Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 559
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition from 165 Canadians, who point out that the opioid crisis is one of the most deadly public health emergencies of our lifetime. They ask the government to take steps to end overdose deaths and injuries; to immediately collaborate with the provinces and territories to develop a comprehensive action plan; to ensure that any plan considers reforms that other countries have used, such as legal regulations of drugs to ensure safe supply, decriminalization for personal use, changes to flawed drug policy and policing; and to ensure that this emergency is taken seriously, with adequately funded programming and supports.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2021-06-16 16:23 [p.8540]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Moms Stop The Harm stating that the opioid crisis is one of the most deadly public health emergencies of our lifetime, with a death taking place on average every two hours and a death toll of almost 15,400 over the past four years alone, and that the overdose crisis continues to rage.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency; take steps to end the overdose deaths and overdose injuries; immediately collaborate with provinces and territories to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian overdose action plan; ensure that any plans consider reforms that other countries have used, such as legal regulation of drugs to ensure safe supply, decriminalization for personal use and changes to flawed drug policy and policing; and ensure that this emergency is taken seriously, with adequately funded programs and support.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the 10th and final petition highlights religious freedom and some of the challenges around public worship during the pandemic.
The petitioners note that restrictions on public gatherings during the pandemic are legitimate as long as those restrictions are evidence-based and are applied on an equal basis. They therefore call on the Government of Canada to seek dialogue with faith communities in Canada with an eye to the development of mutually agreeable guidelines for allowing public worship to occur during times of pandemic while preventing the spread of disease.
I commend all of these petitions to the consideration of my colleagues.
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michael Cooper Profile
2021-06-11 11:51 [p.8279]
Mr. Speaker, as life returns to normal in countries such as the U.S. and the U.K., here in Canada the government has offered no plan to reopen the economy, no plan to end the disastrous hotel quarantines and no plan to see a return to normalcy. Enough is enough.
After 15 months of failed COVID policy after failed COVID policy, why is it that the government’s only plan is to keep Canadians locked down forever?
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-06-11 11:51 [p.8279]
Mr. Speaker, I find it rich every time the Conservatives put on record their opposition to sensible public health measures that are designed not only to keep Canadians safe, but to protect the long-term interest of our economy as well.
Our plan from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic was to do everything we can to protect Canadians from the public health emergency. I point the hon. member to the fact that Canada is now number one in the OECD of any country in terms of the number of citizens who have received their first dose.
We are going to continue to support businesses so they can punch out of this pandemic recession by extending the emergency benefits and by putting in place new measures to encourage businesses to hire more Canadians, to make sure that all Canadians from different walks of life get to benefit from the profound economic growth that private sector economists are projecting for Canada this year. A year from now, his comments on the record—
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting one petition on behalf of the constituents of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. The petitioners outline that every two hours there is a death from opioids in Canada. The opioid crisis is out of control.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take steps to end the overdose deaths and injuries, provide supports for recovery and play a larger role in funding such supports.
View Derek Sloan Profile
Ind. (ON)
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks from both sides of his mouth when defending our rights and freedoms. Last year, he attended a public protest in Ottawa, a violation of Ontario's emergency measures, yet he also claims lockdown protesters spread COVID, as if COVID spreads only at rallies he does not like.
He has affirmed the right of thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters who were not ticketed by police, yet I, as a sitting MP, received two court summons for attending other peaceful outdoor protests.
Can the government confirm the Prime Minister is in favour of all Canadians' right to peacefully protest, or just the causes he personally endorses?
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member does not understand how to follow local public health rules, but they are in place to keep Canadians safe and to stop the spread of COVID-19. I recommend that if he continues to get summons, there is a problem with his interpretation of these public health measures.
They are serious. They are put in place to keep Canadians safe, but a person's ability to peacefully protest has not changed. The measures are in place to keep Canadians safe by stopping the spread of COVID-19, and I recommend he take them seriously.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am here today to table two petitions, both of them relating to the opioid crisis, which really indicates what a serious concern this is for my constituents.
The first petition had over 40 signators. They call on the Government of Canada to, one, declare the current opioid overdose and fentanyl poisoning crisis a national public health emergency under the Emergencies Act in order to manage and resource it, with an aim to reduce and eliminate preventable deaths; two, reform current drug policy to decriminalize personal possession; and, three, create with urgency and immediacy a system to provide safe, unadulterated access to substances so that people who use substances experimentally, recreationally or chronically are not at imminent risk of overdose due to the contaminant source.
