Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 25 of 25
View Mona Fortier Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be sharing my time with the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages and the Minister of Indigenous Services.
As we are all well aware, the COVID-19 pandemic is a crisis of historic proportions.
Public health and safety, along with safeguarding the economy and protecting jobs for Canadian workers, remain this government's top priorities. We are listening to Canadians and working tirelessly to find solutions that will keep them safe and slow the spread of COVID-19.
Since this crisis began, I have participated in digital town halls across the country to hear the concerns and ideas of Canadians and to help answer their questions. Our government has been listening and taking action to support them. Over the past two and a half months, the government has taken strong actions through the economic response plan to help mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on Canadians.
Our government has committed more than $150 billion in widespread and direct support. We have one of the most comprehensive plans in the G7. I would like to highlight for Canadians some of the key actions that the government has made recently to make the economic response plan more far-reaching and effective so that it can more specifically meet the needs of Canadian workers and businesses.
The Canada emergency wage subsidy helps businesses keep employees on the payroll, and it encourages employers to rehire workers previously laid off. It also better positions businesses to bounce back following the crisis. It provides a 75% wage subsidy, up to a $847 per week, for employers of all sizes and across all sectors who suffered a major drop in gross revenues. To date, this program has supported over two million Canadian workers, and businesses continue to sign up every day.
Just last week, the Prime Minister announced that our government will extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy by an additional 12 weeks to August 29, 2020. Extending the program will give workers greater confidence that they will continue to get the support that they need during these difficult times.
Here are some employers who are now eligible: indigenous government-owned corporations that carry on businesses as well as partnerships whose members are indigenous governments and eligible employers; registered journalism organizations; and private schools and colleges including institutions that offer specialized services such as arts schools, driving schools, language schools and flight schools.
As well, the Canada emergency response benefit remains a key plank of our government's effort to directly support Canadians who have lost their jobs, are sick, are quarantined or are taking care of someone who is sick with COVID-19.
Just as important, it also includes working parents who must stay home without pay to care for children who are sick or at home because of school and day care closures. This benefit has supported approximately eight million Canadians, because in these extraordinary times no Canadian should have to worry about paying their bills or rent, or about putting food on the table.
Additionally, workers who are still employed but are not receiving income because of disruptions to their work situation related to COVID-19 would also qualify for the CERB. The CERB is available to Canadian workers affected by the current situation, whether or not they're eligible for employment insurance.
The latest figures reveal that nearly 8 million Canadians have applied for the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, with approximately $35.9 billion in payments going to Canadians who need it most.
All over the country, parents are wondering whether they can still afford to feed their families, as they try to educate and raise their children in creative ways. Since its launch in 2016, the Canada child benefit, or CCB, has bolstered family incomes and allowed us to assist those who need it most. The CCB is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age. Under the CCB, low- and middle-income families are receiving higher payments than they did under the previous child benefit system.
As part of its COVID economic response plan, our government took decisive action to ensure that families receive an additional $300 per child through the CCB in May to help them deal with the added pressure of COVID-19. Eligible families are automatically receiving this one-time increase as part of their scheduled CCB payment this week. Those who already receive the CCB do not need to reapply for this one-time income. This measure will deliver almost $2 billion in extra support across the country. It will help families with the high costs of taking care of their kids during this challenging period.
Many of our seniors are also facing difficulties. They built this country, and now they need our help. No one, especially the elderly, should have to choose between putting food on the table, paying for prescriptions or saving money for expenses that are coming.
Since the pandemic began, the Government of Canada has taken steps to help seniors. More than 4 million seniors received a one-time payment through the GST credit in April, totalling $1.3 billion. That means that, on average, single seniors received an additional $375 and senior couples received an additional $510.
The government also reduced the required minimum withdrawals from registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs, by 25% for 2020.
Last week, we took further steps to give Canadian seniors greater financial security during this time of crisis. We announced a one-time tax-free payment of $300 for seniors eligible for old age security, with an additional $200 for seniors eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. This measure will deliver a total of $500 to individuals who are eligible, helping them to cover increased costs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
We're also expanding the new horizons for seniors program with an additional investment of $20 million to support organizations that offer community-based projects that reduce isolation, improve the quality of life of seniors and help them maintain a social support network.
We are also extending the GIS and allowance payments if seniors' 2019 income information has not been assessed. This will ensure that the most vulnerable seniors continue to receive their benefits when they need them the most.
The pandemic has placed particular demands on low-income workers in certain sectors, including those on the front line in hospitals and nursing homes, those ensuring the integrity of the food supply or those providing essential retail services to Canadians.
The government intends to provide up to $3 billion to support low-income essential workers across the country. Each province or territory will determine which workers will be eligible for the support.
Together, we will get through this. When this crisis is behind us, we will be in a better position to rebound together and to keep building a stronger country where everyone can succeed.
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, Canadians are living with the impact of the COVID-19 crisis every single day. It has upended the everyday lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Each of us has witnessed the impact in our own corner of the country. It's a public health crisis, but it's also an economic crisis.
Our cities, including Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, but also our regions from Bathurst to Tofino, including the great north, are affected by what's going on.
The government has three priorities. The first is to protect Canadians' health and safety, with the ever-constant goal of flattening the curve involving the public health risk. The second is to expand the social safety net. That will allow us to flatten another curve, the curve of inequality.
We decided to extend massively the social safety net, and we decided to adopt a people first approach. We created the CERB, which is a $2,000 amount per month. We also increased the Canada child benefit. We came up with some new GST payments to people all across the country, and later on, we came up with increased support for students and seniors.
The third and final priority is the economic response. That means flattening the curve of economic risk.
As economic development minister, supported by six incredible parliamentary secretaries, I can tell you that we've covered a lot of ground, in the virtual sense, of course. We've taken part in meetings on Zoom and Webex, as well as webinars with entrepreneurs and chambers of commerce representatives.
We've talked to thousands of entrepreneurs around the country, in cities, regions and even the wonderful part of the country so dear to you, Mr. Chair, northern Ontario. We've heard people's anxieties, and we understand their stress. Before I got involved in politics, I was an entrepreneur, so I understand the stress and worries of entrepreneurs struggling to cope in this unprecedented crisis. In response to the high level of anxiety around the country, we took action and put forward solutions.
Let's look at how our government has responded. I think that, in the beginning, we thought the economic impact was essentially a shift in need. We thought business revenues might drop for a month or two before going back up. That's why we put greater emphasis on liquidity supports. We engaged the banking system, the Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada. Once my fellow members and I had the opportunity to talk to people on the ground and hear from entrepreneurs, we knew we had to do even more and address costs. We had to take more of a subsidy-based approach.
As we were taking stock of what was going on, what entrepreneurs and their different chambers of commerce were telling us, we decided to look much more into the costs of businesses and their burn rate. That's why we decided to go ahead with a first-ever wage subsidy that increased from 10% at the beginning of the crisis to 75% now. We came up also with the CEBA loan, a $40,000 loan that includes a $10,000 forgivable subsidy. Also, as fixed costs were still an issue, we came up with rent relief.
Although we came up with these important and never-before measures, businesses were still falling through the cracks. That's why it became clear that we had to go forward with a new fund. This is the regional relief fund. This fund is administered through ACOA in Atlantic Canada, DEC in Quebec, FedDev and FedNor in Ontario, Western Economic Diversification in western Canada and CanNor in the three territories.
Nearly $1 billion will be awarded through our different regional development agencies to make sure that businesses that do not have access to the wage subsidy or the CEBA loan, the $40,000 loan, will finally have access to new measures.
Our regional development agencies are well tooled to know what is important in northern Ontario, in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec. They know that businesses have been hard hit in western Canada, and they're well tuned to be the convenor of many other federal government programs and also those of the government of proximity that is the closest to the ground, while we're still the federal government, sometimes hundreds or thousands of kilometres away from people and businesses.
That's why we established a significant $1 billion fund, the regional relief and recovery fund, or RRRF.
The RRRF is a way to make sure that no entrepreneurs or employees fall through the cracks. I said earlier that we've extended the social safety net. We wanted to tighten up the system so that, ultimately, we would have an even stronger social safety net. The good news yesterday was that we expanded the $40,000 loan. There are now new criteria that enable sole proprietors or people who pay themselves dividends to access funding.
However, there are still businesses and entrepreneurs that don't qualify for the loan and that can now apply under the regional relief and recovery fund. The fund will be administered by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, in Atlantic Canada; Canada Economic Development, or CED, in Quebec; the federal economic development initiative for northern Ontario, or FedNor, and the federal economic development initiative for southern Ontario, or FedDev Ontario; Western Economic Diversification Canada, or WD, in western Canada; and the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, or CanNor, in the three territories.
The fund consists of $675 million to support the economic development agencies and $287 million to support the community futures development corporations, or CFDCs, and our various community development organizations across the country. The goal of the program is to provide access to funding, including loans or subsidies, to fill the gaps or to support our strategic businesses.
We know that industries have been hit hard, particularly seasonal industries, such as tourism. As the minister who's also responsible for tourism, I can tell you that the sector needs help right now. That's why we're here for the sector and why we've set up this program.
Some industries have been more impacted than others. We know that, for example, seasonal industries are more impacted, and we know also that the tourism sector has been hard hit. Many of our colleagues in the House have mentioned this issue. What we're saying to tourism operators and tourism leaders is, come and see your regional development agency. Let's sit down, let's have a conversation, and let's find solutions.
All these measures are being taken for people. We are doing that for people to make sure that businesses can survive this economic crisis, that we can keep jobs and that people receive paycheques through their employers. What we're saying to Canadians right now is that we're working for you, with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Kwe. Tansi. Ulaakut. Good afternoon.
As we are learning from past experiences in responding to pandemics in Canada, and specifically in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities during H1N1, we need to recognize and understand from that experience that these communities have a higher risk of being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. That remains the case.
The first nations and Inuit health branch continues to provide effective, sustainable and culturally appropriate health programs and services that contribute to the reduction of gaps in health status between first nations and Inuit and other Canadians. I would like to remind members of the House and all Canadians that improving the health of indigenous peoples is a responsibility shared by federal, provincial and territorial, and indigenous partners. Our common goal continues to be to work together in partnership to ensure that indigenous communities receive the care they need. By working together, we can save lives.
As of May 19, we've seen 198 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in first nation communities on reserve and 16 cases in Nunavik. It is important to note for the House that of those mentioned cases, 148 first nation cases have recovered, and the entirety of the Inuit cases in Nunavik have recovered. This is due to incredible first nations and Inuit leadership in stopping the curve, aggressive screening and testing when cases manifest themselves in communities, and the amazing work in tracing contacts as quickly as possible when a case arises in a community. It is thanks to that aggressive action and the passage of time that these cases have recovered.
In addition to the direct funding of approximately $300 million that we've provided to indigenous communities and in addition to business support in excess of $300 million, to date more than $107.8 million in funding has been allocated by my department specifically toward the health response to COVID-19 to ensure the procurement of supplies and nursing services in communities, as well as preparedness measures led by the communities themselves, the leadership of which has been exemplary.
We continue to monitor closely the situation in northwestern Saskatchewan in particular, and to support communities in response to the outbreak, we've provided $2.3 million in funding that has gone towards the northwest Saskatchewan pandemic response plan. This pandemic plan is a collective effort of first nations, Métis, municipal, provincial and federal partners. Meadow Lake Tribal Council and Métis Nation Saskatchewan in particular have undertaken an exemplary collaboration in leading the response to this significant and concerning outbreak.
Indigenous Services Canada also continues to work with the northwest communities incident command centre in the area, including provincial health authorities, first nations and Métis communities to support their efforts through increased access to testing, enhanced surveillance, strong contact tracing, and infection prevention and control measures.
We are all focused on the health response that will save lives. I want to reassure first nations leadership that we are committed to supporting first nation communities in activating their pandemic plans and providing the support and collaboration with provinces that best respond to each community's needs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Urban and off-reserve first nations, Inuit and Métis communities face unique issues when it comes to preventing and fighting the spread of this virus. Since the start of the pandemic, urban and off-reserve indigenous organizations and local community organizations have been working around the clock to provide direct services to indigenous peoples.
We acknowledge that COVID-19 has placed additional pressure on the activities of these organizations and has increased their overall spending. In response to these needs, we've taken immediate steps to support these organizations through the indigenous community support fund. A total of $15 million has been allocated to regional, urban and off-reserve indigenous organizations. These organizations can also receive funding from other federal initiatives under Canada's economic response plan, such as Employment and Social Development Canada's reaching home initiative, and the additional funding allocated to shelters for women who are fleeing violence and to sexual assault centres.
Additional funding for food banks has also been made available to Canadians, including indigenous peoples and northern communities, to meet their urgent food needs. In addition to federal funding, the provinces and territories along with individuals, through charitable donations, play a role in supporting these organizations.
However, we acknowledge that more support is needed. We're actively working with communities to identify the support that they need. We're working with government partners to explore other ways to further assist urban and off-reserve indigenous organizations.
As part of our COVID-19 economic response plan, and as mentioned by Minister Monsef earlier today, Indigenous Services Canada is currently distributing $10 million to its existing network of 46 emergency shelters on first nations reserves and in the Yukon to support indigenous women and children fleeing violence. In response to the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the Government of Canada committed to working with territories, provinces, and indigenous governments and partners to develop a national action plan that will address violence against women, girls and LGBT and two-spirit people.
To that end, we are supporting national indigenous organizations in reaching out to their members to identify their priorities and best practices, and further understand how they want to be involved in the co-development and implementation work that lies ahead. That's why last week my colleague Minister Bennett attended the Yukon engagement session on violence against indigenous women and girls, co-chaired by Yukon territorial minister, Jeanie Dendys, and women and gender equality minister, Maryam Monsef. The engagement session was a great opportunity to allow Yukon to share wise and promising practices, initiatives, priorities, challenges and views regarding the systemic and disproportionate violence experienced by women and girls and LGBT and two-spirit people, with jurisdictions and other stakeholders from across the country.
In addition, we've recently concluded a proposal-based process to distribute $15 million to organizations that provide critical services to first nations off reserve and indigenous peoples living in urban centres. This funding is part of the government's indigenous community support fund. To date, over 94 proposals have been supported through the urban and off-reserve stream of the indigenous community support fund. This includes support for friendship centres as they continue their important work to serve urban indigenous communities in the face of this pandemic.
Supporting indigenous youth is another key area of our focus. Among our recent measures, we've included in the nearly $9 billion for post-secondary students and recent graduates, a one-time increase of $75.2 million in 2020-21. This is dedicated to providing support to first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation students impacted by COVID-19 so that they can continue, maintain and pursue their academic studies. To be clear, this funding is in addition to the existing distinctions-based support for first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation students pursuing post-secondary education and the Canada emergency student benefit funding, which is available to all Canadian students.
We are also working with indigenous partners, including youth organizations, to support and promote indigenous resources for youth. For example, We Matter is an indigenous-led youth organization focused on life promotion and messages of hope and resilience. They have developed important tool kits that are available for youth, teachers and support workers to help youth and those who support youth.
In closing, let me reiterate that we are committed to responding to and supporting the evolving needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities and individuals as we transition together through the various stages of this pandemic.
Meegwetch. Nakurmiik. Marsi. Thank you.
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is an honour to once again stand in this House.
I have no doubt that every member of the House would say that they believe in democracy. Monday will be a chance to prove it, prove that the extraordinary impacts we are facing as a society do not hamper democratic responsible government.
Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine faced impossible odds when trying to structure a working government prior to the bringing together of the British North American colonies. They were faced with a choice about democracy. They chose to respect the people and the then-colonial legislature and to do what was right, a decision that helped build the foundation for what became Canada, the nation we know and love today.
We need to bring Parliament back. Our democracy and our rights depend on it. Responsible government depends on it.
Parliament is the keystone of Canadian democracy and should be allowed to function in its full authority. It is the only way that all corners of this great nation can be represented, where there is a free and unfettered exchange of ideas. That does not mean that we can't respect public health guidelines, as some have suggested.
We can utilize technology to ensure that those who can't be here in person can still ensure that their regions are heard. We can ensure that only a safe number of MPs are physically present in the House at a given time. We can plan around cafeterias being closed, and we can make do with fewer staff.
Legislatures across Canada and many parliaments around the world have figured out a way to make it work. We owe it to our constituents. In fact, we owe it to Canadians, and we owe it to every person who has fought for our freedom throughout our history to make sure that our democracy functions.
I've heard from hundreds and hundreds of constituents who have expressed fear, a fear that the Liberals are using this pandemic to exert a level of authoritarian rule over this country that is both unprecedented and dangerous. These are strong words. However, the evidence keeps piling up, from the executive overreach within the government relating to the gun grab, to the haze of misinformation and lack of accountability on all fronts. The first bill they proposed would have given them unlimited taxation and spending power for a year and a half, and they continue to refuse to provide clarity on the budget or an economic update, even when we are to see our national debt surpass a trillion dollars and government expenditures half a trillion dollars.
The Prime Minister seems to like the tightly controlled atmosphere of his cottage appearances. He gets a few questions for about half an hour a day, promising billions of dollars with few details. It seems to be carefully choreographed, and this was confirmed when we saw that it was none other than the state broadcaster that was asking the lion's share of the questions. It's also limited to the Ottawa press corps, representing a narrow band of perspectives in this country. The “cottage chronicles”, as they are referred to by some of my constituents, do not replace the fundamental role that Parliament needs to play in Canada.
Where does that leave us? I exhort every member of the House, every member who has a seat in this chamber, whether they be members of the opposition or members of the government, to stand up for what's right, to stand up for their constituents, to stand up for our democracy and to call on Monday for a modified return of Parliament in its full authority.
We'll find out on Monday how all members of the House feel about this issue. We need to remember that Parliament, not a Prime Minister who flirts with this authoritarianism, gets to determine what happens. This speaks to a principle that sets the pretext for what we do here, and that is parliamentary supremacy, not press conferences.
With the support and feedback of my constituents, I join with my Conservative colleagues to make it clear that Parliament needs to be brought back.
I conclude with this: We need to show the world that a pandemic has not diminished Canadian democracy. In the words of former prime minister John Diefenbaker, “parliament is more than procedure—it is the custodian of the nation’s freedom.”
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to thank the people of Saskatoon West. It is certainly my honour to do what I was elected to do, which is to work for them and support them during this pandemic. Many of them have had a difficult time dealing with COVID-19. There have been uncertainties, hardships and difficulties for students trying to graduate and for newcomers waiting for permanent resident status or citizenship, and for those who have lost loved ones, whether from COVID-19 or other things. It's been a very difficult time to be visiting in hospitals, and dealing with mourning has certainly been very hard for people.
