Speaker, I thank everyone who took the time and effort to speak to Motion No. 38. Most important, I thank them for their support. Our world-leading scientists and researchers, and our outstanding students and research institutions, deserve a dedicated voice in Parliament, and that means a permanent standing committee on science and research beginning in the 44th Parliament.

Science is not a club. It is not for a select few. Science is for everyone. Canadians should have better access to the science and research they fund because science and research provide our best hope for solutions to improving health, addressing the climate crisis, jump-starting economic growth and growing jobs. Canadians should hear about science and research through a permanent standing committee in the House of Commons.

Science should not be a partisan issue. It is a fundamental building block of Canada that everyone in this House has a stake in and everyone should fight for. In a politically charged environment in a polarized world, science, evidence and fact offer shared understanding and common ground. We need all sides of this House, all members of Parliament, fighting for fundamental and applied science and research. We need them to take a stand and say we have learned from COVID-19, that we have finally learned what we always learn following a pandemic, namely that science, research and public health matter, and not just when we are in crisis.

Research institutions have a crucial role to play in both research and policy, in reviewing pandemic response, in helping to define lessons to ensure we are better prepared for a future pandemic and in evidence-based policy. From a political perspective, science, research and public health cannot just be hot or on government agendas during the pandemic and the next few years. Rather, they require continual attention, nurturing and support for a better future, environment and quality of life for all. By voting for this motion, we have a chance to acknowledge our responsibility to protect science and research, and anchor them in one of our most important democratic institutions.

Science and research should have a permanent place where issues that are important to the research community, Canadians and the future of the country can be studied; where scientists, researchers and parliamentarians can come to know one another; where parliamentarians can get a better understanding of science and research; where parliamentarians can learn about Canada's research strengths in areas such as computer science applications, fuel cells, neurodegeneration, personalized medicine, bioinformatics and regenerative medicine; and where parliamentarians can learn about what is needed to make improvements and yield benefits to Canadians.

It is time for scientists, researchers and students to be given the key to the people's House. Not only is a standing committee on science and research long overdue, it is also critically important to building the future Canadians deserve. After all, it is science and research that will bring this pandemic to an end, fuel our restart and supercharge our economic recovery.

Let me be clear. Science and research have always mattered, and they will matter more than ever beyond this pandemic. We must turn the recovery from the pandemic into a real opportunity to build a better future, a future driven by knowledge and forged by curiosity and a quest for understanding.

I will finish by saying that science and research are a public good that we must all protect. One of the best ways to protect science is to have a dedicated standing committee in the House of Commons. My friends and colleagues, with this motion, we have an opportunity to do something really important. We have an opportunity to embed science and research into one of our most important democratic institutions and build a better future for all Canadians.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.