The second group of petitioners, again on the opioid crisis, call upon the government to declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency so that it is taken seriously and funded appropriately; and to immediately work with provinces and territories to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian action plan that includes full consideration of reforms that other countries have used to significantly reduce drug-related fatalities and stigma, such as legal regulation and decriminalization for simple possession of illicit drugs. This petition was signed by 88 constituents. I want to thank Darlana for her hard work on this file.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2021-05-27 15:06 [p.7504]
Mr. Speaker, this past week, the City of Timmins and the community of Moosonee declared a state of emergency because of the spike in COVID cases. We had 77 cases in the Porcupine Health Unit in a single day. That includes communities like Timmins, Cochrane and Matheson. We have over 70 cases now in the Cree communities of James Bay, which represents a potential medical catastrophe. We need to get the rapid surge capacity funding approved now.
What commitment will the Minister of Health make to the people of Timmins—James Bay to get us through this crisis and safely to the other side?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, my heart is with the member's community. I know in my own riding and region of Thunder Bay—Superior North we experienced a very similar alarming surge. We know that smaller rural communities have fewer health care resources. That is why I have urged the Public Health Agency of Canada to work closely with the member opposite's medical officer of health to ensure that we get those rapid response programs, including isolation housing, in place as soon as possible.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 17th report, entitled “Canada Emergency Response Benefit”, and the 18th report, entitled “Pandemic Preparedness, Surveillance, and Border Control Measures”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-05-13 10:18 [p.7151]
Mr. Speaker, the opioid crisis is one of the most deadly public health emergencies of our lifetime. Heartbreakingly, the death toll has soared in 2020 and 2021, with twice as many overdoses.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, Alberta has seen overdose deaths outpace COVID deaths. Overdose deaths are premature and preventable, and they are the leading cause of death in Alberta for 15- to 59-year-olds by a margin of more than 30% compared to any other cause.
Today, on behalf of many of my constituents, I call on the government to declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency, and I ask that the government take the urgent steps needed to end overdose deaths and overdose injuries by immediately developing a well-funded and comprehensive pan-Canadian overdose action plan.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-05-13 10:25 [p.7152]
moved:
That:
(a) the House remind the government that a general election was held in October 2019 and sadly note that more than 1.3 million Canadians, including almost 360,000 Quebecers, have been infected with COVID-19 and that nearly 25,000 people have died as a result; and
(b) in the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and that it is the responsibility of the government to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls as long as this pandemic continues.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible to hold elections during a pandemic. I think that this word that we included in the motion, is appropriate. I repeat that it would be irresponsible to do so, when for the last 14 months we have been asking people to keep their activities to a minimum. They are making sacrifices and refraining from seeing their loved ones. Often, parents do not see their children and grandparents do not see their grandchildren. Nevertheless, we are telling people that they have to go vote in spite of all that because it is important to fulfill their civic duty.
Elections are important, but holding an election during a pandemic is like playing with fire. We do not need that. We are not suggesting the end of the pandemic is not in sight. Well, we hope it is, anyway, despite vaccination delays. We are on our way to putting this pandemic behind us.
Just to qualify what I said though, the situation has improved in Quebec, and we are all knocking on wood. However, the situation elsewhere in Canada is problematic. Last week, we had an emergency debate here about the situation in Alberta. Does anyone think Albertans want an election? I doubt it.
Ontario is in the grip of its third wave and is struggling with variants because the Liberal government did not close the borders, which is how those variants got in. The Prime Minister repeatedly said he closed the borders and was being really strict and so on, but 84% of the COVID-19 cases in Quebec are caused by variants. How did those variants get here? Did they leap the Atlantic?
No, they came through the airports because the government did not instruct workers to make sure travellers quarantined. Travellers did not quarantine, and now the pandemic is still here because of the variants. That is the truth of the matter.
After letting the variants in and failing to get vaccines until two months after nearly everyone else, the government is suggesting that holding an election might be a good idea. Of course, it has not explicitly said that.