Yet the people of Saskatoon West have persevered. They have been delivering food, encouraging others and just behaving very well, so I want to give a big shout-out to the people in my riding in Saskatoon West. You've gone above and beyond and have made us all look very good.
It is great to be here in the House today holding the government to account. Democracy doesn't function over Zoom. It needs in-person meetings. John Diefenbaker said that “parliament is more than procedure—it is the custodian of the nation’s freedom.” The elected legislature is the beating heart of our government. Without it democracy breaks down. It's so much more than questions and answers.
Holding the government accountable produces concrete improvements, and during COVID-19, in very few sessions, the opposition has forced the government to enhance wage subsidies, offer students supports, reduce penalties for part-time workers, prevent new workers from losing benefits, authorize credit unions to deliver loans and connect employers with potential employees. These improvements came from opposition MPs questioning the government, but there's much more to do.
The Liberal government is still letting Canadians down. As an example from my riding, Percy H. Davis Ltd. is a customs broker with four offices in Saskatchewan, including an office in my riding. The government has deferred GST and customs duties until June 30 to reduce costs and improve the cash flow of importing companies. However, the program has created an unintended consequence, namely, that the importer can defer the payment of GST and duties but the customs broker has to assume the liabilities for those duties. If a business happens to go bankrupt, it's the customs broker who still has to pay these fees. As a result, they're being forced to collect the GST and duty up front, which completely negates the whole purpose of the program. Therefore, I'm calling on the government to provide a waiver or suspension of customs broker liability for duties and taxes owed during the deferral period.
My office has received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls on many other things, including CERB, wage subsidies, business loans and travel issues, and we've been helping constituents. These issues are important but they're short-term issues.
Another critical purpose of a properly functioning democracy is developing good medium-term and long-term policies. For example, there's been talk of restarting our economy with a focus on green technology. It is wise to use this opportunity to re-examine what we are doing and why. We have to make tough choices and part of that is learning from the mistakes of others. For example, the Liberal government in Ontario tried to implement green power generation and ended up creating the most expensive electricity in Canada.
We definitely have to treat our planet well and minimize pollution. We have to improve technology to minimize carbon output, but we have to balance that with maintaining our resource base. We have to recognize that much of Canada's wealth comes from exporting resources. We can't destroy our economy in the process.
Another example is the oil industry, which is very much alive. Despite the slowdown from COVID-19, energy demand will continue to rise over time. Renewables will increase, but they can't keep up with demand. Fossil fuels will be required for many years to come. This is especially true in the third world. Fossil fuels are lifting people out of poverty. You can't say to somebody who has never had lights that they can't have electricity, or you can't force someone to continue cooking with smoke-filled fire that causes lung and breathing problems. We can't eliminate the demand for energy.
We must create technology to produce cleaner energy in all forms, including fossil fuels. Canada can demonstrate best practices to the world. Our oil and gas industry is already viewed as the best in the world. We have the best human rights policies and the best wages. We have environmental practices that are the best in the world. Our safety record is second-to-none, and our companies are constantly innovating, creating new and cleaner processes and technologies to extract our resources. The oil industry will be very much alive for many years to come and Canada must lead the way in producing the best oil for the world.
There are more examples I can give, but I want to turn to my final point. What is the long-term economic impact of this COVID-19 pandemic? Here again it is absolutely critical that we have a functioning Parliament. When we ask the government for an economic update, the Liberal government lets Canadians down by not answering.
The Liberals have abdicated their responsibility to provide financial information and instead are relying on the PBO. It's not the PBO's job to produce economic updates and budgets. They're supposed to be a means of sober second thought. It is the finance minister's job to assess the cost of programs and predict revenues. This arithmetic produces a budget. This is hard work, but a competent finance minister can figure it out.
What is our deficit going to be this year? We don't know. Apparently, we're going to have a trillion-dollar debt when this year is over, but the government lets us down by staying silent. A functioning Parliament can continue to ask questions and keep the government accountable.
What are the longer-term implications? Every amount of money we are spending now is being put on our credit card. At some point, that credit card maxes out, and then what? If we think back to World War II, we had very high short-term borrowing, followed by 20 years of booming growth. The debt was brought under control by a roaring economy. Our economy has been plodding along at roughly 2% growth for the last 20 years. Growth is not going to save us this time.
In the mid-1990s, finance minister Paul Martin faced a major problem. Canada's debt had gotten too large as a percentage of the GDP. It was about 68%. Interest costs were dragging the government down. He had no choice but to cut program spending and raise taxes. The debt was brought under control by austerity.
What will happen this time? The Liberals proudly campaigned on slowly decreasing our debt-to-GDP ratio. In one year, it's going to go from 33% to 50%, and possibly higher. If deficit spending continues for several more years, that ratio could hit 60% or more. What magic debt-to-GDP number will plunge Canada into crisis? The government must answer these questions.
We have to have a functioning Parliament in order to continue pressing the government and holding it to account. The future of our country depends on it.
Thank you.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is the most sacred obligation of a government to protect its people, especially from threats they cannot see. Citizens must be able to trust their government to act responsibly and to act in the public interest in preparing to respond to long-term threats, to be ready with a plan so that we could pull that plan out if we need it.
However, if governments fail to plan for moments of crisis, when they ignore potential threats and bet that good times will last forever, then they violate the most sacred obligation and they break trust with the people they govern. When that trust is broken, public trust in our governing institutions is undermined. This COVID-19 pandemic, striking at this time and in this way, was an unknown, but it unfolded in a way that we should have been planning for, that we had every reason to be prepared for.
In 2003, in the immediate aftermath of the SARS outbreak, the Government of Canada created the Public Health Agency specifically to ensure that we were ready to respond in case of situations like this. SARS and COVID-19 are both part of the same family of viruses. They are both coronaviruses. We created a specific agency of government in response to the last coronavirus outbreak in order to prepare us for the next coronavirus outbreak, to build a plan and to amass resources to fight something like SARS—that is, another coronavirus.
However, in in the last four years under the Liberal government, a massive stockpile was destroyed and not replaced. The Public Health Agency spent money on climate change programs instead of on preparation. We sent vital supplies to China at a time when we were almost certain to face shortages here. It quickly becomes clear that there was no plan.
In the months leading up to the outbreak, the Minister of Health repeatedly told Canadians that the risk was low. She attacked those who said otherwise, accusing them of spreading misinformation and fear. She said in the House on February 4, with regard to how Canadians can be assured that we're getting the right information, that “One way might be if the opposition does not sensationalize the risk to Canadians”.
Instead of attacking the opposition for raising legitimate questions during the early months of this year, the health minister should have been busy preparing. She should have been preparing to roll out a plan that her government had already worked out long in advance. Being prepared to protect our country in the event of a crisis is a sacred obligation of government, and in spite of the lesson of 2003, the government had no plan for the next coronavirus pandemic. When it comes to this sacred obligation to keep Canadians safe, they let us down.
What would a plan have included? What would it have achieved and what could it still achieve even at this relatively late stage?
The data from the countries around the world that have been most successfully fighting COVID-19 identify five key elements of an effective strategy, elements that would have kept us safe while limiting economic devastation. These elements are border measures, masking, testing, tracing and distancing. We can learn from remarkable success stories like Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand and the Czech Republic, who effectively implemented some or all of these elements.
By border measures, I mean that ideally through limiting flights and through screening at the border, we could have kept COVID-19 out or at least bought ourselves some extra time to put systems in place. The health minister declared early on that border measures would not be effective. The government did eventually close the border, but it was too late, and even after we were told that screening was in place, massive gaps persisted.
Masks provide a physical barrier for the transmission of droplets that can carry COVID-19. There has been plenty of good science available for a long time to suggest that encouraging people to wear masks would limit the spread of this disease. Bizarrely, public health authorities in the U.S. and Canada were critical of mask wearing, even suggesting that it could be counterproductive. This bad advice, thankfully now reversed, represents a scandal of epic proportions. Why, without a shred of evidence, were supposed authorities saying that people shouldn't use a barrier to block droplet transmission? It is as if they imagined the droplets that carry COVID-19 have some mystical, spiritual properties that make them impervious to physical barriers. A droplet is a physical thing, obviously impacted by the presence of a physical barrier, which the officially designated authorities now acknowledge.
The science on masks, though, never changed. Nobody did a new study that immediately and dramatically reversed some previous conclusion. In reality, there was a shortage of masks, which led officials to present misleading information about their usefulness. Even with the shortage, people should have been advised much earlier to deploy homemade cloth masks, which do provide some level of protection, and many experts knew this all along. This government presented misinformation on the mask issue when lives hung in the balance.
On testing and tracing, effective systems of testing and tracing would mean that people were regularly and rapidly being tested for COVID-19, that new testing technologies were coming on-stream quickly and that we were using cutting-edge technology to trace the possible path of the virus every time we found a new case.
Tracing can be done in a way that respects civil liberties as long as there is appropriate independence from government and sufficient oversight. I am sympathetic to those who have concerns about this, but a tracing mechanism with appropriate safeguards is a much lesser infringement on personal liberties than an indefinite requirement that we all stay home.
Finally, there is distancing, something that we are all doing, but distancing alone isn't going to solve this because we cannot distance in the matter that we are at present for very much longer. People are frustrated with the seemingly never-ending quarantine of healthy people, not least because they increasingly have a hard time trusting the government when it comes to information. They are frustrated by a government that was wrong about preparation, wrong about risk levels, wrong about hoarders, wrong about masks, behind on testing and still has not put in place a national framework for tracing.
Now we're approaching the end of May. Where is the plan? Where is the public health plan for adaptation and management of this crisis post-quarantine?
Much could be said about this government's spending measures, but all of those things are ultimately downstream from fundamental questions about how the government is and is not managing the public health issue such that we will be able to re-energize our economy before we are in an acute debt crisis. Effectively targeted bridging measures are the right policies for a short period of time, but no community of people can enjoy prosperity for long without most of them working. As a result of this crisis and measures already committed to, generations to come will have to live with higher taxes, lower social spending or both. That too is why we need a real plan to fight COVID-19 as quickly as possible.
The government will no doubt respond to some of these criticisms by saying that they were following public health advice. Governments must always listen to a broad range of experts, including both those within the federal public service and those outside of it. Listening to the experts means experts in the plural. It does not mean turning one qualified expert into some kind of infallible authority. It does not mean ignoring the experience of public health officials in other countries who are pursuing a different set of policies and are having more success.
From our leaders we also expect precautionary decision-making. If some experts think border closures will work and some experts think border closures will not work, it is probably safer in the face of an impending pandemic to close the border. Experts can give advice on the likely outcome based on their models, but it is politicians who decide the degree to which we should apply precautionary thinking in responding to that advice.
What do we do now?
It's too late for some things. It's not too late for others. A couple of months ago, I co-authored a piece for The Epoch Times on this issue, in which I said the following:
Our current approach to fighting this pandemic emphasizes general isolation. With a limited supply of masks and limited testing, this is the only way.
In an ideal response, though, people could still leave their homes, but everyone would have access to and be encouraged to wear protective masks in most situations when out and about. Certainly, everyone would continue to be encouraged to regularly wash their hands. Anyone who thought they might be exposed to the virus would get tested immediately and get the results immediately. This way, those who had the virus would know right away and could stay away from others. In the event of errors in awareness or testing...masks, gloves, and hand-washing would still greatly limit transmission. When a case is discovered, those who had been in contact with or in the same area as that person could be immediately notified and immediately tested.
If we had these measures and practices in place, there would be much less of a need for people to stay in their homes. The virus could be tracked and contained even while life continued.
This piece was published on March 31.
This government has a sacred obligation to act to keep Canadians safe, and the government let us down. Public health and our economy have suffered as a result. Now we need to see the plan for adaptation and for reboot. Canadians are innovative. They are ready for a challenge, and I remain optimistic about the future of this country in spite of the challenges. We have overcome bigger things before, but real political leadership is badly needed now more than ever.
Thank you.
View Lianne Rood Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll take a moment to send my deepest condolences to all who have lost a loved one to COVID-19 and to wish a speedy recovery to those who are currently battling it. This truly is a difficult time for us all. We're fortunate to have all the great men and women on our front lines taking care of us, making sure that we're taken care of if we're sick, and also feeding us.
These unprecedented times started out with a glimmer of hope that, despite all that is being thrown at us, we'll face it together as a unified nation, all in this together. As time goes on, it's becoming abundantly clear, though, that this government's version of together unfortunately doesn't include the majority of my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
With each announcement and new government program, the question I keep hearing, whether from businesses or seniors, is “How is this supposed to help me?” There are so many cracks in the government's plan, and while the official opposition is doing everything it can to identify those cracks and help get support to the most vulnerable, the government not only ignores most of our proposals but has also attempted unprecedented power grabs.
While the tab for the support programs continues to accumulate, so many people and businesses continue to be left behind. A key industry left behind amidst all the government's support programs is agriculture. Whether it's a lack of labour, processing capacity issues, market access issues, inadequate BRM programs or food safety issues, this government has done very little.
When thinking about agriculture, processing capacity has been an issue for years, with the COVID-19 crisis further exacerbating this problem. Rob Lipsett of the Beef Farmers of Ontario has said it's “the biggest issue we've been trying to address at all levels of government”. With the closure of the Ryding-Regency plant, processing capacity issues have come to the forefront. The current situation is dire for beef farmers and they need a cash infusion program from the government.
Minister Bibeau has said that $77 million promised for food processors has a goal of increasing capacity but is also to address short-term needs. How does this make sense when processing capacity is a structural problem? When questioned further, the minister just encourages producers to access the funding available through existing BRM programs. This is nothing new and not helpful to all our struggling producers. Yet again the Liberal government is showing us the different ways that it is continually letting down farmers and producers. It's obvious that farmers are not its priority.
When referring to the government's spending announcements on agriculture, Marcel Groleau, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, said, “I think they missed a great opportunity today. It's an announcement that is completely insufficient. Of the $250 million for farmers, there is about $125 million in new investment. Half of that is what producers would have gotten anyway.”
The B.C. Fruit Growers' Association said, “the financial support package to the Canadian agriculture industry announced...is profoundly underwhelming.”
When it comes to BRM reform, we can see that the Liberals are just recycling old promises. We've repeatedly called on this government to take strong action to support our farmers and producers, including reforming BRM programs. The bulk of what the government announced for agriculture amidst COVID-19 was $125 million for AgriRecovery. This is not new money but a reannouncement of money that's already budgeted for in the yearly budget.
The minister has avoided questions. Where is she on where producers can access this money? Knowing that the program is difficult to work with and inaccessible, the minister has responded by telling producers to use an online calculator and to still apply. Great, farmers now have an online calculator to figure out how quickly their farmhouses are burning and whether they qualify for the government-issued bucket of water to be delivered at an undetermined point of time in the future.
Our producers and our farmers are being left behind, and they deserve better. This country is facing many trade disputes, especially when it comes to agriculture. Particularly with China, market access issues are at the forefront. Exports of commodities such as soybeans, canola and pork are facing additional challenges. The government says it is committed to helping farmers, but to their disappointment, the government has ignored all their pleas. On April 1, it even raised the carbon tax by 50%.
My constituents and millions of Canadians are facing significant and sustained hardship. With stagnant revenues and rapid debt accumulation, many are struggling to stay above water. At the very least they were hoping that their government would show them some type of mercy and hold off on raising their taxes.
To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister and the finance minister continue to deny the real impacts of the carbon tax. This outrageous claim that the carbon tax puts more money in Canadians' pockets keeps getting repeated over and over. No, our businesses and farmers' budgets don't balance themselves. On top of the direct costs, it's becoming harder and harder for our farmers to compete internationally against those who aren't burdened by punitive taxes.
I've heard from farmers in my own riding that they will be planting less corn this year, partially due to their drying costs having skyrocketed with the carbon tax. This is wrong, and the government isn't doing anything about it.
Food security has also become top of mind, especially when considering the reports of empty shelves throughout this pandemic. Coinciding with the lack of financial support for our farmers and producers, many of our family farms are experiencing hardships and are expected to go bankrupt. With just a fraction of what has been asked for being given to the agriculture sector, it is estimated that up to 15% of our farms, or about 30,000 farm families, will go out of business. This could be stopped if immediate and meaningful support is provided to safeguard our food security, and a critical sector of our economy and rural communities.
Canada's Conservatives will continue to press the Liberal government for real financial support for our agriculture sector. In fact, we have proposed a student jobs program to fill labour shortages in agriculture and agri-food. This could be a new federal program that would match students and young people with available jobs. I've heard from many farmers in my own riding that this would really help, but this government isn't moving on our proposal. For young Canadians, this could be an incredible opportunity to work in agriculture and gain valuable knowledge about where our food comes from. For our farmers and ranchers, they could get a great source of local labour to help fill the labour-shortage gaps.
This is just another example of a constructive Conservative solution to help those affected by COVID-19.
The government is also using this pandemic to seize the opportunity to circumvent democracy, bypass parliamentary accountability, and fundamentally change our firearms laws through an order in council. Rather than being accountable to parliament and having expert witnesses called to testify and analyze these changes, the government is bringing uncertainty and division to many of my constituents and millions of law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. This firearms ban will do nothing to protect public safety. Taking firearms away from law-abiding hunters and sport shooters does nothing to stop dangerous criminals who obtain their guns illegally. Instead, there should be investments made to support police anti-gang and anti-gun units, youth crime prevention, the CBSA firearms smuggling task force, border security, and increased funding for access to mental health and addiction treatments.
These are more constructive Conservative solutions to help combat gun violence. I hope the Liberals heed our calls. We all want a safe country, but needlessly attacking law-abiding firearms owners does nothing to improve public safety.
Another problem I continually hear about from my constituents is Internet access. Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is a rural riding and getting high-speed Internet access is a challenge for many, not to mention the cost of the service. During this pandemic I've had constituents who have seen monthly bills of $500. I have seen no concrete solution from the government to help people in this situation. Being at home amidst this pandemic is difficult. With children learning online and people working from home, high-speed Internet accessibility is a necessity. We need to ensure that rural Canadians have access to this service and don't have to pay exorbitant prices for it.
These are unprecedented times, but despite all of this happening, I am hopeful that all Canadians will get the help they need, and not just a select few. I am working hard every day to ensure that my constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex are heard, and I am committed to fighting for them and getting the answers they deserve amidst this COVID-19 pandemic.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to say that I'll be sharing my time with the member for Joliette and the member for Thérèse–De Blainville. Each member will have the floor for about three minutes.
Under the current circumstances related to COVID-19, as transport, infrastructure and communities critic, I'll use my time to speak about an important issue for me. I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport questions about this issue on several occasions in a virtual meeting of the special committee on the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, the President of the Treasury Board answered my questions. I didn't find his responses particularly convincing, to be quite honest.