Mr. Trudeau is going around telling anyone who asks that the Liberals do not want an election.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
View Jack Harris Profile
2021-05-13 10:54 [p.7156]
Madam Speaker, of course we totally agree that, if an election were to be called now, that would be irresponsible and unsafe. We have all been elected with a mandate, and New Democrats are dedicated to making Parliament work, which has resulted in a far superior pandemic response than a Liberal majority would have delivered.
We saw what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador when an election was called for February 13. Ultimately it was not finished until March 25, after 90% of the election workers refused to work on election day because of fear of the pandemic outbreak taking place. I guess that was a precursor to the third wave happening across the country now with the new variants.
Why would the Bloc member not want to ensure that, if the Prime Minister was irresponsible enough to call an election for his own political purposes, it would be a safe election?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2021-05-13 10:55 [p.7156]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
I would answer my colleague's question with a question. I am all in favour of safety, but the solution for ensuring public safety is to simply not have an election. We are not ready, and we see that with this bill.
If public safety is so important to the NDP, then my question is: Why did the NDP vote in favour of time allocation to pass a botched bill that will result in an election?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2021-05-13 10:56 [p.7156]
Madam Speaker, I am here today to discuss the motion presented by my hon. friend from La Prairie on the possibility of a pandemic election.
Let me begin by saying our focus as a government, since the beginning of the pandemic, has been on delivering for Canadians. Canadians expect their Parliament to work to deliver for them through the pandemic and, indeed, over the past many months, the government has done just that.
The government has no interest in an election. We have repeatedly said that. The Prime Minister has said that. However, as the House is well aware, an election could happen at any time in a minority Parliament. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to be prepared for such a scenario, which is why the government introduced, following a report from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Bill C-19, which would allow for temporary amendments to the Canada Elections Act in the context of a pandemic.
We agree with the opposition that holding an election during a pandemic would be unfortunate without first implementing these provisions that would ensure that Canadians are able to vote in a way that is safe and secure. The opposition has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the health and safety of Canadians in recent weeks. It has voted no confidence in the government 14 times, which is 14 times in favour of an immediate election. If the opposition feels strongly about not taking Canadians to the polls, perhaps it should stop voting for an immediate election.
The government wants the House of Commons to work constructively, as it has over the past number of months. Part of that includes a timely study of Bill C-19 to ensure that if an election were held, the obvious desire of many opposition members, it would be safe and secure, and accessible to as many electors as possible.
We are ready to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that these temporary changes to the Canada Elections Act address our collective goals, but that requires the opposition to also work constructively at parliamentary committees. The current tactics by the opposition to paralyze the work in the House and in committees can sometimes be nothing short of dysfunctional.
Allow me to quote the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, who said, “It's the nature of the opposition to oppose the government but at the same time I hope we can concentrate our efforts on real issues, issues of public policy.”
Every responsible prime minister has to make a decision on the effective functioning of Parliament. I would encourage our colleagues in opposition to focus, as the government has, on delivering real results for Canadians. From investing in PPE to increasing capacity for testing and tracing and delivering more than 20 million vaccine doses for Canada, we have spared no effort in fighting the pandemic and providing support to those most affected by it.
A team Canada approach is clearly the best way of beating COVID-19 and keeping Canadians safe and healthy. I would urge my colleagues in the House to continue to work productively in our shared work to protect and support Canadians.
I would like to touch briefly, as the motion compels us to, on the situation in Quebec over the last year. The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread and unprecedented effects on Canadians, including, of course, Quebeckers. That is why our government has provided significant support to all the provinces and territories, including Quebec.
Under the safe restart agreement, Quebec will receive over $3 billion for necessary measures like rapid testing, contact tracing, help for municipalities and public transportation, as well as child care services for parents returning to work.
In addition, through the safe return to class fund, Quebec will receive over $432 million, and Quebec's funding allocation under the new COVID-19 resilience stream, which is part of the infrastructure program, is also over $432 million.
Finally, over two million Quebeckers applied for the CERB.
I believe our support for Canadians throughout this pandemic has been clear, and we are grateful to the opposition parties that have helped us put forward these programs that have benefited so many Canadians.