The issue is the travel credits provided by companies to consumers whose flights were cancelled.
Many people are suffering as a result of the COVID-19 situation, since the economy has virtually come to a standstill. People have lost their jobs, and some of them had already purchased airline tickets. They want to be able to pay their bills and mortgage, make their car payments, and make payments like everyone else. These people had hope when they saw that the economy was doing well. They decided to take a trip and to have a good time with their families. Unfortunately, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, they lost their jobs. In addition to not taking a trip, they can't obtain a refund.
Imagine the state of these families. Some people paid $1,000 for a small trip, but others paid $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or $15,000. There's no limit to what airline tickets can cost, depending on the destination and the number of family members travelling. Understandably, when someone pays $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000, they aren't very happy to have to pay that amount when their flight has been cancelled. Some people also paid for their trip with their credit card. They didn't necessarily have the money right away, but they thought that they would repay the amount after their trip. Today, they can't pay the amount.
We must show solidarity with everyone. We've seen that the government is standing firmly in solidarity with the airlines. However, we also want the government to stand firmly in solidarity with the individuals who are affected by this crisis and who would like to be able to pay their bills.
The airlines are certainly also affected by the crisis. Some airlines have lost 95% of their revenue. We understand this. However, we don't believe that the public should be responsible for funding the operating costs of these companies. If the companies need help, the government has implemented programs, such as the wage subsidies and the loans for large companies announced last week.
Some companies have already benefited from these programs. For example, Air Canada has already requested the 75% wage subsidy. Better yet, it obtained $788 million from Export Development Canada, or EDC, to cover operating costs. This means that the government is funding these companies. The government is continuing to help the companies, but it isn't even asking them to reimburse their customers in return.
The strange thing here is that this violates the law. The government isn't requiring these companies to follow the law. Perhaps the reason is that these laws are Quebec laws and the Civil Code. We don't know why, but it seems that the federal government always has a hard time dealing with Quebec laws.
According to the Civil Code and Quebec's consumer protection act, when a service isn't rendered, even in cases of force majeure, the customer is entitled to a refund. When a customer has paid for a service, they're entitled to a refund when the service hasn't been rendered.
The government seems to have a great deal of difficulty understanding this. A federal institution is supposed to protect passengers and travellers, and that institution is the Canadian Transportation Agency. However, this agency told the airlines that, under the current circumstances, it believes that a 24-month travel credit is sufficient.
It's quite odd that the agency meant to protect consumers is actually protecting the airlines. Canadian federal institutions are providing a strange type of service. The even stranger thing is that the government isn't doing more to stand up for these individuals. Instead, the government is standing up for the airlines.
We're not asking for anything complicated. We're asking that the legislation and rules that exist and work be enforced. For any other service provider, any other company, this situation would be completely unacceptable. There seems to be a free pass for the airlines. We know that one airline in particular is closer to the government. Under these circumstances, people are wondering why the government isn't listening.
We've taken all sorts of steps. I said that I asked the minister questions. I've actually asked several ministers questions about this issue. My leader spoke about the issue at a press conference today. Option consommateurs approached us. The organization also approached the government and wrote to the Minister of Finance, the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Minister of Transport to explain that the government is currently telling businesses to engage in illegal practices. How can a government allow companies to engage in illegal practices? The government has been warned.
Option consommateurs asked me whether I was willing to sponsor a petition for the organization. I told the organization that I was willing to do so, of course. As members of Parliament, we have the right to sponsor petitions that can be tabled in the House of Commons. The clerk authorized the petition. In a few days, the petition obtained almost 5,000 signatures. This means that many people are affected by this situation. Not just two or three privileged people are affected, but many people.
We're sometimes told that companies will go bankrupt. Take Air Canada, which received over $800 million from the government. Its financial statements showed $6 billion. Some people say that this may seem substantial, but with major expenses, a big figure like that means nothing. I agree, but let's consider the following. This company claims that it's losing $20 million a day in operating costs. If we divide the $6 billion in its coffers by $20 million, the company has cash flow for a year before it runs into financial difficulties.
I'm not sure whether the average person who purchased airline tickets has a year's worth of cash before they run into financial difficulties. Most people are no longer able to make their payments after a paycheque or two. Who's the priority? Does the government want to help people who are struggling to make their payments or a large company that has enough money in its coffers for the next year? That's the real question.
Of the $6 billion in Air Canada's accounts, $2.6 billion belongs to customers. That amount isn't $2.6 million or $2.60. We're talking about $1,000 or $2,000 airline tickets. The company is refusing to refund the money that belongs to customers. Everywhere else in the world, particularly in the United States and in the European Union countries, there's enough common sense to say that companies must reimburse customers if flights are cancelled. In Canada, we live in another world, a world where airlines take precedence over individuals and consumers.
We believe that these companies must reimburse their customers. The government hasn't heard the last of us. In any event, it won't win. The airlines can't confiscate this money forever. It's illegal. Three class action lawsuits have already been launched against these companies whose practices are illegal.
The government is defending the indefensible. Rather than continuing to defend questionable practices, it should be telling these companies that they won't receive any money until they reimburse consumers, people who are entitled to a refund.
The strange thing is that the government is speaking to these companies. We need only look at the registry of lobbyists to see that calls are made almost daily between these companies and the government. The government has had many opportunities to let these companies know that consumers are entitled to receive their money. They spent this money on trips that they couldn't take.
These people are being offered a 24-month credit. However, I'm not sure that these people will be in a strong enough position to travel in a few months. I'm not sure that they'll want to travel or that they'll be healthy enough to do so. I'm not sure that their employers will allow them to travel. I'm not even sure that they'll be able to pay for their ticket.
The company is telling them that they'll have $2,000 if the ticket cost $2,000, but that there's no guarantee that the ticket will still cost $2,000 in six months. If the ticket price increases to $4,000 or $5,000, then it's too bad for them. They'll need to pay the difference.
So we can understand their frustration.
We won't give up.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for his excellent speech on the importance of protecting consumer rights.
We're talking about airline tickets here. When you look at what's being done in Europe, the United States and around the world, air carriers are required to reimburse consumers for tickets they've paid for where trips have been cancelled. Assistance programs are bound by this condition. Canada is the lone exception. I therefore strongly encourage my esteemed colleague to continue the fight with Option consommateurs. This has to change; consumers must be reimbursed.
I'm going to talk about emergency economic support measures. Many measures have been introduced to support workers' incomes. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who will be speaking immediately after me, will tell you in greater detail about the new changes being made to urge people to go back to work.
The employment insurance system was initially intended to support incomes in an economic crisis. We're currently in the midst of a health crisis and the system has failed. Consequently, the government has introduced the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy.
The wage subsidy was initially 10%. It was a half-baked system. The government told businesses to withhold amounts from the payments they were required to make to it. The Bloc québécois looked at what was being done elsewhere in the world, in Denmark, for example. We made some demands, and we're pleased with what has been put forward.
Fixed costs are a serious problem for SMEs. That's an important point. The organizations representing SMEs have been telling the government that and telling us too since the crisis began. Wages are an issue, but fixed costs are too, and they have to be addressed. That's why we managed to add a measure to the motion passed in the House on April 11 requiring the government to introduce measures to support and assist businesses with fixed costs.
We waited, but we got virtually nothing. You could say the mountain laboured and more or less brought forth a mouse. There was rent assistance, but it's awkward, very limited and poorly put together. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, has demanded that the program be completely overhauled.
The Conseil québécois du commerce de détail, CQCD, reports that 40% of its members who are entitled to assistance say the owners of the premises they lease for their businesses refuse to join it. It's not working for nearly half of SMEs that are entitled to assistance because landlords don't want to cooperate. They ultimately feel it's preferable to write off their losses because then they'll have fewer hassles and, ultimately, less tax payable. It's not working.
We discussed this in the Standing Committee on Finance meeting yesterday afternoon with the management of CMHC, which will manage the program. They said they were surprised it wasn't working. Logically speaking, it's true that landlords would have every reason to enter into this kind of agreement, but, in actual fact, nearly half of them prefer to write off the losses. They can't be bothered. So the program is poorly put together, poorly suited. That has to change.
There's assistance for rent, which represents a significant portion of fixed costs. The Prime Minister noted this earlier. However, all other fixed costs have to be considered as well. Every SME has its own structure and fixed costs, such as wages. It's not just about rent. In the case of businesses, yes, but that's not always the case for other SMEs. We need flexibility and a program in order to help them.
Our humble proposal is that a refundable tax credit be introduced for fixed costs.
The business would first have to prove it's been affected by the current crisis and has experienced a decline in revenue. For example, that might mean a 30% drop in recent months. Then it would be questioned about its fixed costs and asked to provide proof, just as it usually does when filing its year-end tax return. It would receive a refundable tax credit equivalent to half of its expenses. Why half? Simply because the government's rent assistance program for SMEs covers 50% of its rent expenses.
Getting back to the emergency rent assistance program, since building and commercial property owners don't necessarily want to participate in it, we're asking the government to provide assistance equal to half the cost directly to the SME renting the premises. It could make do with that and it would be more effective. Why not do that since a large number of commercial landlords don't want to join this program?
Furthermore, as regards our fixed costs tax credit proposal, SMEs that want it could include their rent expenses. This method would be further to the motion adopted in the House ordering the government to introduce a measure to assist SMEs with fixed costs. A simple refundable tax credit for fixed costs would work well.
The rent assistance program also has to be changed as a result of a serious problem. SMEs are required to prove they have suffered a decline in revenue as a result of COVID-19, which is normal. However, it has to be a 70% decline. That's neither the 15% that was the case for the first period covered by the wage subsidy nor 30%, as was the case for the others. It's more than double. This specifically targets small businesses whose turnover has collapsed. I think we need fixed costs assistance that covers a larger percentage of SMEs. The criterion could be set at 30%, as is the case for the wage subsidy, and the same figure could be used for the fixed costs tax credit.
To recap, on April 11, the House adopted a motion directing the government to introduce measures respecting fixed costs, but, apart from the introduction of a modest rent assistance program that doesn't work and must be completely overhauled, as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated, nothing has been done. We therefore request a tax credit.
We also have another request. SMEs are currently in considerable difficulty. Under the emergency loan program, they may apply for a $40,000 loan, and, if they repay it on time, the government will allow them to retain $10,000 in the form of a grant. We ask that the government make a more sustained effort by increasing the $10,000 amount to $20,000. That would really help businesses, especially with their fixed costs. Economic activity has stopped, and none of the lost income can be recovered. We therefore ask the government to provide more assistance to SMEs by doubling the portion of the loan that may be retained as a grant. This is important for us.
Today, the Minister of Finance announced the details of his loan program for large businesses. Those businesses will have five years to repay their loans. We believe the same condition should apply to SMEs. Rather than require them to repay their loans before the end of 2022, they should be granted a five-year period as well.
I've discussed fixed costs, but now we're going to talk about amendments that should be made to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. This will be very interesting. I now turn the floor over to my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville.
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to my colleagues for their excellent speeches on issues concerning the current crisis. Yes, it's repeatedly called a health crisis, but it's also an economic one, and I would add that it's a social and humanitarian one as well.
I'm going to use my 10 minutes to review a matter of considerable importance to the Bloc québécois and to me personally as well. As the party's employment and labour critic, I believe we as a party have been on the offensive from the outset and have come up with more proposals than non-responses.
We know the government's response was the prompt introduction of a Canadian emergency benefit. That benefit was helpful, and we should remember why. The employment insurance system, as we know it, has not been reviewed in 40 years and includes rules that have become obsolete. As a result, in this crisis, it wasn't up to the task for which it was established.
The Canada Emergency Response Benefit has provided an income during the crisis to many workers who were ineligible for employment insurance. We subsequently saw that some people fell through the net, and we therefore improved it.
I'm thinking of seasonal industry workers. It was initially said that they had not lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19. However, we were forced to admit that, if they hadn't lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19, they were prevented from finding, or hoping to find, a job by COVID-19. Consequently, necessary and beneficial adjustments were made for workers.
The Canada Emergency Student Benefit was introduced last Friday. In a motion passed on April 29, we agreed that the Canada Emergency Student Benefit was necessary. We all agreed. The Bloc moreover vigourously demanded it, as it did other measures such as assistance for our seniors.
Students experienced a crisis as well. First, there was an educational crisis, and we know that their lives have been disrupted in that respect. Second, they were afraid they wouldn't be able to find jobs. Contrary to the opinions of some, our students are far from lazy or from disliking work. On the contrary, work for them is an extension of their student life or something that will ultimately provide them with the necessary financial resources to resume their studies. That counts. They're an entire generation that we don't want to sacrifice. We supported that assistance. We demanded it.
However, we also demanded that the workers and students receiving these necessary support measures, the CERB and the CESB, not be deprived of them for returning, as we hope they do, to high-quality jobs as soon as possible. We would like life to turn out that way, but it won't. The unemployment rate is 17%. We had a black Friday when two million jobs were lost in a single day. I think we need to continue this emergency support but still allow the economy and work to resume. We can't think about recovery or economic recovery without considering workers or the essential role students play.
Paragraph (e) of the motion we adopted on April 29 reads as follows: (e) the government ensure that the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB) are offered in a manner that meets their objective while encouraging employment in all circumstances;
What saddens me, not to say angers me, is that we gave our word in paragraph (e) of the April 29 motion. A commitment was made. In a previous life, I conducted many negotiations with employers at the local level and governments at the national level.
When you sign a contract or a collective agreement, or when you ultimately negotiate something, you have to keep the word you give. That's not the case here. We agreed, in making that commitment, looking each other in the eye, that something should be done to prevent a person who had an incentive to work, who earned more than $1,000, who earned $1,001, from being subject to an all-for-nothing policy, in short, to prevent that person from losing the $2,000 CERB or the $1,250 CESB.
That undermines an economic recovery, a recovery, and it also undermines a commitment in which we agreed, here in the House, on the ground rules of our governance, of our Parliament.
In my opinion, giving your word is a serious matter. If the minister responsible for the negotiations, the first deputy minister, were present, she, who largely conducted the negotiations, could tell us how fundamentally important it is to give one's word.
One may feel cheated because something has been broken. When we give our word on commitments and proposals, we expect to keep it.
Among my questions to the ministers today, I asked at least four questions on this point. Asking questions but not getting answers is another disappointment. Is it the question that isn't right? I don't think so; there are no bad questions. I wouldn't say there are bad answers, but we at least deserve answers.
The Bloc made two points. First, we asked what the conditions were. Second, we acknowledged that interim rules had been adopted so we could have a parliamentary life and operate within the framework of the crisis, but, at the same time, we could not commit to something the conditions of which were not met by the other party.
In the past 10 minutes, I have spoken to you about questions concerning employment and labour for which I feel we are already struggling for answers. However, one day we'll have to consider certain questions. We're in transition; we're recovering. Some things must be improved, and other things must be reviewed. I'm thinking of the CERB, which will come to an end. When it does, what will happen to the employment insurance program? What will happen to all those workers who were ineligible for it? How will we make the transition, particularly in the measures we wanted to introduce concerning employment incentives and to improve the employment situation? Ultimately, we want to support workers and students and tell them they need this but that they are capable of improving their situation.
I will close by saying that responsibility cannot fall to a single party in any negotiation, contract or commitment.
I therefore encourage the government to tell us by Monday when and how it will honour the commitments it made on April 29.
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll be sharing my speaking time with the very honourable member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts during this crisis.
Before I go any further, I want to take a moment to express on behalf of all New Democrats our condolences to the friends and family of Captain Jennifer Casey. It's a really tragic loss of life. Her work is something that she was very proud of. She spent time here in Ottawa, so there are lots of folks in Ottawa who had connections with Captain Casey. She studied at Carleton, and folks knew her as someone who was always a positive person, willing to help out anyone who needed it. People talked about how proud she was of the work she did with the Snowbirds' Operation Inspiration and with the Snowbirds in general.
I also want to send our best wishes for a quick and speedy recovery to Captain Richard MacDougall, and to his friends and family as well, as he was injured in the operation also.
Madam Chair, there has been some talk about what Parliament should look like. I just want to touch on that very briefly.
Parliament is here to serve the people we represent, and it should always be here for that purpose. During this crisis, our goal as New Democrats is to ensure first and foremost that the priority of every government program must be to ensure that help gets to people.
One of those things is directly getting help to people through things like the CERB. We are going to continually push to make sure people don't fall through the cracks. Right now, there are far too many people who are desperately in need but who cannot access the CERB due to a minor loophole or a criterion they don't meet.
I want those folks to know that we see you, we hear you, and we are going to continue to fight to make sure you are not forgotten. We want the CERB to function in such a way that anyone who needs it, anyone who is desperate right now, anyone who is struggling right now should be able to access it. That's the way the program should be designed.
During a global pandemic, for some reason the government seems focused on designing programs to exclude a mythical person they think is not going to receive help at the risk of those who need it most falling through the cracks. To me, that is the wrong approach. I would rather ensure a program does not miss anyone, and if some receive help who don't need it, we can easily tax that back next year during the tax season.
We believe that there are ways to use this space, use the tools of Parliament to continue to push the government to deliver more. That's what we've been able to do so far. Using a combination of virtual and in-person sittings, we've been able to push the government, and we are proud that we were able to raise these concerns that so many people were being missed by the government.
We got commitments to include students, and then students were included. We got commitments to address the fact that seniors were completely missed, that those who are the most vulnerable did not have any increased support during this difficult time. We pushed the government and succeeded in achieving that as well. We brought in motions for Canadians living with disabilities, who are also being forgotten by this government. There was a commitment made, but to date there is still no help for Canadians living with disabilities, no increased support, and we're going to continue to push for that.
We talked about increasing the wage subsidy from 10%. We cited countries like Denmark, the U.K. and Sweden. which are doing at least 75%, and the government weeks later agreed to going to 75%.
We have fought for and achieved some significant gains for people, for workers, during this crisis, and we want to continue to do that. It should be done in a way that's safe, that ensures the most access possible for members of Parliament so that they can represent their constituents, and it should follow the expert advice of public health professionals.
One of the areas where we want to continue to push this government is something that I want to make really clear is no longer a choice. It is no longer a choice for someone to have paid sick leave or not. It must be guaranteed. Every Canadian needs access to paid sick leave of at least two weeks. We are suggesting that during this difficult time it might be a difficult burden for businesses at this point, so we are saying the government should implement paid sick leave for all Canadians of at least two weeks by using the CERB and the employment insurance programs that exist.
We need to deliver. That is something that should no longer be a question. It should be answered in the affirmative. We need paid sick leave for all Canadians.
No longer should Canadians have to make that difficult choice about going to work. Do they go in to work, knowing that they might infect a colleague? If they stay home, they won't be paid, because there's no paid sick leave. Then they risk not being able to pay their bills or not being able to put food on the table. That is not a choice Canadians should have to make. That's why we're going to continue to push for paid sick leave.
It's not a call that we're making in isolation. We have heard from provinces. Provincial leaders and governments have raised this concern. Businesses have raised this concern. Paid sick leave is vital, and we're going to continue to push for it. Specifically, we've heard some leadership from Premier Horgan, who said that this is an opportunity for the federal government to step up and provide leadership in a federal program that provides paid sick leave.
The guideline from public health officials is clear: people must stay home if they're sick. As I said, they can't do that if they have to choose between doing the right thing and working a day for pay.
We'll continue to urge the government to do what must be done and to provide paid sick leave for all workers under existing federal programs such as employment insurance and the CERB.
The other really troubling part of this crisis that has been simply heartbreaking is that the impact of this pandemic has been borne on the backs of seniors, particularly seniors living in long-term care homes. It is heartbreaking when we think about that for a moment. If we just pause and think about those who are most vulnerable, those who have lived their entire lives sacrificing and working to be a part of building up this country, it is not just heartbreaking that those seniors are the ones who have suffered the most, it is wrong.
What we are saying is that we need the federal government to show leadership to push for a care guarantee. What does that mean? It means we want to know that seniors are guaranteed good-quality care. Loved ones want to know that their parents and grandparents are cared for, and workers need a guarantee that they will have the equipment they need to stay safe and have a good salary to be able to work and do their job.
I know the Prime Minister has said that he doesn't believe it's his job, that it's not the federal government's job, that it's not the Prime Minister's job to address long-term care, that it's a provincial jurisdiction. In the face of 82% of the deaths from COVID-19 being seniors in long-term care, in the face of the military being called in to long-term care homes, I reject the idea that the federal government has no role to play. The federal government can play a role.
One of the most significant roles the federal government can play is to fund long-term care and to increase funding for health care. The federal government can acknowledge decades of neglect and decades of reduction in health care transfers. At one point, our health care transfers were 50:50 in terms of responsibilities between provincial governments and federal, and now they're closer to 80:20, with 80% of the responsibility being borne by the provinces and 20% coming from transfers from the federal government. That is simply wrong, and it needs to be reversed.
Someone told me to think about the fact that our armed forces, those men and women who provide incredible service for our country and are proud to help out in any way that they can, whether it's a disaster or serving abroad, had to be called in to care for seniors in long-term care homes. That is something we should be ashamed of—not that we should be ashamed of the hard-working men and women, but that we should be ashamed of the fact that it got to that point.
That's why I'm saying to the government, yes, you can play a federal role. You must play a learship role in fighting for better for these seniors so that this never happens again.
The Prime Minister likes to say that what's happening in long-term care in Canada is the provinces' problem, but what does he think about the fact that applying Stephen Harper's cuts to health transfers has faced the provinces with a $31 billion revenue shortfall over 10 years?
These are cuts that were planned by the Conservatives, by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They were implemented by the Liberal government and Prime Minister Trudeau.
In Ontario, we've also learned something else. It's something that's been clear across the country, but in Ontario it's been glaring. Those seniors who lived in for-profit homes were the most vulnerable. They were four times more likely to die from COVID-19 in a for-profit home than in a not-for-profit. That evidence alone should make it very clear that profit has no place in the care of seniors.
I will make it really clear: As New Democrats, our position is that we need to remove profit from any care of seniors. We've heard from the previous health minister, Ms. Philpott, that if you look at the business model of companies that are trying to make profit when it comes to seniors, the fact they are clearly trying to make money is going to impact the way they deliver care. It means that they are going to cut services. It means they're going to cut staffing. It means they're going to cut corners to generate that profit. If nothing else, it means that in order to generate a profit some of the money won't be reinvested into care for the residents. Some of the money will be siphoned to profit.
For-profit long-term care homes are extremely lucrative. We're talking about revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, those revenues are made by the company, meaning they don't go to the staff and they don't go to the residents who need the care.
One of the things that we need to make absolutely clear is that we know some immediate fixes. We need to get profit out of the system. We also need to make sure that workers are paid good salaries so they can work and do their jobs.
Workers in long-term care homes often have to work in multiple centres. It means that they risk exposure to illnesses or potentially spreading illnesses. They don't often have the protective equipment they need. To put these workers at risk, and to put these residents at risk, is something we should consider a risk to all of us.
We need to look at families that want to know that their loved ones are being cared for. Families need to know that their parents and their loved ones are being cared for and that's the care guarantee.
I want to turn quickly to the future of the CERB. We know that this crisis has had a massive impact on our economy and on jobs. There are many sectors that are going to be impacted differently. Those involved in live music, entertainment, festivals and cultural activities are in the sectors hardest hit and will be some of the last, or slowest, to recover. We need to look at a more permanent solution or a longer extension of the CERB to help out those folks impacted.
We also need to look at the impact of this crisis on exposing some of the weaknesses in our system. The fact is that our social safety net is not there. The fact is that we cannot go back to normal. We need to go forward to something better. That's what we're committed to doing: pharmacare, dental care, head-to-toe health care coverage. Investment in people now is the best way to recover. We're going to hear from Conservatives who are going to talk about debt and deficit as a way to raise fear and have people be afraid to invest in one another, to take care of one another. I think that is the worst thing we can do. We've seen in the past that when we invest in people we have better results.
I'll wrap up with this. I talked about this earlier. Any cent of public dollars that goes toward supporting businesses has to be focused on supporting workers. Every dollar, every cent has to be connected to job protection or job creation. We don't want to see any money go to a company that's going to pay more money to its CEO, give bonuses or give money to its shareholders. Money must be strictly allotted to job creation and job protection.
Finally, there's no way that any money should go to a company that is using offshore tax havens to cheat the system. That should not be allowed. I again call on the government to fix its proposals to end CEO bonuses as well as offshore tax havens.
Money should go to people, not to the profits of companies.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm sharing my time with—
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Chair, I want to congratulate the leader of the NDP for his excellent speech.
In my introduction, I will be talking about health care, a topic he addressed at the end of his speech. He in a way opened the door for me by saying that, as New Democrats and progressives, we think that health care shouldn't be a business that seeks to make profits and money. We don't want long-term centres that care for our seniors serving mainly to line the pockets of their executives or shareholders.
People will say we're exaggerating, that we should be more flexible and that there could be exceptions, rules and a framework. I don't know whether everyone has heard this story, which goes back a few weeks. Many things are happening now, and we tend to forget them these days.
I want to go back to the case of the private Herron CHSLD, in Dorval, where an absolutely horrific crisis occurred. Montreal's public health authorities had to take over management of that private institution. People entered the facility at one point and realized that seniors had died and that their bodies were still in their beds. Bodies lay on the floor because they had fallen and no one had been there to pick them up. Patients had not been washed in weeks. Some had not eaten for days and were dehydrated because they hadn't been given water. Workers were so underpaid and their working conditions so poor that they left the premises when the crisis began. As a result, there weren't enough staff to care for the seniors and elderly patients.
It cost between $3,000 and $10,000 a month to live at the Herron CHSLD. These people had paid thousands of dollars every month, and some were injured or ill or had died in a total absence of dignity. As a community, we must ensure that this kind of thing never occurs again.
The situation in Quebec is worrying, although we've recently seen a glimmer of hope. People are beginning to come out of confinement, there has been a certain amount of economic recovery, and businesses are reopening. We hope it'll all go well. I encourage everyone to continue exercising caution and to abide by the rules. It must nevertheless be understood that more than 3,800 deaths have occurred in Quebec since the COVID-19 pandemic began, a figure that represents more than 50% of cases in Canada.
Once again, I want to thank and congratulate all the workers in our health care system who are making enormous sacrifices and displaying incredible courage. They do not stint on the number hours they must work. However, legitimate demands are emerging, in particular, from nurses, lab technicians and other health professionals. These people are getting tired and are entitled to a vacation this summer. I also hope that, in the next few years, they will be entitled to better working conditions, higher wages and more protective medical equipment.
Talking about courage, I'd like to tell the story of Marcelin François, one of the people who answered the call and was involved in providing care to seniors. He worked in a factory five days a week and in CHSLDs on weekends. He had registered with an employment agency that assigned people from one CHSLD to another, a practice that was already quite risky and that ultimately led to his death. Mr. François contracted COVID-19 while working at a CHSLD and died in mid-April.
I mention Mr. François because you should know that his wife, family and he arrived in Canada a few years ago by a route that made the headlines and was the subject of much discussion in the House: Roxham Road. Mr. François was in fact a refugee, and asylum claimant, who did all he could to give his family a new chance and a new life.
His is a dramatic story, but one that also explodes some myths and prejudices. Here in the House, refugees and asylum-seekers have often been described as people who pose a danger to our society, who want to take advantage of the system and take our place. At times, we have even heard parties further to the right than ours say they were potential criminals.
One realizes from this true-life example that this man and his wife had come here to participate in our society, to help our society. This man wanted so much to help society that he went to work in the riskiest possible place and paid for it with his life.
Remember that all these asylum-seekers, most of whom come from Haiti but also from African and Latin American countries, have actually come here for a new life, to escape oppression and misery. I think we should be able to reconsider the way certain columnists and even certain media view the contribution these people make and the way we should treat them.
What we of the NDP want is for the process to be expedited for all these workers who currently provide essential services to the public and who have no status because they are asylum-seekers so that they can be granted a status, at least permanent resident status, which would afford them a degree of protection and confidence in the future. We're talking about a few hundreds of individuals. I think that, if these people put their health and safety at risk to care for and protect our seniors, the least we can do would be to recognize that contribution by affording them a little more security of status in Quebec and Canada.
With respect to essential workers, I want to signal the work done by all the individuals in our cities and towns, all the municipalities, who maintain our services so we can still enjoy potable water, garbage collection and buses that run in our cities to ensure our communities operate properly.
As I said a little earlier today, municipalities unfortunately receive no assistance from the federal government. The municipalities are currently an administrative creature of the provincial governments. We are well aware of that fact.
We of the NDP are convinced that, in a crisis such as this, we can sit around the table, discuss issues and find solutions. This wouldn't be the first time a special federal-provincial-municipal program was introduced. That has occurred tens of times with respect to infrastructure. We could repeat the process now because the municipalities are truly in a bind and increasingly ringing alarm bells.
At a press conference just yesterday, the mayor of Montreal issued a heartfelt statement about the coming fiscal abyss, wondering where she could find $500 million.
The municipalities, which are not allowed to run deficits, have two remaining options: either raise property taxes, which would be catastrophic in the current situation, or reduce public services.
Considering a figure as impressive as half a billion dollars, what municipal services do you think can be cut? The situation is impossible and unmanageable. I think the federal and provincial governments must cooperate because neither the transit corporations nor the municipalities currently have access to programs such as the emergency wage subsidy. They are genuinely left to their own devices.
Unfortunately, the federal government is also dragging its feet on another issue, and this is absolutely incomprehensible. I'm talking about the asymmetrical bilateral agreement between the governments of Quebec and Canada on social housing. We've known this was coming for months now. The first time we discussed the need for a social housing agreement between Quebec City and Ottawa was two and a half years ago, in 2017.
We'll be running into a wall in July, when a housing crisis will occur. With rising rents and lost jobs and reduced incomes for people, they'll no longer be able to stay in the housing they now enjoy and will be forced to find other accommodation.
The rental vacancy rate in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is 1%. What other housing can these people find? Will they have to move to other neighbourhoods? Will they have to relocate their families, and will their children no longer be able to attend the same schools in September?
We've been dragging our feet for years now and we'll feel the consequences this summer, in July. If we could at least reach an agreement, we could start work to provide social housing and affordable housing for next year, for 2021 and 2022, to avoid making the same mistake again.
One federal government minister warned us in February that this was coming. Nothing has happened yet, and it's now past mid-May.
Is this because we're engaged in a petty squabble over who'll decide on standards and money and what flag will fly over the building?
I consider these squabbles utterly appalling, at a time when lives are at stake. I discussed a simple solution a little earlier: that we send Quebec the $1.5 billion that it's owed and that has been sitting here in Ottawa for two years. Quebec has a good program, AccèsLogis, on which there has been virtually unanimous agreement. We could use it to begin new housing construction.
Among the somewhat odd things the Liberal government is doing, there is its tendency to turn a blind eye to tax havens while falsely arguing that we want to set workers against each other. No, we don't want to set workers against each other. We're simply saying that a person who doesn't pay his fair share of tax, for example, shouldn't expect to receive taxpayer assistance.
This lax government turns a blind eye and overlooks the fact that businesses cheat by sending their money to the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands and Barbados. By maintaining the status quo, this arrangement enables them to take the public's money and avoid paying their taxes, while this costs us tens of billions of dollars every year. This is utterly unacceptable.
I'm going to discuss another Liberal government shortcoming. Large companies receive money, and that's fine, because the crisis has hit everyone. They have a lot of employees and we want them to continue their operations. The Minister of Finance has announced a new assistance program for large businesses in addition to the 75% wage subsidy. Companies can rely on two programs, which is promising. However, could we request commitments or demand guarantees in some instances that these amounts actually serve Canadian workers?
The NDP very much suspects that this money will be used instead to pay bonuses to officers or dividends to shareholders or to provide employment for people who do not work in Quebec or Canada. For example, Air Canada is a company that benefits simultaneously from the two programs. And yet it continues to lay off employees. The machinists union contacted us to discuss some absurd situations.
Several aircraft in the Air Canada fleet operate around the world, but especially in the United States. Those aircraft require daily maintenance. Air Canada, which is receiving assistance from Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, currently leaves its aircraft in the United States, and American workers are maintaining them. Given the billions of dollars provided to Air Canada, we could demand that it repatriate its aircraft to Quebec and Canada so they can be maintained by Quebec and Canadian workers. That's unfortunately not the current situation, and we find it utterly deplorable.
We're also concerned about Internet access. The present crisis clearly shows the extent to which the Internet has become a vital public service for economic activity, communications and our ability to continue working via telework and videoconferencing.
Two federal funds have been established to cover more territory and serve more communities that do not have Internet access. One of them is managed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, and the other, the $1.7 billion universal broadband fund, is managed by the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. One of our fears is that contracts may be awarded to telecommunications giants and that they will parcel the work out to subcontractors, who will take a percentage of the profits and outsource to other subcontractors.
Ultimately, how will the regions and territories covered be selected? Will authorities act in the interests of the telecommunications giants and their subcontractors or in those of the public, of the people who currently don't enjoy this absolutely vital service? We will continue asking questions on this subject.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that I very much appreciate the opportunity to have five-minute discussions with the ministers during these plenary committee meetings. However, this subject is a good example of an issue for which the debate parameters should be slightly expanded so that we can discuss matters that concern people but which are not necessarily related to the pandemic or the current crisis.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honour to rise in the House again and to be here.
I'd like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin first nation as uninvited guests. To them I say meegwetch.
I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of my staff members, who have been working overtime during this crisis. Answering the phone calls and the emails, and dealing with constituents in crisis, is difficult work. I really appreciate what they've done, and I know the constituents do as well.
I'd like to thank the government for its response, and I know that many Canadians have needed help and are getting help. The opposition and members of the Liberal backbench have brought forth all kinds of issues and gaps in the programs, and the government has been responsive and has been helping Canadians. I think it's really important at this time that we have this unity, working together, because our constituents and Canadians are important. They need our help, and playing politics during a pandemic and a crisis isn't the right thing to do. Working together to make sure that we deal with people, and help them with their problems, is the right thing to do.
There are still many needs that people have. For small businesses, too many are still falling through the cracks and are unable to access relief. A lot of micro-businesses are having problems. Some landlords won't sign the new CECRA program. In cases where landlords refuse to co-operate, commercial tenants should be able to apply directly to the government. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business's latest report found that half of small businesses surveyed cannot make their June rent. We're asking the government to allow tenants to access the 50% rental funding when landlords don't agree to opt in to the CECRA program. We're also asking that the government ease the 70% revenue drop criteria for CECRA so more businesses can apply.
CEBA, the business account, still requires a business chequing account. I know that the government has promised changes to that, and I'm looking forward to hearing about those changes. This is something that opposition members have brought up a number of times.
Many in the arts and music industry who rely on summer business will need a lot more help to survive until next year. I'm thinking about all of the festivals and the industries behind them that support them. RSM Productions in Nanaimo, a sound and lighting company, has lost all of its contracts. It is a company that needs help.
Municipalities have experienced staggering drops in revenue, and increased costs. They must continue to provide essential services including police, fire, water, sewage and waste management, regardless of those lost revenues. They're going to have trouble collecting property taxes from businesses and homeowners in financial distress. In my community, they've had free public transit, but ridership has been down to next to nothing anyway. The FCM estimates that municipal transit systems are incurring monthly losses of about $400 million due to diminished ridership, part of at least $10 billion to $15 billion in near-term, non-recoverable losses due to COVID-19.
We need to help municipalities. I understand that they are under provincial jurisdiction, but we work with municipalities with the green infrastructure fund and with the gas tax, and we need to be able to help municipalities weather this storm.
Aboriginal friendship centres have been asking for more help. I know the Tillicum Lelum Aboriginal Friendship Centre in my community provides a broad spectrum of important programs for the 12,000 urban indigenous people in my riding, including a health centre, youth and elder housing, a safe house for homeless youth, a home for single moms and a food hamper program. It also provides mental health and addiction counselling, and continues to provide that online during this crisis. It's an integral part of the urban indigenous community, and it's seriously struggling. It hasn't received any funding yet, and it's expecting to receive maybe $25,000 to $30,000. I'm hoping that the government steps up with more funding for urban aboriginal organizations.
Many non-profit organizations are suffering. In B.C., non-profits contribute $6.4 billion to the economy and employ 86,000 people. However, 78% are facing serious disruption, 74% have seen a large decrease in funding, and at least 19% are shutting down permanently.
I was disappointed to see the government contract with Amazon rather than Canada Post for delivering PPE. That's because of the way Amazon treats its employees. We see that Jeff Bezos is now on track to becoming the first trillionaire. In contrast, our Canada Post employees are paid well, they work hard for their money and they return that money into our economy. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has great ideas for how it can improve things in our economy, including public banking and more energy-efficient delivery systems, so we really need to be supporting our Crown corporations rather than a trillionaire.
Our airlines have really let down passengers. The local chamber of commerce bought tickets to go to two separate conferences, and when they cancelled those tickets they got a voucher for 11 months from the day of cancellation. How are they going to use that for the annual conference next year? That's completely useless to them. I have constituents who have tickets that the airline said they needed to use before September, but there are no bookings before September. Therefore, the airlines are letting people down. We need to stand up for consumers in this country the same way that the Europeans and the Americans do and make sure that the passengers get a refund or at least a voucher that they can use. Eleven months is ridiculous. Four months is ridiculous.