This motion also presents an opportunity to discuss the measures in Bill C-19, which would help ensure that if Canadians go to the polls while Canada is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, they could do so with the full confidence in their safety and security and the integrity of the election. I am optimistic we can find similar support from the opposition for many of these common-sense measures. I note that all opposition parties voted in favour of the bill at second reading.
From the earliest days of the pandemic last year, electoral administrators across the country began to consider how to hold elections that would be safe for both electoral workers and volunteers and that would maintain the high stands of integrity that Canadians expect. Since March 2020, general elections have been held in four provinces and one territory. COVID-19 may have restricted many aspects of life in Canada, but elections carried on, albeit modified, and with the safety interests of everyone in mind. Additionally, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada oversaw the administration of two federal by-elections in Toronto in October, 2020.
Bill C-19 is based on the October 2020 recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding holding an election in the context of a pandemic and the essential work of our colleagues, who carried out a study on the same topic.
Bill C-19 contains four measures that I will explain in greater detail: a three-day polling period, the safe administration of the vote to residents of long-term care facilities, increased adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer, and the strengthening of measures related to mail-in voting.
Before I move onto these measures, I would like to highlight the unique nature of the legislative changes outlined in Bill C-19. I will reiterate that none of these proposed amendments would be permanent amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and that the bill does include a sunset clause. These measures are written so that they will cease to be in effect six months after the Chief Electoral Officer, following consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer, determines these measures are no longer necessary.
As we have seen throughout the country, this pandemic has not stopped Canadians from expressing their democratic rights. It is our role as elected representatives to ensure that if the time came for Canadians to go back to the polls, they would be able to do so in a manner of their preference and be assured of their safety and the health of their communities.
In every modern general election and by-election, the Chief Electoral Officer has been provided with adaptation powers that can be applied to the Canada Elections Act to ensure that electors can exercise their right to vote. These adaptation powers can assist in running elections in the event of an emergency or other unforeseen circumstances.
The Chief Electoral Officer exercised this power in the last election, for one to allow workers temporarily residing outside their electoral districts to vote. However, the ongoing uncertainty generated by the current pandemic justifies broadening the grounds for adapting the act. This bill would strengthen the Chief Electoral Officer's power to adapt provisions of the Canada Elections Act to ensure the health and safety of electors and election officials, including volunteers.
This would enable them to put in place protective measures in polling places to minimize the spread of COVID-19. These measures are particularly important when considering that Canada's election workforce largely skews toward an older cohort that we know are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19.
These adaptation measures will help support another key measure outlined in Bill C-19, which is the extension of the polling period from a single Monday to three days.
To facilitate physical distancing at polling stations, this bill provides for two additional polling days consisting of the Saturday and Sunday before the traditional voting day on Monday. This measure would reduce the number of people in a polling station at any given time. It will be particularly useful in ridings where public health authorities have established strict limits on the number of people allowed in public places.
We have heard from some colleagues that the three-day voting period is too much time or that the election should be held either only on the Monday or only on the weekend. From work and family obligations to religious observance to the need to access adequate child care or public transportation, there are a number of reasons somebody may have difficulty reaching the polls. The three-day polling period would provide the Chief Electoral Officer and local election officials greater freedom in identifying adequate and accessible polling places.
During an election period, Elections Canada becomes Canada's single-largest employer. Over 250,000 workers were hired for the 2019 election. While Bill C-19 does not address the challenge of electoral worker recruitment, I would like to emphasize a change that was made through the Elections Modernization Act in 2018 that would allow Elections Canada to hire 16 and 17 year olds as election workers.
I would now like to turn to another key part of the bill, which I know interests all colleagues, and it is the way to protect some of Canada's most vulnerable people to exercise their democratic right to vote. Across Canada, long-term care facilities have been hit hard by COVID-19. Even with rising vaccination rates, these facilities must still be protected against the threat of the virus.
Bill C-19 would make it easier for residents of long-term care homes, who are particularly vulnerable and have borne the brunt of the pandemic, to exercise their right to vote safely. Bill C-19 provides for a 13-day period prior to polling day that would facilitate the administration of votes in these facilities. This period would enable Elections Canada to coordinate with long-term care home staff to ensure residents could vote safely.
As it currently stands, election workers travel from one facility to the next administering the vote only on election day. The safety implications of this practice are obvious in the context of COVID-19, and were highlighted also by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada as a challenge in his special report last October.
The flexibility of this 13-day period would allow Elections Canada to work closely with individual facilities to find dates and times that would be most convenient and safe for residents to vote. These facilities are essential to the safety of Canadians and these flexibilities will also assist vulnerable persons.
If there were to be a general election during the pandemic, the Chief Electoral Officer expects we would see an increase in the number of mail-in ballots, possibly as high as five million ballots. Indeed, we saw a significant rise in mail-in ballots in British Columbia's October 2020 general election and in the United States presidential election last November.
Mail-in voting is safe and secure for Canadians to exercise their democratic rights. The electors in Canada have long had the ability to vote by mail, but in recognition of its clear importance during a pandemic, Bill C-19 introduces measures to ensure that the mail-in ballot system in Canada is as simple and as accessible as possible.
Currently, registration to vote by mail can only be done through the mail or in person. Bill C-19 would allow electors to register online for the first time. I should note that providing this option would not inhibit those without access to the Internet to register to vote by mail or in person. By allowing online registration, we would simply be giving Canadians one more option to register to vote.
The bill proposes the installation of secure reception boxes at all polling stations and returning officers' offices. This way, people who are not able to mail in their ballots will have a way to submit them securely. These measures will ensure that, should an election be required during a pandemic, it will be more safe and secure and will give electors as many options as possible to exercise their democratic right.
My final comment on mail-in ballots is for colleagues who have expressed a concern whether the expected influx of special ballots could lead to delays in the counting or the announcing of the election results. I can assure the House that we have heard from the Chief Electoral Officer and he does not expect any delays in the results of a general election based on the increase of mail-in ballots.
The pandemic has affected every aspect of the lives of Canadians. No one has been spared the incredible difficulties of the past year, yet we have also seen the remarkable resilience of Canadians. We have seen that Canadians have not been stopped from exercising their democratic rights in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, and even in my home province of New Brunswick. Our role in the House should be to ensure that, if required, Canadians are able to carry out their democratic rights in a way that ensures their personal safety and the public health of their communities as well.
If the opposition members are going to continue to vote non-confidence in the government, it is irresponsible for them not to work with the government to ensure these measures are in place to protect Canadians. The current hyper-partisanship of the opposition risks paralyzing the agenda of the government and the supports we urgently need to put in place to help Canadians. While we have no desire to go to the polls, the Prime Minister, as any responsible Prime Minister in a minority Parliament, needs to understand when he has and when he does not have the confidence of the House and be able to act accordingly.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-05-13 11:40 [p.7163]
Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak and I think it is important to rise today to support this motion, which states:
(b) in the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and that it is the responsibility of the government to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls as long as this pandemic continues.
I have not met anyone in my riding who wants an election in the middle of the pandemic. On the contrary, I truly think that people will be upset and very disappointed in this government if it remains determined to trigger an election in the middle of the pandemic.
Canadians do not need to be reminded that the vaccine rollout got off to a slow start and suffered many delays because of the government's mismanagement. The government was late signing agreements with vaccine manufacturers, did not act quickly enough to ensure domestic production capacity, and did not manage to protect Canadians by getting them at least one dose. The slogan “a one-dose summer” does not really appeal to Canadians.
The absence of border controls allowed variants of concern to take hold in our communities. Since last week, 90% of all coronavirus cases in Canada have been the British variant. Three dozen cases of a variant discovered for the first time in India have also been identified.
In short, it is clear that the Liberal government did not manage to prevent the pandemic from entering the country or to get Canadians out of this crisis. In other countries, things are going far better than in Canada. The responsibility for this public health crisis therefore lies squarely on the government's shoulders, and the last thing Canadians need is an election during the third wave.
I would like to point out that more than 1.3 million Canadians have been infected by the virus, including 360,000 in Quebec alone, that there are still 78,000 active cases, and that 25,000 people have died. That is a good indication of the severity of the pandemic. Given the restrictions placed on Canadians since March 2020 and those still in effect, it is astonishing to see that the Liberal government has only one objective, and it is certainly not to have all Canadians vaccinated by the summer.
The Prime Minister is going full steam ahead toward a general election. The efforts made by the government to distract from its disastrous pandemic response are appalling. Rather than getting Canadians to the polls at all costs, this minority government should be doing everything it can to ensure Canadians' safety during the pandemic.