People living on CPP disability need relief and really need a permanent increase in their benefits so that they are on par with the benefits that the province gives people on disability.
With our health care system, we've seen the need for improving health care, and we know there's a $15 billion deficit just in maintenance in our health care system; and our long-term care system needs to be brought into the health care system properly so that our seniors are not abandoned to a for-profit model.
Regarding CPP, OAS and GIS, our seniors have been asking for a raise in these things for a long time. They deserve it. The cost of living in my riding has gone way up. Because real estate values have escalated in the last five years, the cost of renting a place has driven up the cost of living. We need to take these things into consideration. It's not the same in every part of the country, but in some parts of this country it is out of control.
I know there are worries about fraud in the relief programs, but we see fraud in other areas. We see polluters who abandon their messes, declare bankruptcy and then leave it for us, the citizens and the taxpayers, to clean up. That's privatizing the profits and socializing the losses, and that needs to end.
We also need to make sure that offshoring of wealth, whether that's legal through loopholes or illegal through tax evasion, is stopped. We lose about $19 billion a year in taxes, through tax evasion or tax avoidance.
One of the things I've been talking about here for a while is a guaranteed livable income. It's similar to the basic income or universal basic income that's proposed, but we base it upon a basket of goods, the same way that a living wage would, so that people have the things they need to survive. It's an idea that has gained support across the political spectrum, but the Greens have been talking about this for several decades. In fact, 50 Canadian senators have written to the Canadian Prime Minister, calling for a minimum basic income for Canadians. The GLI establishes an income floor below which no Canadian can fall. It's something whose time has come.
This crisis has shown us that there are a lot of issues we need to deal with. One of the things it has taught us is that life is more important than money, and when we work together we can get things done. I look forward to continuing to improve the programs the government has put forward.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be splitting my time with two of my colleagues.
I would like to begin by thanking my fellow citizens of Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I am proud to be able to represent them in the House.
I am very pleased to be here with you to continue the important work of Parliament and its committees, while respecting public health and physical distancing guidelines.
I'm going to talk briefly about our creative, cultural and heritage industries, our sports organizations and the media sector.
As you can imagine, like many others, these organizations and companies are facing a major crisis that stems from COVID-19, the biggest crisis in our recent history. All of us, as elected officials in our democracy and on behalf of the Canadian people, have a role to play in helping our creators and the sports community get through this ordeal and come out of it bigger and stronger.
Of course, it will be a challenge to ensure that these organizations and the professionals who run them emerge from the crisis to find their audiences and supporters, but I know we can do it if we all pull together.
On April 26, artists from across Canada did what they do best: create, move and inspire us. They came together virtually and gave us a memorable concert, Stronger Together, Tous ensemble. They put a balm on containment. At the same time, they helped us to feel a little less alone, more connected, more supportive.
Isolation and an economic shutdown are a new reality and like you, all Canadians, we are still learning. We have to do our best and as much as we can during this period of great uncertainty. In fact, that is what our artists and athletes are doing. Their spirit of initiative, their resilience and solidarity are a source of inspiration for our work today. Let's try to act like them and for them.
In Canada, we recognize that the cultural sector in all its diversity of expression, the museum sector and sports are a force for developing our communities and our identity. They ensure a strong, active and healthy Canadian society.
In addition to being a key economic driver, culture is a pillar that holds our communities together and keeps them united. We need that more than ever in these difficult circumstances. Unfortunately, the arts, culture, heritage and sport, an inherent and essential part of our communities and Canadian culture, are harshly affected by the pandemic.
Leaders of these creative businesses and sports organizations are reporting major financial losses as a result of the measures being put in place, which are necessary for ensuring the health of the Canadian public. For example, all public events such as concerts, festivals and various performances have been cancelled. Film and television production is on hold, museums are no longer hosting activities and several businesses are posting a significant decline in their ad revenue among other things.
We can expect Canada's creative industry to suffer growing financial pressure. In one month, losses are estimated at $4.4 billion and roughly 26,000 jobs. In three months, they are estimated at $13.2 billion and roughly 81,000 jobs. Some businesses are able to recover from these losses with help from the government and through loans and support from the private sector. It is precisely to reassure and maintain our thriving cultural and sports sector that we reacted quickly and urgently. We are here for our athletes and artists when they need us the most.
As you may know, as soon as containment measures were announced in Canada, I held a virtual press briefing to reassure our entire cultural and sports sector. I wanted to guarantee to them that government funding would be maintained, regardless of the circumstances.
The work and mandate of Canadian Heritage has not changed. We are here to support the arts, culture and sports sectors. We have ensured that funds from grants and contributions continue to flow and we remain available to work with our partners to determine the best way forward.
The Government of Canada is also working hard to roll out its COVID-19 economic response plan. This plan includes direct support for every affected Canadian, including those in the arts, culture and sports sectors. It includes the Canada emergency response benefit for workers who lose all or part of their income because of the pandemic. The benefit applies to wage earners, contract workers and self-employed individuals who would not otherwise be eligible for employment insurance.
Note that after receiving input from the industry, we announced that royalty payments would not be included in calculating the income eligible for benefits. As someone who has published three books, I understood this very clearly. This means that artists and creators will not be disadvantaged because of work they did months ago.
In addition to these emergency benefits and the credits and exemptions we have provided for all Canadians and Canadian businesses, we have introduced targeted measures for our cultural and sports sectors. On April 17, our Prime Minister announced a $500-million emergency fund for our cultural, heritage and sports organizations in recognition of their importance to our society. This assistance is intended for institutions that suffer or will suffer income losses related to COVID-19. We are doing everything possible to stay in touch with our partners and the organizations we support to address their most pressing concerns.
This measure will provide financial support that ties in with existing measures in response to COVID-19 pertaining to salaries and fixed costs. The fund will be administered by Canadian Heritage, with the support of our partners, notably the Canada Council for the Arts. We will work with the culture, heritage and sports sectors to clarify the terms and conditions of this financial support. Supplementary to this, the Canada Council will also provide $60 million in advance funding to help cultural organizations and artists who receive council grants to meet their immediate commitments.
Our government, through Canadian Heritage, is also investing $3 million in several organizations through the digital citizen initiative to help combat false and misleading COVID-19 information, as well as the racism and stigmatization that we have seen spurred by the crisis. This support will help fund activities such as public awareness tools and online workshops to help Canadians become more resilient and to think critically about COVID-19 disinformation. Funded projects will reach Canadians on a national scale and a local scale, online and offline, and minority communities in both official languages, and indigenous communities.
We are also providing support for broadcasters. The Government of Canada has waived part 1 licence fees for the 2020-21 fiscal year. This amounts to $30 million in assistance to our broadcasters.
An independent panel of experts will also make recommendations to the Canada Revenue Agency on the implementation of the tax measures for print journalism announced in budget 2019. This panel is now in place and we have made several adjustments to the tax measures to better meet the needs of the publishing and journalism community. To give just one example, new publishers and media outlets that receive support from the Canada periodical fund will be eligible for Canadian journalism labour tax credits.
Finally, the vast majority of the $30 million invested by our government in a national COVID-19 awareness campaign will be invested in Canadian media, in television and radio, newspapers, magazines and digital media. The revenue generated by this campaign will provide our media with a breath of fresh air.
Canadians are facing one of the greatest challenges in our history. Our artists, our creators, our athletes and our amateur sports community are showing us many examples of solidarity. Together, alongside them, we will meet this challenge.
I invite you to envisage the sport and culture sector as an ecosystem, rich in its diversity but fragile. Together let's continue to protect it.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Kwe. Tansi. Ulaakut.
Hello.
I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
As of May 5, we have seen 161 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in first nations communities on reserve and 16 in Inuit communities, focused in the Nunavik region.
I also want to take a second to address what was made public a few days ago with respect to a false positive case in Pond Inlet. This was confirmed, luckily, earlier in the week, to the relief of many Canadians. Again, the lesson from this is that we need to stay vigilant, because we know that the pre-existing conditions in these communities make them exceedingly vulnerable. Vigilance is key, particularly with a pandemic that we have yet to fully understand.
In order to help indigenous communities cope with COVID-19, our government has provided more than $740 million in direct support to help first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities address their public health needs.
So far, more than $59.8 million has been used to buy equipment for medical personnel and to support community-led preparation measures. This money is in addition to the investments made in budget 2019, in which our government provided $79.86 million for health emergency readiness. These investments helped in developing a network of regional coordinators and enhancing the ability of first nation communities to deal with health emergencies and pandemics.
Indigenous Services Canada continues to maintain a stockpile of personal protective equipment and hand sanitizer to give to first nations communities dealing with a health emergency situation. This stockpile is available to first nations communities that might need personal protective equipment to ensure the safety of health care workers and others supporting the delivery of health services in an emergency health situation, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.
As of May 5, yesterday, we have shipped 731 orders for personal protective equipment, including hand sanitizers, N95 masks, isolation shields and gloves to first nations communities with five orders in progress. The amounts constitute more than 167,850 gowns and more than 202,000 surgical masks to complement supplies provided by provinces and territories. We continue to respond quickly to requests and to assess them within a 24-hour turnaround time.
I would like to underscore that many communities and service providers are adapting their operations to respect the requirement for physical distancing. National indigenous organizations, such as Thunderbird Partnership Foundation and First Peoples Wellness Circle, have developed a series of resources related to COVID-19 that are available to everyone online.
One of our supports has been to financially assist the First Peoples Wellness Circle in developing an online platform for its network of local, multidisciplinary mental wellness teams that are currently offering services to 344 communities. We've increased the number of crisis intervention counsellors on shift at the Hope for Wellness helpline, which is now receiving more than 100 calls or chats a week linked to COVID-19. This experience of self-isolation and physical distancing of family members who may be at higher risk or might fall ill can have a significant and real impact on mental health. We recognize this and are engaged with partners to support solutions to address and bolster mental health, particularly for youth.
Support for aboriginal youth is another priority sector. The department is working with its indigenous partners, including youth organizations, to support and promote indigenous resources for young people.
For example, the Canadian Roots Exchange has set up the creation community support fund to support youth mental wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic with local solutions. Similarly, We Matter is an indigenous-led youth organization focused on life promotion and messages of hope and resilience. They have developed tool kits for youth, teachers and support workers to help youth and those who support youth.
We are aware that post-secondary students are facing an unprecedented situation because of COVID-19. On April 22, the Prime Minister announced up to $9 million in funding for post-secondary students and recent graduates, including aboriginal students.
Nevertheless, we know that many aboriginal students are dealing with specific and unique situations either related to financial stability, job opportunities or simply the chance to continue their studies as planned. That is why an additional $75.2 million will be provided specifically in support of first nations, Inuit and Métis post-secondary students as they deal with COVID-19. This amount is in addition to the existing financial aid programs for aboriginal post-secondary students. This support could be used to cover the cost related to buying computer equipment as courses move online, registration fees, groceries, support payments, housing and transportation, and, should graduation be delayed, cover an extra year of university and related expenses.
At the end of the day, this assistance is meant to ensure that post-secondary aboriginal students can continue or begin their studies as planned despite the obstacles put up by COVID-19.
We are also taking steps to support indigenous-owned businesses during this crisis. The Government of Canada will provide up to $306.8 million in funding to help small and medium-sized indigenous businesses through the network of aboriginal financial institutions that offer financing to indigenous businesses. This measure will help an estimated 6,000 indigenous-owned businesses during this difficult time and will hopefully provide the stability they need to persist.
Indigenous businesses, including indigenous government-owned corporations and partnerships, are also now eligible to apply for the Canada emergency wage subsidy to support them in their efforts to retain and rehire laid-off employees and weather their current challenges. Taxable indigenous government-owned corporations are already eligible for the wage subsidy.
The government has also established a business credit availability program to provide $40 billion in additional support through the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada, which are working together with private sector lenders to coordinate credit solutions for individual businesses. Some indigenous businesses may be able to leverage these solutions as well.
As you may recall, on March 18 the Government of Canada allocated $305 million towards a new distinctions-based indigenous community support fund to address immediate needs related to COVID-19 in indigenous communities and among urban indigenous populations. This funding is part of the COVID-19 economic response plan and is in addition to needs-based support for first nations and Inuit health and emergency management.
As part of this indigenous community support fund, we are working to support first nations off reserve and urban indigenous populations. We recently concluded proposal-based processes to distribute $15 million to organizations that provide critical services to first nations off reserve and to indigenous peoples living in urban centres. So far 94 proposals by organizations from coast to coast to coast have been supported through this fund. This includes support for friendship centres as they continue their important work to serve urban indigenous communities in the face of this pandemic. We know that friendship centres are playing a crucial role in providing key support, which ranges from delivering food to families, young people and elders to responding to calls for assistance to providing support for mental health and cultural support for urban indigenous communities.
As our response to the COVID-19 pandemic continues and adapts to new data, we ask indigenous communities and partners to continue to assess their evolving needs. We ask them to reach out to their regional departmental contacts so that we may assist them in supporting community members.
I want to take this final moment, Mr. Chair, to express again my deepest sympathies to the Canadian Armed Forces. Our thoughts and prayers go to the military personnel who lost their lives in the helicopter crash in the Ionian Sea, and their families. Canada is grieving with them as we all try to come to grips with this tragic accident.
Let me conclude by saying that the government has designed and supported the measures I've described earlier today to provide timely and direct support to all Canadians in response to this unprecedented crisis. These measures offer timely financial support to indigenous peoples in Canada in particular, no matter where they reside. We are working with our partners for all Canadians.
Meegwetch. Nakurmiik. Merci. Thank you.
View Mona Fortier Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented crisis. More than three million people around the world have been infected, including more than 60,000 in Canada. Sadly, more than 4,000 Canadians have died from this disease. Naturally, the health and safety of all Canadians remain our top priority. We are constantly looking for ways to slow down the spread of this deadly virus. The pandemic affected large and small businesses around the world overnight and continues to have a devastating impact on the global economy.
Fortunately, our government has taken strong action to soften the blow of the crisis on Canadians by providing direct support of more than $140 billion to individuals, families, and businesses. This is one of the most comprehensive plans in the G7.
It has been eight weeks since the Prime Minister gave an overview of Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This plan seeks to limit the spread of the virus in our country and protect citizens, families, businesses and the economy.
Over the past two months, the government has developed and implemented policies that have expanded and enhanced Canada's emergency response plan. No Canadian should have to choose between protecting their health and putting food on the table. The government has designed and launched a series of measures, including the Canada emergency response benefit, to provide timely and direct support to Canadians in response to COVID-19. This benefit, which provides $2,000 to individuals who have lost their employment, has supported over 7.5 million Canadians. These measures will help meet the cash needs of Canadian households and help ensure that Canadians can pay for essential needs like housing and groceries during this difficult time.
Mr. Chair, I would like to tell this House and Canadians about some of our key measures.
Families are feeling the social and economic repercussions of COVID-19 on their lives. Parents are concerned about being able to feed their family and they try to find creative ways to play the role of teacher and facilitator to their children. This is a difficult time for many families and we must continue to help parents and invest in our children.
This month, families who receive the Canada child benefit, or the CCB, will receive up to$300 more per child to help relieve some of the extra pressure caused by COVID-19. As you know, the CCB is a monthly non-taxable payment provided to eligible families to help them cover the costs of raising children under 18.
Ever since this benefit was implemented in 2016, it has had a positive impact on family incomes. This assistance measure puts the emphasis on families who need it the most, as low- and middle-income families receive the highest payments. This year, eligible families will automatically receive this one-time additional CCB in their May payment. People already receiving the CCB do not have to file a new claim to get this one-time enhancement.
This measure represents an addition $2 billion in support for families across the country. It will help families deal with the cost of raising their children during this difficult time. It is just one of the countless measures the government has put in place to help families overcome this crisis.
In addition to this one-time CCB increase, we have provided individuals and families of low and modest incomes with a special top-up payment through the goods and services tax credit. This measure has provided, on average, close to $400 for single individuals and close to $600 for couples. In my riding of Ottawa—Vanier, this has helped families during these very difficult times.
We also understand that Canadians may be challenged in filing their taxes this year. That is why our government has also extended the tax filing deadline for individuals to June 1.
It is one more way that we are easing pressures on Canadians during this pressure-filled time.
We have heard that post-secondary students are feeling the economic impacts of COVID-19. Many students were preparing to start a summer or co-op job in May, and are now worried about how to pay rent and cover basic living expenses. Recent graduates are struggling to find meaningful work. This is a critical point in their lives. We must do everything possible to support the future of the next generation.
In order to ensure that post-secondary students are able to confidently continue their studies in the fall, the government is proposing significant measures to support them. From students who were counting on their summer employment to pay for their tuition, to recent graduates who were planning to start their careers, the government has their back during this challenging time. That is why I was pleased to rise in this House last week to speak to the $9-billion plan to help students and recent graduates get through the next few months.
Because of COVID-19, there aren't as many jobs for students as last year. Without a job, it can be hard to pay for tuition or for day-to-day basics. We have proposed the Canada emergency student benefit, which would give students $1,250 a month from May to August, with additional support for students with dependants or disabilities.
At the same time, we're creating and extending up to 160,000 jobs and other opportunities for young people in sectors that need an extra hand right now or are at the front line of the pandemic. If students prefer to volunteer and help in the fight against COVID-19, they'll be eligible for a $1,000 to $5,000 grant through the new Canada student service grant.
We are also helping businesses pay their employees even though they cannot open their doors. The Canada emergency wage subsidy is a subsidy of 75% of a salary for a maximum of $847 a week, for employers of all sizes and all sectors that have experienced a decline in their gross income of at least 15% in March and 30% in April and May. We created this subsidy to prevent new job losses and to encourage employers to rehire the workers they had to lay off because of COVID-19.
Our action also stands to have far-reaching implications. More workers will keep their jobs and more employers will be in a better position after the crisis, when the economy rebounds.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Every sector of the economy and every region of Canada has suffered the consequences. The government will continue to assess the repercussions of COVID-19. We are prepared to take other measures as needed and we will continue to do so to support Canadians throughout the entire pandemic. We will ensure that our economy remains resilient during this difficult time.
We will get through this together and when this crisis is over, we will be in the best position to bounce back together and continue to build a stronger country, one where everyone can succeed.
View Nelly Shin Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to share this time with my colleagues from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.
As I rise to speak in the House today, I do so with deep gratitude. I am grateful for the privilege of serving my constituents in Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra during these unprecedented times. I am grateful to be here in the chamber, where the dignity, dreams, lives and hopes of the people are shaped by the laws we make in this great democratic institution. I am proud to be Canadian more than ever before, because I see people in our country and in my community putting their compassion, generosity and resilience into action in a time of great need. I am humbled by the honour of serving my country in a time of adversity.
I'd like to take this time to thank the health care practitioners and staff at Eagle Ridge Hospital for their daily sacrifice. I'd like to thank the first responders and essential workers in my riding, who keep us safe and fed, and maintain a certain level of normalcy for us in a time of instability. Thank you all for putting yourselves at risk on the front lines as you take care of us. You are the heroes in this war against COVID-19.
I'd also like to say a special thank you to all who have been showing great initiative by raising support for food banks through virtual concerts and galas. I'd like to thank Share Family & Community Services and other societies and groups in my community for continuing to meet the needs of food and security for the homeless, seniors and vulnerable families. I'd like to thank individuals and groups for their efforts in making homemade masks and donating them to health care workers and seniors.
There is another demographic of vulnerable Canadians who are facing unprecedented struggle right now, and that is the business community. With so many shutdowns, revenue losses and the challenges of paying rent and utility bills, all the while facing disappointment over gaps in the emergency benefits that disqualify some business owners.... I recognize it's a process, but it's been a daunting one for several weeks. Therefore, I'd like to thank Michael Hind and the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce for doing an excellent job of keeping business owners updated on different government benefits and encouraging the people. To the sponsors of the shop local campaign to help urban businesses survive the pandemic, thank you for giving hope to our entrepreneurs. Canada needs our businesses to survive past this pandemic.
In the midst of struggle, there have also been moments of celebration. I'd like to congratulate Dr. Mary Anne Cooper, a resident of Port Moody, for receiving the B.C. Achievement Community Award. We celebrate her exceptional contributions to our local heritage and our green spaces, and her advocacy for seniors.
I'd also like to congratulate Novo Textiles, a company in my riding of Coquitlam that, without government funding, has managed to retool their factory to manufacture surgical masks. They are now supplying masks to the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority, Alberta Health, Nova Scotia fish-processing companies, B.C. Search and Rescue, and the Port of Vancouver. In a short time, they'll be manufacturing N95 masks using a Canadian machine and Swiss-made fabric that has a strong antiviral and antibacterial effect that can kill bacteria upon contact.
This success story and the similar stories that are starting to pop up across our nation demonstrate not only their efforts against COVID-19 but also their entrepreneurial, innovative and pioneering spirit, which is the essence of the Canadian spirit. I'm so proud to see it happen right here in my own community. It was a privilege to be part of expediting the process for Novo Textiles' transition to becoming one of Canada's first manufacturers of N95 masks.
In continuing to celebrate our Canadians, I'd like to wish all members of the Dutch, Asian and Jewish communities a happy heritage month, and celebrate their history, culture and contributions that enrich and strengthen our country.
This week we also observe Mental Health Week, and I'm so glad to hear in the House many sensibilities spoken about this. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested many aspects of our human condition. It has particularly had a toll on our mental health individually and collectively. There's been a lot of shock and change, and much to grieve and process.
It didn't even dawn on me personally until I went to Vancouver International Airport for my flight here and saw the empty airport and recognized the situation we truly are in and the vulnerability of our economy. I did not see people, the crowds that I'm used to seeing, which mark a healthy industry. We are in challenging times.
I recently spoke with a non-profit organization, Not 9 to 5, that advocates for mental health awareness and support for the hospitality industry. Of the many industries hit by COVID-19 shutdowns, the hospitality industry is perhaps one of the most vulnerable. It's certainly an important part of my constituency and of British Columbia.
According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, substance use, socio-economic insecurity and unemployment are high risk factors for suicide and suicidal behaviour. According to Not 9 to 5, the hospitality industry already had a severe mental health crisis on its hands before the coronavirus pandemic, but now with the added challenges of isolation and anxiety caused by the pandemic, a rise in suicide rates is expected.
This points me to a greater overarching pandemic. Hospitality is one industry, but Canadians at large are facing an unprecedented time of trauma, fear, anxiety and hopelessness with all the challenges of financial loss, isolation, fear of the COVID-19 virus itself and uncertainty about the future. I know many have not had a chance to grieve and come to terms with what's happening right now. In a matter of weeks and months, I don't even know what that will look like.
It is at a time like this that I feel that it is important for us as parliamentarians, and especially for the government being in a position to take action, to really consider the long-term impact of this crisis pertaining to mental health and to perhaps view the situation as an opportunity to do a reset in how Canadians perceive mental health and how we respond. It is perhaps not something that should just be left to the provinces. Instead there should be a federal framework that we can provide not only for immediate intervention but for long-term solutions.
I would ask all members across all aisles to consider what that framework would look like, to not only help Canadians through this pandemic but also set a long-term course through which mental health care is accessible and part of everyday care like physical health care.
In 2006, the Conservative government proposed legislation for a mental health act. We acknowledged the need for oversight on mental health, but it's been 14 years. We need to revisit mental health and take it to the next level. There's no better time than the present, and if necessity is the mother of all invention, let the necessity of oversight and funding for mental health care today, in partnership with all tiers of government and front-line organizations, mark its beginning.
Today there is another pandemic that is running parallel to COVID-19 and that is the pandemic of domestic abuse. In 2018 about one-third of all violent crimes reported to the police were committed by intimate partners.
COVID-19 has created a perfect storm for domestic violence to escalate. Tri-City Transitions is a women's shelter and service provider for families and victims of domestic violence in my riding, and I'm grateful that my community has an organization like Tri-City Transitions, which has programs for immediate needs and long-term restoration and has served the community for 45 years. I spoke with Carol Metz, who has worked for many years for the shelter, and in a Zoom interview, she stated that since the COVID-19 pandemic caused social distancing and shutdowns, they have opened 20 new cases. Families are being strained relationally, and even the most solid relationships are being tested.
While emphasizing the need for more long-term programs to support women, who form 80% of the victims in intimate partner violence, she also stated the need for programs to help the abusers deal with the issues that translate into their anger, violence and abusive behaviour.
While the government has stated that the funds are flowing to the bank accounts of shelters and sexual assault centres, we don't know the details of how the support is being distributed, so there is no way of determining the gaps. It is time to take a deeper look at domestic violence and deal with these issues or else we will have a whole generation of families with PTSD and all kinds of trauma. The cycle needs to end. We need to mitigate now with solutions that speak not only to immediate relief but also in the short term and long term work toward restoration.
I'm glad to see the initiatives the government has undertaken to bring more awareness, but it needs to go deeper. Counselling is a journey that needs to begin and end with consistency, and I hope some of the counselling will provide long-term journeys to help people find stability in those counselling relationships.
Moving forward, I hope that during this Mental Health Week all members will give deep thought to what mental health care should look like today and for the next generation.
Thank you.
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, it's an honour to sit in the House today and voice the concerns of the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in these uncertain times.
Parliament never closed down before. This is a first. With the nation in crisis, Canadians looked to their leaders. Sadly, for several weeks, we were at an impasse with the government, and we couldn't move forward on the issues that matter to them.
I went through this as a coach. It's not easy to innovate and improve when you're surrounded by people who think exactly the same way you do. That's why we fought so hard to be here. We would have preferred to meet several times a week, but we'll take what we can get.
During question period, I raised several issues that affect both individuals and businesses. I realize these are exceptional circumstances, that we're all moving forward together in uncertainty, and that the government is doing its best to help people in need. However, I would like the government to co-operate more with the Conservative opposition, because I believe we could all contribute to finding positive solutions to the COVID-19 crisis. The government would do well to work with us for the good of Canadians without wasting parliamentarians' time on partisan issues like controlling law-abiding gun owners.
That being said, in the spirit of collaboration, I want to highlight certain problems with the government's usual programs. We hope to enhance these programs to help a larger number of Canadians. I think that parliamentarians could be the government's greatest allies in the fight against COVID-19. We're the ones who listen to the problems brought to us by individuals and businesses and help them find solutions.
At Service Canada, measures have been taken to better support us as parliamentarians. At the Canada Revenue Agency, it's a little harder, not least because the parliamentary line has been shut down. Right now, people are falling through the cracks, and we're the only ones who can help. We realize that the government is announcing programs quickly, without necessarily having all the details, in order to respond as fast as possible. However, many Canadians are being left behind.
I know that our public servants are working very hard these days, but I think they should have the right to interpret vague regulations somewhat broadly. For instance, I'm thinking of people who were forced to apply for EI because of the rail blockades and people with above-average foresight who self-isolated before March 15. Unlike most people, they're not eligible for the CERB.
With regard to help for individuals, I'm shocked that the government provided such generous support for students, the very people who work for our essential services during the summer. They're the least vulnerable to COVID-19, yet they're the ones getting the most encouragement to stay home. The government is pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of incentivizing work. It's clear that certain businesses will struggle and won't be able to rehire their usual staff. We absolutely need to add an incentive to work. For instance, why not offer more loans and grants to those who choose to work this summer? That's the kind of policy that will minimize aid for youth and reward those who worked on our farms, in our businesses or even in front-line health care.
I would also urge the government to work with the provinces to increase support for seniors during COVID-19. Seniors are in forced isolation and are the most vulnerable to this virus. Many are being forced to buy electronic devices, get Internet installed to stay connected with their families, and do their grocery shopping online for their own safety. This crisis is increasing their expenses. Will any help be planned for them?
Now I'll turn to businesses. The Canada emergency business account is a good program, but it's far too restrictive. Why doesn't this program do anything to help start-ups that are newly established, businesses that unfortunately didn't have time to spend $20,000 on payroll this year, businesses run with a personal chequing account, businesses whose employees are issued T4As or are on service contracts, or businesses that pay themselves in dividends or revenue sharing? There are many different ways to run a business in Canada. I'm sure the Minister of Finance is aware of that.
Many businesses are falling through the cracks, even though it would be easy to provide them with a $40,000 repayable loan. It wouldn't be hard to improve the program. This program could be the difference between surviving or not for some businesses.
Speaking of businesses surviving, many of them were hoping to get the emergency wage subsidy to keep their employees on the job and keep our economy going. I see two huge gaps in this program.
First of all, why are non-arm's length businesses not eligible for this assistance? That makes no sense. The government is literally interfering in the management of Canadian businesses. Whether they're arm's length or not, they need help.
Second, for non-arm's length employees, they're being asked to look at the average earnings between January 2020 and March 2020. Many businesses in the tourism sector, including campgrounds for instance, have lots of seasonal workers who don't work between January and March. Under this rule, they won't get any wage subsidy.
As a final point, I'm a little puzzled by the emergency commercial rent assistance. Why is it that the government thinks it can interfere in the lease between two businesses and force landlords to accept a 25% rent reduction? The government is playing a dangerous game. It should either help tenants with 50% or 75% of the rent, or provide loans to landlords until their tenants can pay their rent again. However, forcing landlords to lower rents completely undermines the rule of law. This could be a very slippery slope. I therefore urge the government to approach this with caution and review the program's structure.
I really hope the Liberal government will consider my suggestions. After all, the issues I've raised here are not unique to Chicoutimi—Le Fjord; they exist across the country. Although this is the right thing to do, these programs will be enormously expensive for Canada, and we can't afford to pass this debt on to future generations. Already our tax system isn't very competitive compared to the rest of North America. Our tax system is cumbersome and inefficient. I would therefore caution the government against raising taxes in any way that would further squeeze Canadians and hurt our economic recovery.
In terms of a recovery plan, I urge the Liberal government to expedite infrastructure projects, to make it easier to invest in Canada and, most importantly, to support the private sector natural resource development projects worth around $200 billion that are currently being studied in Canada, such as the GNL Québec project in my riding.
Before the COVID-19 crisis struck, GNL Québec enjoyed around 68% support in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. This major green project will be ready for construction in 2021 and will definitely give the Canadian economy a boost.
In my region, we've been less affected by COVID-19, as everyone has been reviewing their hygiene practices. This is a perfect opportunity to decentralize investments in large urban centres and move them towards the regions. With programs that are more flexible and better suited to rural realities, the regions could take a leadership role in Canada's economic recovery.
If another wave of this or another health crisis were to strike one day, the regions, which tend to be more isolated, could help ensure a strong economy if the urban centres have to come to a standstill. I therefore urge the government to be bold and support investment in the regions. That is how we'll be able to reach our full economic potential and quickly pay down the enormous debt weighing down our country.
The COVID-19 crisis is unlike anything we have ever seen in the 21st century. We understand that the government is in a difficult situation. Today I want to reach out to the government and encourage it to remain open and flexible and consider some of the proposals I've suggested. I am confident this would help many people and many businesses, and that these recovery plans would help the country get back on track quickly.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It was a privilege to share my constituents' concerns at this historic time.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I too, like so many of my colleagues before me have said, am extremely pleased, to be here today, albeit with a significantly reduced number of people in this chamber. I recall the first time I stood in this House to make some comments. It was over 16 years ago. I was intimidated. I was awestruck. I didn't know exactly what I would say and how I would get the words out of my mouth. I do recall standing up and seeing a lot of empty chairs in front of me.
I'd like to say to everyone here that, even after 16 years, it's apparent that I still have the ability to draw a crowd.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: So to the people who are here today, I thank you for it.
Mr. Chair, we are living in a strange, strange world. I think everyone here knows that. No one can deny that. It's almost like the world has been turned upside down.
Who could have predicted, a scant two months ago, the type of world we are living in right now? Who could have predicted, two months ago, that we would be living in a world where there was a global lockdown, a world where people could not leave their houses, were told by their governments not to leave their houses, couldn't go next door to a neighbour's place to have a cup of coffee, couldn't ask their grandchildren to come over for a visit, and couldn't attend a funeral? Nobody could have predicted that.
Who would have predicted, two months ago, that literally tens of millions of people would lose their jobs literally overnight? Who would have predicted, a scant two months ago, that today over three and a half million people would have contracted this deadly virus? There's a death count in most democracies and the industrialized world, in fact in countries throughout our globe and throughout our planet; people are still dying because of COVID-19. Who could have predicted that? The answer, of course, is no one.
What have we done as a country? What have other countries done in terms of trying to combat this? I have to say that generally speaking, most countries that I am aware of have done good to exceptional jobs. They put in health protocols to help flatten the curve of this pandemic. They also did other things from an economic standpoint to try to support their citizens. They got money out the door to support those who lost their jobs. They got money out the door quickly to support those who had to close businesses.
Those economic initiatives were not only necessary; they have worked. The problem and the difficulty is at what cost, and at what cost economically? We are looking at a situation now in Canada where this year's deficit alone will be somewhat north of $250 billion. That figure is rising, and the spending tap has not been turned off yet. Was it necessary? Yes. But what will happen two months from now? The day of reckoning has yet to come upon us, but it will.
I want to spend the remainder of my time here to just reflect for a few moments on what this government has done to try to prepare for the situation that we find ourselves in now from an economic standpoint and compare that with a previous government, the government that I was a part of for nine years. I can tell you that despite the government's rhetoric that their own initiatives financially put their government in a good fiscal position to withstand something like we're seeing today, they did not. Yes, it's true that the net debt-to-GDP ratio is around 30%, in the low thirties. The government keeps touting that as an example of how their economy, while they were governing this country, was doing a good job.
I agree that the economy seemed to be humming along, but what this government will not say to Canadians, will not remind Canadians, is that in the first four years of this government's mandate, from 2015 to 2019, this government added over $70 billion to the Canadian debt. Any economist, any financial analyst, will tell you that during good times, that is the time when governments should be putting money aside for a rainy day. It should be paying down debt and saving money for the future in case a recession or some other unknown or untoward calamity washed up on our shores.
Right now it's not just raining; it is pouring. The government was, despite its rhetoric, in my view, completely unprepared from an economic and fiscal standpoint to deal with the situation that we have before us today.
How will we recover? That's a question I want to ask this government when the time is right. I recognize that now is not that time. Let's compare for a moment the situation this government finds itself in compared with some of the initiatives that the previous Conservative government embarked upon from 2006 to 2015. When I was first elected in 2004, we were in a minority situation, but we formed a government in January 2006. I can remind members that, in the first two years of our Conservative government, we paid down $40 billion of debt while at the same time reducing the GST from 7% to 5%.
In 2008-09, there was a recession that washed up on our shores, as it did throughout the world. That was the global recession caused by the subprime mortgage crisis initiated in the United States. As a government, we recognized we had to do something. We borrowed $50 billion to put into the economy as stimulus, primarily using infrastructure projects across Canada that were shovel-ready. What happened? It worked. Our economy came out of the recession before any other country's in the world. By the time we left office in 2015, we were back into a balanced budget.
That's fiscal responsibility and that's fiscal restraint, two themes I don't think this government truly understands.
I point out to members that, during our first four years in opposition after the 2015 election, we consistently asked the Minister of Finance when the government's budget would be balanced. There was steadfast refusal from the finance minister to answer that question. I'm sure it was not because the minister didn't want to answer the question. It was because he didn't know the answer to the question. He could not provide an answer as to when the government's budget would be balanced.
Think about that for just a moment. Arguably, the second most influential and powerful person in Canada, the finance minister of Canada, was not able to answer a simple question: When will your budget be balanced? If it was bad enough back then, when the economy was in relatively good shape, how will the Minister of Finance answer that question today? How could he possibly answer that question?
There are only two options that I see this government has as we move forward, as we hopefully leave the health crisis, the pandemic know as COVID-19, behind us. That is to do one of two things, either cut spending or raise taxes. My colleague who spoke before me already indicated that raising taxes would simply not be the right move right now because of the negative impact it would have on the Canadian economy. That leaves option number one: to reduce government services. I have never seen a government more unlikely to do that than the government sitting across from me today.
I look upon members opposite and ask them to think long and hard. What initiatives must they be faced with? What will they do to make sure that Canada's economy not only gets back on its feet, but that we start dealing with the massive debt we'll have to deal with. It's not me, not my children, not even my grandchildren. It's probably my great-grandchildren who will have to pay off that debt. That's an unfortunate circumstance that this government, in part, brought upon itself.
Mr. Chair, Canadians deserve better.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would first like to inform you that I'll be sharing my time with my honourable colleagues from Joliette and Jonquière.
I must humbly admit that I'm surprised to find myself here again, for the third time since this crisis began, talking about the precarious situation facing seniors. We are meeting again today in circumstances that are as exceptional and dramatic as ever. At the risk of repeating myself, I only hope that we actually get something done this time and that the government will finally address seniors' concerns.
I feel I have a duty to fight for those who helped build Quebec, and even Canada, as we know them today. People aged 65 and over were born between the 1930s and 1950s, times of great upheaval and great change everywhere. These individuals definitely contributed to the Quiet Revolution and its repercussions. They have witnessed the birth and evolution of the welfare state.