Of course, we understand and we know why the Liberals want an election. First, from the very start, the government failed miserably in its management of the pandemic, particularly in terms of the economy. Canada has suffered major economic damage from coast to coast since the virus arrived within our borders.
The numbers do not lie when it comes to jobs. Before the pandemic, the unemployment rate in Canada was 4.5%. By the end of April 2020, the number had quadrupled. The rate of job losses in Canada was unprecedented. Statistics Canada had never recorded such a high number of job losses in its history.
In 2020, job opportunities in the restaurant sector decreased by 40% in Quebec, and there was a 13% decrease in the retail sector. Losses in these sectors have been shown to disproportionately affect younger and more vulnerable workers, including women, who lack job security or high wages.
Now, 14 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the national unemployment rate is 8.1% and this Liberal government's mismanagement has led to the reintroduction of lockdown measures in many parts of the country.
Right now, we are stuck in what has been called the Prime Minister's third wave because of the government's inability to ensure the vaccine supply and its slowness in using rapid testing technology and closing the borders. It is because of this government's incompetence and lack of leadership that COVID-19 continues to devastate the Canadian economy.
Doug Porter, the chief economist of BMO Capital Markets, noted that this current episode of unemployment hit Canada a little harder as more full-time employment and private sector employment fell. In other sectors, the people we meet in our regions in the hotel, restaurant and entertainment sectors have suffered as a result of the reinstatement of lockdown measures caused by the Liberals' third wave.
Numbers do not lie. Leah Nord, senior director at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, suggested that labour force scarring is starting to show in Canada, as long-term unemployment has increased 4.6%, to 480,000 Canadians. She said that the job prospects for displaced workers grow slimmer with every month in lockdown as more businesses throw in the towel.
It is not hard to guess why the Liberals might want to turn the page by calling an election: They are trying to distract from their failures. The Liberals are the ones responsible for the unacceptable situation in which Canadian workers find themselves. Because of the Liberals' inability to plot a coherent course to get out of the pandemic, Canadians ended up facing a variety of lockdowns and closures.
The Liberals can try to distract from the impact their failed pandemic response has had on Canadians, but the fact is that an election will not make people forget, not when the damage is this bad and when the hurt caused by their failure is still being felt across the country. From a general standpoint, 2020 will go down in history as the worst year ever recorded for Canada's economy. What is the government's solution to all of these problems?
Rather than working hard to solve the real problems facing Canadians, and despite the pretty words the Prime Minister spouts everywhere he goes, notably in the House of Commons and in the media, saying that he does not want an election, the Liberals have done everything they need to do to hold an election in the middle of a pandemic. I agree with my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, who said that the Prime Minister is disconnected from reality.
The Liberals want an election so badly that they passed their pandemic election bill at second reading under a gag order and with the tacit abetment of the NDP. When it comes to changing election regulations, the least a minority government can do is to try to reach a consensus, not form a self-serving alliance. What the Liberals are doing is not helping Canadians' view of politicians.
Earlier, my Liberal colleague spoke of hypocrisy. I heard him say the word about 15 times in his speech. However, the Liberals are primarily responsible for the fact that Canadians’ trust in politicians is at at an all-time low and that government ministers rank 73rd in the 76 occupations assessed by the Institut de la confiance dans les organisations. The ultimate irony is that the Liberals are in such a hurry to pass a bill to change the election rules in the midst of a pandemic, when they are all saying one after the other today that there is no way that they will hold an election in the midst of a pandemic.
They keep saying that they are not talking about an election, that it is the opposition parties that are talking about it, but it is not the official opposition that tabled a bill to hold an election in the midst of a pandemic. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions that the opposition parties voted against confidence motions, such as those on the budget and the economic statement. They are talking about 15 or so votes, as if our vote had anything at all to do with holding an election.
If the government had wanted the support of the opposition parties for its budget, it would have tried to reach a consensus. It would have tried to focus on an economic recovery plan and assistance for Canadians, rather than on its ideological values and election platform, but that is not the case. The Prime Minister is so obsessed with power and so upset at being the leader of a minority government that he made his budget an ideological platform, spared no expense and showed no desire to present an economic recovery plan. The budget is all over the place. Many analysts have said so. The word “billion” will soon become a common word in the House. We are talking about a trillion-dollar deficit in Canada.