Now they are seeing the flip side. They have contributed their entire lives to this society of solidarity, but at the end of the day, there is not enough money for them. These are our parents, our grandparents and even our great-grandparents. The rapid, furious pace of our so-called modern life has gradually pulled us further away from them. Many of them are really and truly alone.
I'm still young, and when I look at the current situation, I don't want to grow old in a world like this, where institutionalized ingratitude allows a certain degree of dehumanization. I'm not talking about professional and family caregivers. On the contrary, they are also victims. I'd like to see seniors get some of their dignity back. They obviously need us; they need us to bring in immediate, direct measures.
The current crisis is causing serious economic hardships for seniors. Some people seem to think that the economic shutdown does not affect seniors since they're no longer in the workforce, but that isn't true. First of all, a good many of them, mostly older women, do still work, which just goes to show, I think, how urgent these measures are. If they receive pension income and yet still feel the need to work, clearly, their income support is not enough.
On top of that, their investment income, in other words, the savings they accumulated for their retirement precisely so they wouldn't have to work or receive the guaranteed income supplement, has been decimated. Most seniors live on a fixed income, their pension, but the cost of living is going up for everyone, whether it be the cost of rent, groceries, medication and services.
In 1975, old age security covered 20% of the average industrial wage. Today it covers 13%. This means that old age security is often not enough to keep people from living in poverty. Increasing seniors' incomes will not only give them a decent standard of living, which they have long deserved, but will also help them deal with the current crisis. The Bloc Québécois has considered this a priority since long before the current crisis and has been asking for improvements to the guaranteed income supplement.
During the election campaign, the Liberals seemed to be aware of the problem and promised to increase old age security by 10%. If they had actually done so, this measure would have definitely made a huge difference in the current crisis. In committee last Friday, the president of the FADOQ network, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, urged the government to keep that promise. However, that commitment was limited to people aged 75 and over, which makes no sense. We must not discriminate based on age and create two classes of seniors. Seniors also have needs. They don't all live in long-term care centres or posh seniors' homes. Ageism will not encourage the proper treatment of seniors.
The first obvious conclusion is this: Seniors are also greatly affected by this crisis, not only economically speaking, but also in terms of their daily life, considering the lockdown and isolation. They're no longer getting help from their family members or home care, for instance.
Another aspect I want to talk about is the fact that the economic crisis stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic will unfortunately put many businesses in a precarious situation. Workers and, more importantly, pensioners with those companies will once again be the hardest-hit. They risk losing their pension funds or a large part of those funds.
That is why the Bloc Québécois has been proposing measures to protect investment income when stock markets plunge since long before this crisis began. Again in committee last Friday, the president of the FADOQ network, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, also expressed support for the measure the Bloc Québécois has proposed in House, namely that pensioners be considered preferred creditors in the event of bankruptcy, by amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act.
This brings me to the second conclusion: Even retirees with a pension plan are not immune from the potential financial consequences of COVID-19.
We have to face the situation with a clear head and acknowledge our problems, but this is not the time for partisanship. In any case, that is not what we usually do. I therefore reiterate our willingness to work with the government so we can find solutions now. At the very least, a decent income could have helped seniors deal with the crisis on their own, plan more effectively for their confinement, stay connected with family and friends, for example through the Internet, and purchase essential goods online. This economic security and the reassurance that they weren't completely alone would have done much to reduce this stress, which they don't need at this stage of their lives.
We appreciate that the government welcomes and listens to our proposals. As parliamentarians, we want to contribute as much as we can. We have an extraordinary role to play and an exceptional forum, and we have a duty to use them wisely.
The third conclusion is that the current situation is only exacerbating a problem that has been plaguing us for a long time. It's sad that it took a health crisis for the government to act and for all of us to become collectively aware of the situation of seniors and the people around them.
In the face of these three conclusions, doing nothing is not an option. In fact, doing nothing was not really an option before the crisis and neither are further delays. Given that various segments of the public received assistance relatively quickly, every day that no assistance reaches those who are the main victims of this health crisis makes the government more unworthy of its mandate.
Rather than taking our criticism as a guide to act often too late, wouldn't it be better for the government to get us directly involved? Maybe then we would be able to act in a timely manner. If the government is short of time or creativity, it can take advantage of our strength as a group and ask other parties to help.
There are solutions. Increasing retirement income is an option that has been advocated many times by our party and is supported by such organizations as the FADOQ. Moreover, this increase was a promise made by the Liberal Party during its election campaign. All we have to do now is to implement it.
Because seniors are not just an economic weight but a grey source of strength, and because they have the right to age with dignity, let's act now.
View Mario Simard Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Simard Profile
2020-05-06 16:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad you're back. I almost missed you. I'm happy to see you again today.
I will start by commending the work of the essential services workers in my riding, who do a fantastic job and who have to go to work, sometimes even despite the incentives to stay home, such as the CERB. I think they are very brave people who have their priorities straight.
Before I start my speech I would like to make a brief aside.
Several people in my riding have called my office for information on the CERB. One of them was a gentleman who was working under the table. He thought it was totally unfair that people who do not declare their income do not have access to the CERB. I lectured him a bit by telling him that when he goes to the hospital and uses public services, our taxes pay for those services.
I find it rather ironic that earlier, in response to some questions, I heard members opposite say that we were going to allow companies registered in tax havens to benefit from the measures the government is implementing. Let's just say that this is a tad inconsistent with the lecture I gave this citizen who works illegally. I would even say that this encourages people to work under the table. In any event, there is someone better placed than me, my colleague from Joliette, who will be able to explain it to you later.
This time last year, if I had told anyone that we were about to have one of the worst health crises in Canada, probably no one would have believed me. That's what a crisis is like. As long as it is just a possibility, we pay no attention to it. We are living through this actual, real crisis, which some people predicted by talking about a possible SARS pandemic. They had already given us an indication of how this could develop.
I am thinking of what we did a little earlier when we marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands. When we're in a crisis or a war, sometimes we tell ourselves, “never again”. We want to make sure it never happens again.
I will use this as a starting point to discuss what role science might play in this crisis. I am my party's critic for science and innovation.
Let's just say that we, as public policy-makers, have a moral obligation. We must ensure that the current crisis never happens again. The direct consequences of this crisis are very problematic. We only have to think of our seniors who, as my colleague said earlier, are being left to cope on their own because we need to implement health measures. How are we going to resolve this situation? Health care funding will certainly be part of the solution. I will come back to that.
I would like to come back to the approach my party has taken since the beginning of this Parliament.
The Bloc Québécois has committed to co-operate with the government. This has earned us some successes, especially in the aluminum file. However, I feel that we need to revitalize this approach of co-operation. To help solve this crisis, our party could make a contribution, as it did for the implementation of the CERB, by putting forward its ideas.
I would like to brainstorm with you and share a few points with the government about a strategy to recover from the crisis.
A crisis occurs in two waves. During this first wave we are experiencing, the government acted in reactive mode, in other words, it responded by putting out fires. That is what it did in part by introducing the CERB and the Emergency Wage Subsidy. It had to deal with the most urgent situations. In the second wave of the crisis—and this is where things will get interesting for us—we will instead rely on an analytical or prospective mode, to use big words. In short, we will try to “understand”, “prevent” and “anticipate”, and we will propose concrete, feasible solutions.
To that end, we cannot avoid engaging in a serious reflection on research, since it is effectively through research that we can manage to control something like the current pandemic.
I therefore see two major approaches to overcoming the crisis. We will have to develop mechanisms that will help us control infectious diseases, but there is also another interesting approach that goes hand in hand with economic recovery. What will we learn from the crisis? Maybe something as abstract as climate change can become more real to us. As part of the economic recovery, we will have to use our scientific resources to find ways to prevent future uncontrollable crises, such as global warming.
There are then these two major aspects, but I am still a bit concerned because, earlier, our friends in the Conservative Party talked about the public debt as a way out of the crisis. I am well aware that public debt rises in times of crisis, but the federal government should not go back to its old ways of cutting transfers to the provinces. That is what led to the fiscal imbalance, which has resulted in chronic underfunding of health care. We are now suffering the consequences of this in Quebec. This underfunding has led to inadequate services in some seniors' centres. We will have to pay particular attention to this. It is true that we do not have unlimited resources and that we must ensure that public finances are sound, but we must not go back to a fiscal imbalance and the underfunding of health care.
There is another important issue to consider as we work to exit from the crisis. I fear that the government will decide to invest massively, as it has already done to some degree, in oil and gas. The oil sands are no longer a profitable source of energy. It would therefore be an obvious mistake, in my opinion, to want to save the oil sands as a way out of the crisis, when there are other very attractive economic sectors. I am thinking in particular of the forestry industry, which is very promising. It would be a good strategy to invest in the forestry industry as we emerge from the crisis. We should think about wood construction and forest biomass utilization. These are very promising sectors that are not unique to Quebec. They can also stimulate the economy in British Columbia. There is a whole area of research focusing on the forestry industry to help make the energy transition a little smoother. If the government decides to go in that direction, we will certainly work with it. There is then that possibility for bringing the economy out of the crisis.
I have one minute left and I haven't gotten to the main point of my presentation yet. We also have an opportunity when it comes to health care. Today, I told the Minister of Health about a Quebec initiative involving a biobank that would work in the sequencing of the COVID-19 virus. I hope that the government is also prepared to support this initiative, which is already backed by the Government of Quebec.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that we are prepared to work with the federal government if it commits to harmonizing the recovery from the crisis with the fight against climate change, which is not consistent with cuts to health care. If that is the case, the Bloc Québécois will be there to help.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, many emergency economic measures have been adopted to date, but more needs to be done. Think about our seniors, lobster fishers, researchers and workers in the tourism, cultural, media, agricultural and forestry industries.
The Bloc Québécois expects the government to present an economic update before the summer. We are not talking about the budget, which we expect in the fall with a vision for the economic recovery. We want an update now because we want to get an overall idea of the situation, of the current circumstances and of all the emergency measures that have been adopted piecemeal.
We also expect the government to tell us its intentions for the summer. Will it extend the emergency measures? Will it extend them for specific sectors, such as tourism? Since the Minister of Finance has certain powers, we are asking him to share his intentions with the House.
In that regard, we are in the early stages of an economic recovery, but it may be slow going. Some restaurants will continue to make take-out meals and may soon open their dining rooms but only on Saturdays and Sundays. They will begin to hire their employees back, but only part time. It will be the same thing for hotel operators, who will also be hiring staff back part time. The same goes for SMEs and the manufacturing sector.
We can therefore expect a timid recovery with part-time workers. On one hand, that is encouraging because it marks the beginning of a return to a new normal. On the other hand, it creates new concerns because part-time workers may not earn enough to pay their bills but may earn too much to continue to receive the Canada emergency response benefit. I am therefore asking the government to adapt its emergency programs to take into account the part-time nature of the recovery. The health of our economy depends on it.
That is why we are asking the government to provide an economic update before the summer.
The time for the economic recovery will be in the fall. Hopefully the worst of the crisis will be over by then. It will be the beginning of a new normal. That is why the Bloc Québécois expects the government to table a budget when we return to the House in the fall to present its vision for that recovery. An economic recovery is an opportunity to lay the foundation for the economy of tomorrow. It is time to imagine the future we want. It is time to look forward.
Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter spoke of creative destruction. Economists use this expression to explain how economic crises are an opportunity to lay a new foundation for the economy of tomorrow.
Without in any way diminishing all of the problems this crisis has created, this pandemic also represents an opportunity to develop a vision for the economy of tomorrow, which should not cling to industries of the last century that are destined to disappear, with or without a pipeline. Tomorrow's economy involves embracing the clean energy transition and encouraging our businesses in that sector, which can shine on the international stage. Earth must make that change to respond to the environmental crisis. Quebec has everything it takes to succeed in that regard.
Tomorrow's economy involves supporting emerging technology companies and the innovation and research sector. It also means stepping up to help Canada's aerospace industry, which produces the cleanest aircraft in the world. Once again, Quebec has everything it takes to embrace this change. We will see whether the neighbouring government is up to the task.
The economic recovery also involves ensuring sustainable local agriculture and strong regional economies. That can be achieved through universal access to high-speed Internet. It is time high-speed Internet was considered an essential service, just as electricity was in the past.
The economic recovery involves supporting our culture and our artists. It also involves recognizing the role of our local and regional media outlets. In a time of fake news and conspiracy theories, reliable information must also be considered an essential service.
We also need to rethink our tax system. The report of the expert panel on sustainable finance provides food for thought in that regard. We need to think about that.
The current crisis brought to light the underfunding of the health care system. Ottawa originally committed to covering half the costs of the health care system. Today, it contributes only about 20% of the total cost and that contribution continues to drop every year. It is time for that to change. We need to be ready to deal with the next health crisis and, to do that, we need to strengthen our health care system.
The current crisis also reminds us just how unfair the tax system is. Everyone is paying his or her share except Toronto's big banks and the multinationals, which use tax havens. Now, in a time of crisis, they are asking the government for help, but the rest of the time, they are nowhere to be found. That needs to change.
We will have a $250-billion deficit. That means everyone needs to contribute and it will not longer be acceptable to use tax havens to avoid paying one's fair share of taxes.
In an interview with Gérald Fillion, tax expert André Lareau, who specializes in tax havens, indicated that $350 billion Canadian is sheltered in only 12 tax havens. Businesses use tax havens for activities related to financing operations and intellectual property.
Mr. Lareau also indicated that the government is aware of all the Canadian money that is being sheltered in tax havens but that it is not taking any action. He added that, given the current deficit, it is high time the government made a major change. He believes that, if we do not take this opportunity to change things, we will never change them. It is high time the government made things that are immoral illegal.
After the 2008 crisis, OECD countries created a working group to crack down on tax havens, or BEPS. We hope that the current crisis will be the time when the government makes the use of tax havens illegal. France, Denmark and Poland will not provide aid to companies that use tax havens. Belgium, Italy, the United Kingdom and the European Union are currently considering the issue. Here, nothing is being done.
As I said earlier, the Journal de Montréal reported that businesses using tax havens will finally be able to benefit from federal assistance. After suggesting that the government would be placing restrictions on that, the Prime Minister changed his mind. That is unacceptable.
Canada is lagging behind other OECD countries in the fight against tax havens, and even when it comes to the illegal use of tax havens.
The Minister of National Revenue can boast all she likes about how her agency is doing more, but the numbers do not add up. For example, the $1 billion announced to crack down on tax cheats includes the salary of the person who was hired to replace someone who was retiring. That is ridiculous. This is not new money. It is nothing like what is being done in the United States or Europe.
The government also has a lax approach when it comes to credit card companies. They are doing what they want and getting off scot-free. In Canada, interchange fees are 10 times higher than they are in Europe and Australia. The government needs to act as quickly as possible. Visa and MasterCard are taking too much of our businesses' profits. Use of these credit cards is widespread in this time of crisis. Action is urgently needed.
Even today, my nation must rely on Ottawa's goodwill. The room to manoeuvre is here. In times of crisis, a central government is in the best position to implement emergency and recovery measures. The Bloc Québécois is satisfied with the various measures taken to date. The Bloc is also proud that it was able to contribute, in its own way, in order to better meet the needs of Quebeckers. However, that does not change the fact that the administration of my nation depends on the goodwill of its neighbour.
We have to accept decisions that we find unsatisfactory. Take for example the underfunding of our health care system. Ottawa is pulling out at the expense of our seniors and our sick. High-speed Internet is another example. Since Ottawa is giving Bell and Rogers carte blanche, our regions are paying the price and are not developing their full potential. Finally, let us also think of our farmers, our artists, our seniors and our media outlets.
I spoke about the government's lax approach to credit cards and the legal use of tax havens. In 2020, we are still not masters in our own house.
That being said, I would like to recap. We are asking the government to present an economic update by this summer so that we will know what direction it is going in and we can get an overall idea of the situation. With regard to the vision for the recovery, we expect the government to present a budget when the House comes back in the fall.
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much.
I'll be sharing my time with my honourable colleague, the MP from Nunavut.
We've said before that during this crisis people are struggling and that during the immediacy of the crisis we need to focus on three things: We need to get money in people's pockets; we need to make sure they have a safe place to live; and we have to make sure that there are jobs for people to return to.
Now we're talking about a potential return to work. In order for people to return to work, they need three things. They need to know that their work is safe: They need to know that if they go to work, they're not going to get infected or sick and that they're not going to spread infection to their loved ones when they come home. They need to be safe. In addition, there's no option: All workers in Canada need paid sick days. If a worker is sick and needs to stay home, they should not be forced with the impossible decision of “Do I go into work and risk spreading an infection to my colleagues, or do I stay at home, not knowing how I'm going to pay the bills?” That impossible choice should no longer be a reality for Canadians. Finally, we need to make sure that children are safe and that parents can go back to work knowing that there is child care for their kids.
The Conservatives talked about, essentially, making people so desperate that they have to go to work, that they're willing to work in dangerous conditions: take away benefits from workers to make them go back to work. That is dangerous, and that is irresponsible. That is not the way to get people to work. The way we ensure that people get back to work is making it safe to work and making it so workers are not putting themselves in danger. Making people desperate to work is not the way forward.
Talking about the safety of workers, we have some really troubling examples of what happens when workplaces are not safe. I want to talk about Hiep Bui. She was a worker at the Cargill meat-processing facility in High River, Alberta. She became infected with COVID-19 at her workplace and she died. She immigrated here from Vietnam. She was 67 years old, and her husband misses her desperately. The plant where she worked is the site of one of the largest COVID-19 outbreaks in Canada at a workplace. Over 900 workers have tested positive so far. The fact is that workers should not have had to risk their lives going to work.
On Monday, that plant reopened its doors after being closed for two weeks. Workers and their union expressed concern about the inability to contain an outbreak in the plant and said that they are worried that the illness will continue to spread. This is a national problem. The virus has spread at other plants too. We need a national plan to keep our workers safe.
Cargill isn't the only food-processing plant where workers are at risk. We've spoken to union leaders and the UFCW president, and they have asked the Prime Minister to use the authority that the federal government has to ensure the safety of food to also ensure the safety of workers. Now, to the assertion that the federal government could use its authority to ensure that food is safe to also ensure that workers are safe, the Prime Minister responded by saying no. He said that our responsibility, his job, is to protect the food, not the workers. That is simply inexplicable. How could a workplace pass a food safety inspection if workers are getting sick in such huge numbers? If workers are sick and the work conditions are not safe, then the food obviously is not safe either.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced funding for food-processing centres, which is good, but no plans to keep workers safe. Again, this is wrong. Workers want to go to work. Workers want to be able to contribute, but they also want to be safe. If these plants are getting federal money, then the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the workers at those sites are safe.
The government can't wait until the next outbreak to then raise the alarm bells. The government must respond now.
It is very important that Canadians have a safe food supply, but we cannot ensure food safety without ensuring the safety of workers. The lives of workers must be the number one priority. No workers' lives should be sacrificed.
New Zealand has put in place a national plan to ensure there is a COVID-19 safety plan for all workplaces, making sure that they're safe. Now, what the federal government needs to do is work with all provinces and territories, with unions and workers and businesses, to ensure the same exists here in Canada. Every worker needs to know that they have the right to refuse work that's dangerous, and they need to know the government has their backs. In addition, I want to make sure the government commits that no worker who refuses to do unsafe work will be denied the CERB.
In addition to being able to go back to a safe workplace, where workers are confident that they're going to be safe, workers now more than ever need to have paid sick leave. I'll admit that in the past there was a different notion around sick days. I remember that going to work when not feeling well was a badge of honour, an example of strength, and I would just tough it out. However, we have to change this mindset. Going to work with symptoms when one risks infecting someone else—a colleague, people at the workplace—is actually not the right thing to do. Many people don't have the privilege to just stay at home when they're sick. For them, there is that impossible choice of going into work and potentially getting sick or getting someone else sick, or staying at home and not being able to pay the bills because they're not getting paid to stay at home.
The government offers some paid leave, but it's not enough and it's not available to all workers. What I'm calling for, what New Democrats are calling for, is that, at a minimum, all workers need to have access to 10 paid sick days. If we look at that as a workweek, and we include weekends, that would give a worker over 14 days so that they can rest, heal, get better and then return to work.
We need to have a commitment from the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to develop this plan, to ensure that all workers can stay at home and still pay the bills if they're sick. No one should have to be forced to make that impossible choice.
We know that not all employers will be able to pay for sick leave because of the current crisis. We should plan to expand the employment insurance system and other types of assistance to help in the short term. The employment insurance system must also be modified so that it covers all workers. We cannot force people to make an impossible choice between working while sick and paying their rent.
Finally, in order to get back to work, parents need to know that their children are cared for. This crisis has shown how essential child care is. The economy doesn't work if parents don't work, and parents don't work without child care.
What we've seen in this pandemic is that in many ways women are bearing the brunt of the pandemic. Women are more likely to have lost their jobs in the last couple of months as a result of COVID-19. Statistics Canada released its March jobs report, which showed that six out of 10 jobs that were lost were lost by women. Women are also working in high-risk fields: hospitals, long-term care and grocery stores.
Without child care, more women will be forced to leave the labour market. Many day care centres are in trouble and many have been closed. Some have lost critical funding. Without a federal commitment to child care, it will be very difficult for people to return to the labour market.
We are calling for the federal government to put in place a funding guarantee for child care centres, so that child care centres can continue to operate, employ staff and be ready to open up. We also need to build an accessible, universal child care program as part of the recovery. We know that the impacts of this pandemic have affected women, specifically disproportionately affected women, so we have an obligation to respond in kind with investments in child care, with investments that will allow women to take part in the workplace and ensure that there are child care centres available so parents can get back to work.
I've taken a moment to talk about what it takes for workers to get back to work. Again, I want to be clear. Workers want to get back to work, but in order to do that they need three things: They need to know that their workplaces are safe; they need to have paid sick leave; and they need to know that their children are safe and that there's child care available.
Again, some people are going to talk about incentivizing work by removing benefits like the CERB. All that does is make workers desperate, so desperate that they're willing to put their lives in jeopardy or at risk, so desperate that they're willing to accept low wages with no benefits, benefits like paid sick leave.
The Canada emergency response benefit of $2,000 per month is equivalent to $12.50 an hour for a full-time worker. That is less than minimum wage in most provinces. If workers earn less than that at work, the solution is to increase wages, not to decrease or take away the Canada emergency response benefit.
We must make workplaces safe, we must give workers paid sick leave, and we must make child care available and accessible.
Canadians want to get back to work. Let's make sure that when they get back to work, they stay safe and they stay healthy.
Thank you.
View Mumilaaq Qaqqaq Profile
NDP (NU)
View Mumilaaq Qaqqaq Profile
2020-05-06 16:44
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I carry a lot of passion and strength, and I think the majority of that comes from my family but also from my constituents.
Before I really dive into anything, I just want to mention a couple of things.
I often wear these earrings, made by a young lady in Nunavik, who is working on graduating and has young children with her. My support of her means that she is able to attend school. The sealskin bracelet is from a Canadian Roots Exchange event that brought together hundreds of individuals, indigenous and non-indigenous, from across the country. I wear a HopePact bracelet from the We Matter campaign, which promotes youth by creating positive messages to share with one another. Often for indigenous peoples we see very devastating rates of violence and suicide, so it's a platform that allows for positive messaging to be sent out. In regard to yesterday, as well, I also have on a MMIWG red dress to show support and solidarity with our stolen and missing indigenous sisters, and to promote that awareness as well. I have kamik or sealskin boots on, which you can't see. Those come from Arviligjuaq. It's really important and it directly, in my view, reflects the challenges we face all too often as indigenous peoples, but also the beauty and strength that comes from it.
When I walk around, and especially here in the House of Commons, I like to think that I'm representing more than what you sometimes see me standing here for.
COVID-19 and our time during this pandemic have done a lot to highlight all the inequalities that we see in my riding, throughout Nunavut and throughout Inuit Nunangat, throughout communities that contain a majority of indigenous peoples. This pandemic has done nothing but shine that bright light on things we often hear, especially here in the House of Commons, which we know are still issues.
The frustrating aspect about that is that there are a lot of things that could have been prevented if measures had been taken so that my constituents weren't as frustrated or stressed or scared. There are so many unanswered questions, Madam Chair.
These inequalities are something we've been experiencing in the territory for decades and on which we've been needing action for a long time. When I'm talking about action, I'm talking about basic human rights. I'm talking about the fundamental aspects of being a human being and being in this country and being a Canadian. I'm talking about year-round clean drinking water. I'm talking about being able to afford to feed yourself and your family. I'm talking about a safe place to live. That is not what I, as the representative of an entire territory, should be standing here talking about in 2020. If we are going to come out of this pandemic in a manageable state, the federal government must address these basic human rights that we need to see more of throughout my riding.
Frustratingly, we've been seeing funding being promised but not actually coming to the territory. It has been asked for three times. One of my colleagues asked during a finance committee meeting when the territory could expect to see that money. I asked at my committee as well. And here I am asking for a third time, still with no answers.
Luckily, we do not have any confirmed positive cases yet. We had an incident in the territory, in Pond Inlet, that was deemed to be a false positive. Pond Inlet is also already facing major issues with water infrastructure and access to clean drinkable water. They have been facing these since October, well before this pandemic.
I would really love to give credit to the Government of Nunavut, to the chief public health officer and to Pond Inlet for reacting so quickly and already having their plan in place, and using the limited resources and equipment they have to respond to it so well.
As I've also mentioned...and I hope I don't have to do it for much longer, but I'm going to do it until it's something that is actually addressed. For so many of my constituents, so many Nunavummiut, primarily Inuit, and we see this throughout Inuit Nunangat as well, throughout the four regions, housing is a major issue. It's the lack of housing, and also housing that is black mould-infested. I get dozens of pictures all the time, and it's absolutely appalling what people are living in. We know this is an issue, and we've heard it from multiple individuals in the House of Commons that we know these are still issues.
The last federal budget, unfortunately, resulted this year in even less housing than we've seen in previous years. Already we have that glaring gap, but we're seeing things being cut from us.
The rates of respiratory illness are very high in my constituency. Tuberculosis, for Nunavummiut versus non-Nunavummiut, is still 290 times the rate. I believe it's even worse in Nunavik. Tuberculosis is an issue throughout Inuit Nunangat, and we continue to see.... I don't even know if I can say “failed efforts”, because I don't even know how much effort has actually been put in.
Nunavut unfortunately only has seven ventilator units. If there are any more pressing health concerns that might require even minor surgery, things like having a child, most often we see people having to leave the territory. Can you imagine having your first child and not being able to be around your family and friends, because you can't even have a child in your home community?
Heath services have been very much lacking for a long time. We need further clarification as to how and when the federal government will make key items like personal protective equipment come to the territory. That is something that I know is pressing throughout the country, but these are also opportunities to start initiatives where we get to work with our seamstresses. We can promote items that create the well-being of the community, that sense of community.
We've been waiting for critical answers on resources and services for weeks from multiple ministers. As I have said before, I continue to see no concrete answers. A lot of the time we are forced, as Nunavummiut and Inuit, to accommodate a southern way of thinking or a southern way of doing things, when accessing resources and services is already so limited. A lot of the time it doesn't even make sense. It doesn't have the culture of humility aspect.
As I had previously mentioned, medevacs and serious conditions need to be sent out of the territory. As of right now, my riding has one of the most, if not the most, restrictive travel policies around it. All of the surgeries that can be put on hold are now put on hold. We need to ensure that when we come to what our new normal is we are not facing backlogs and we don't have people who potentially have serious illnesses now because they've had to wait for their surgeries or their follow-ups. We need to make sure there is a plan for individuals past this pandemic.
We see a lot of wait times for getting our testing results back. Luckily, I have very patient constituents in my riding, because it's frustrating. The housing that I've mentioned, already being in overcrowding, already not having as much access to food, to water, these are all issues. How can we be asking Canadians to do these things when those services and resources are not even there to begin with?
During normal times, Nunavummiut in some communities in particular, more than others, especially during our spring melt, see that inconsistency of clean drinking water year-round. This is when we see a lot of boil water advisories. This is when we see infrastructure often failing because of our circumstances in the north.
How are we supposed to ask a community to make sure they're constantly washing their hands and to make sure they're disinfecting and keeping their homes clean when the community doesn't even have the infrastructure to provide accessible clean drinking water?
I also had the opportunity to talk at committee about Internet service in my communities. It's not great, to put it nicely. I don't know if I could participate in virtual Parliament from my riding. I cannot confidently say that I could. The number of megabits per second and that kind of stuff in some communities is absolutely devastating.
Now, a lot of the time we talk about individual effects. What we don't talk about are the bigger items. When you're applying for Government of Nunavut identification or your driver's licence, because of the lack of bandwidth it actually gets sent down here to Ottawa and then sent back to our communities. We have people who wait months. I have constituents reaching out to me who are sometimes waiting for over a year for their piece of ID.
How are they going to access the many things that are tied to that? There are so many things you need that information for. I guess it's a glimpse of the reality that something as big as that, which should be accessible, is not. Also, how are we going to ask you to work from home on that poor bandwidth? How are we going to ask you to access online resources for your children in school? These are the kinds of things that aren't taken into full consideration, I think, especially when it comes to my riding. Even though it seems like one smaller aspect, the trickle effect, with the connectivity that it has to so many other issues in my riding, is very alive and well, unfortunately.
Take access to banking services, whether online or not. In my hometown, I've been with a particular bank for a number of years. I could never access that service except by phone, because we don't have a branch in my hometown. The next branch is a 40-minute plane ride and about an $800 ticket. That doesn't make sense. Accessibility is something that is so key, and it is something that is very much failing in my riding.
We have seen announcements made, like the $25 million for the nutrition north program. That program does not at all address the root cause of food insecurity in my riding. There are so many issues in that program already. Layer on a pandemic, and it doesn't make sense for my riding and my constituents even more so.
As I mentioned, the Government of Nunavut is still waiting for the $30.8 million that was promised out of the $42 million requested. I hope to have an answer soon on that. I will keep pushing until I do. We're still waiting to hear more information about the support from territorial grants and the Canada emergency student benefit, in direct relation to providing assistance to our students.
We are still seeing so many holes in the small business loans. CERB sometimes is inaccessible for my constituents. I have so many jewellers, carvers, musicians, artists, artisans and so many other people being left out. This is across the country as well. Many indigenous artists and artisans are falling through the cracks.
With all this being said, I would like to try to put it into perspective as, I guess, a race. Let's say we were all lined up together and were told this at the start: “Please step forward if you grew up in a safe, comfortable home that wasn't overcrowded.” I would need to stand back. “Step forward if you've never been affected by suicide.” I would need to step back. “Step forward if you can afford to feed your family.” In so many instances, I, as a representative of my constituents, would be at that same line while so many other people would be way ahead of me already.
That's the gap right there. That's what we need to close.
Help me assist my constituents to have an equal starting line so that they are able to do the things that we all should be able to do in life as Canadians with every equal opportunity.
View Jody Wilson-Raybould Profile
Ind. (BC)
Madam Chair, gilakas' la. I'd like to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
Our nation and the world, our ways of being, indeed our humanity, are being tested as we respond to COVID-19. This is unprecedented in recent times and our response will have far-reaching implications for the years to come. I think we all understand the gravity of the weight we feel in this place to get it right. Our hearts go out to all those suffering with the virus. We recognize the sacrifices being made to protect those most likely to succumb to the disease, it being not about what I can do for myself, but about what I can do for others.
We must also acknowledge the government, supported by civil servants, for the unprecedented steps it has taken to establish numerous emergency relief programs, from CERB to CEBA to mental health programs and many others. The emergency programs are helping, and new programs have been created and, aided by this place, adapted as needed.
That said, there are issues. My constituency office, like those of all MPs, has heard from many, including seniors, who are still struggling and are in need of government support. There are ongoing challenges for small businesses in meeting the criteria for CEBA, and there are issues about rents and what constitutes a livable income.
What is more, after some two months of extreme social distancing measures, the residents of Vancouver Granville, like all Canadians, are eager for some normality to return to their lives. While we wait for a vaccine, we turn our minds to what comes next as we move from the emergency response to the new normal, the end of the beginning, as has been said.
Clearly, physical distancing and proper hygiene are the new normal as we learn to live with COVID-19. In some cases, it will need to be institutionalized, particularly within situations of congregate living. Within long-term care facilities, there should be national standards that provinces adhere to in order for them to get a portion of financial support earmarked for elders. Further, there should be some standardization of pay, benefits and schedules for personal support workers.
As to the timing and the extent of removing restrictions, we of course must continue to be guided by science and our health experts. We must not be tempted to make the mistakes that are being made in some other jurisdictions. We do not save jobs and the economy by sacrificing lives.
As the pandemic has evolved differently across Canada, given our geographical and political diversity, the plans of the provinces and territories to reopen their economies will not be, and do not need to be, the same. However, given our system of co-operative federalism, there is a role for federal coordination. We are all connected and our Constitution protects mobility rights. We still need more efficient ways to test and track, and that need is national in scope. As electronic tracking and contact tracing become more widespread, we must be mindful of privacy rights and how we use data. We may need to regulate.
There is much to consider as we plan out our post-COVID economic strategy. Under the new normal, and even after restrictions have been lifted, it is unlikely that we will see people simply returning to life as before, at least not until a vaccine is found. Even with an optimistic 90% return to the pre-COVID economy, it will not be the same. There are longer-term fiscal implications. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to be 48.4% in 2020-21. While manageable, this is certainly not ideal, especially if we factor in provincial, municipal and indigenous debt. We need to consider the fiscal tools available to support provincial and other governments beyond the current transfers and stabilization mechanisms.
Other fiscal measures may be required. Some are suggesting raising the GST. What we do know is that the current level of expenditure to get us through the initial period is not sustainable.
At the same time, some are also leading us to consider new ways to deliver assistance to Canadians, such as potentially establishing a basic livable income, something that other nations are also considering.
Moving forward, not all businesses will survive, despite the emergency measures. We will need to decide what industries and businesses we offer additional support to, and under what circumstances. We should be providing essential products and services, and if we do intervene, it should be primarily through equity investment.
I certainly hope the Minister of Finance will be tabling the 2020 budget soon. We need projections, and we need to debate our plan.
Every day in Vancouver, as I know happens elsewhere, we make noise at 7 p.m. to support front-line workers. When I hear this, I cannot help but think how work is valued and how it is paid. While we show gratitude reflective of our reliance on each other, the gratitude is not matched in wages. In our society, we need to reward work on a different value system. We need to understand this and we need to be reflective.
Yes, we all support the middle class and those working hard to join it, but what this pandemic has shown us is that it is really the working class and the most vulnerable who need our help. Societies are judged by how they treat their most vulnerable. If we had a society that truly supported one another, that had great health care for all, especially for our seniors and the most vulnerable, health care that provided them with the safety, care and attention they deserved every day, this crisis likely would not have been as much of a struggle for those people. If we cannot see that now, then when will we ever see it? If we are able to do something during a pandemic, then why not permanently?
Thankfully, and mindful of Alert Bay in my nation, there have not been major outbreaks of COVID in indigenous communities across Canada, but this could change. We must remain vigilant, and we must support indigenous communities that are taking steps to protect their communities from COVID-19 and affirm their inherent right to do so.
There are also growing mental health concerns in terms of isolation, particularly in remote communities. The pandemic only highlights the ongoing need for true reconciliation and a rights recognition framework so that we can properly address issues of overcrowding, lack of infrastructure, poverty and good governance.
Bringing back our economy is also a necessary lens through which we must view our post-pandemic socioeconomic plan to follow the lead of nations like Germany. The Prime Minister often says that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The truth, and what this virus is showing, is that the environment, of which we are all a part, dictates the economy, and it will continue to do so more dramatically as our temperatures increase.
While stories of dolphins in canals in Venice may have been premature, the planet does appear to be healing. This is not to suggest for a moment that we should not restart our economy. Quite the contrary, but what it does make you think about is what sort of economy we should be restarting. It also makes one think about how we measure social well-being and success. It is not just about growth in the GDP.
GDP per capita has historically been used to make assumptions about the standard of living within a nation, the assumption being that the higher the per capita amount, the better the standards are. However, as I read in a recent article, GDP has mixed results when trying to measure the social well-being of a population. As an economic tool, it only makes assumptions about the basic standards of living, which can be different across the socioeconomic spectrum of a nation. Moreover, better standards of living do not necessarily equate to increased social well-being. We need to ensure that we look at this idea.
When we look at the crisis through the lens of our international relationships, it is coming at a time when democracy is under pressure and when the international rules-based order is being challenged and power is shifting. In many ways, COVID-19 is about a brewing perfect storm internationally. When the vaccine does ultimately come, Canada can show leadership and insist that it be made available to populations with the greatest need.
We have a lot to do, as members of Parliament in this House, and I know that when working together we can achieve many great things in terms of responding to this pandemic in a way that ensures we are caring and compassionate. As Bonnie Henry, our amazing public health officer in British Columbia, always sums it up: Be calm, be kind and be safe.
Gilakas'la.
Results: 1 - 25 of 25

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data