Now that he sees that Canadians are not stupid and that they did not fall for his ploy, the Prime Minister wants to call an election as soon as possible, even if that means refusing to listen to Parliament and refusing to try to reach a consensus. His claims are ridiculous. However, the role of the opposition is to defend Canadians, who need defending during a pandemic. We do not want an election. The leader of the opposition does not want an election, the leader of the Bloc Québécois does not want an election and the leader of the NDP does not want an election. If the three leaders of the opposition do not want an election, the only one who can call an election unilaterally is the Prime Minister himself.
I invite my Liberal colleagues, whose constituents are experiencing the same problems as mine, to stand up and vote in favour of this motion, which only makes sense.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's discussion on the Bloc Québécois's opposition motion.
It gives me an opportunity to comment on something that New Democrats care a lot about, and that is the ability to stay the course and be consistent. Not every political party has that ability, and I find myself in a rather unusual position in that I support the motion but am struggling to understand the Bloc Québécois's approach.
I would like to reread the motion:
That:
(a) the House remind the government that a general election was held in October 2019 and sadly note that more than 1.3 million Canadians, including almost 360,000 Quebecers, have been infected with COVID-19 and that nearly 25,000 people have died as a result; and
(b) in the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and that it is the responsibility of the government to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls as long as this pandemic continues.
That is good. That is what the NDP has been saying for months, but is it what the Bloc Québécois and the member for Beloeil—Chambly have been saying for months?
I have here a Radio-Canada article from about six or seven months ago. I will read the end of the article, which shows that things have changed dramatically.
The article says, “As for whether a second COVID-19 wave could interfere with his plan, [the Bloc Québécois leader] says there are ways to keep people safe at the polls. He thinks COVID-19 itself is not enough of a reason to avoid triggering an election. ‘If we follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, that would mean that as long as we are in a pandemic, we live in a dictatorship.’” That was the Bloc Québécois leader's conclusion then.
I wonder what happened. The only explanation I can think of is that the Bloc Québécois caucus and members did a little soul-searching and thought about whether holding an election during a pandemic would be the safe, sensible and responsible thing to do, given the presence of the virus and its variants. I am happy that the Bloc Québécois has come on side with the NDP and its leader, who have been arguing for months that it would be unwise.
An election could put people at risk. Hundreds of cases are being diagnosed every day. Not long ago, Quebec, Ontario and other provinces were reporting thousands of cases. The Bloc Québécois's change of heart is hard to comprehend.
A short while ago, the Bloc Québécois was boasting that it would hold to its convictions, that the NDP would save the Liberals and that it would be all right if there were an election because the Bloc was standing tall. Today, the Bloc is presenting a motion saying it would be a bad idea to hold an election. What happened?
I get the impression that the member for Beloeil—Chambly had a road to Damascus moment. He saw the light and fell off his horse. Something must have happened to him for him to say that he would avoid an election out of respect for Canadians. I find it extremely interesting to see the Bloc Québécois finally come around to the NDP's sensible, reasonable and responsible arguments. We have been saying over and over for months now that we will not risk our constituents' health and safety by holding an election no one wants.
None of my constituents in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie are telling me that it is time to hold an election and that it is really a priority. No one is telling me they would be happy about it, that it would be a good thing, that it would be easy and fun. We saw quite clearly what happened with the election in Newfoundland and Labrador.
For months now, the Bloc Québécois has been threatening to trigger an election. They did it during the first, second and third waves. Today, they came around to the NDP's arguments, and that is just fine. I will take it, but I am having trouble following the Bloc's reasoning. That is why I said how important it is to stay the course and be consistent.
This week is National Nursing Week, a time to recognize the work of nurses, who are doing a fantastic job. For over a year now, nurses have been on the front lines in our health care facilities, saving lives, often at the risk of their own. Let us not forget the other health care professionals either, like physicians, orderlies and technicians.
I think that, out of respect for these people, the work they do and the risks they take, the Bloc should have said from the outset, as the NDP did, that it would not increase the risk of spreading the virus by triggering an election, which involves door-knocking, rallies and line-ups to vote. That would have been the right thing to do from the beginning.
In the article I quoted from a few months ago, did the leader of the Bloc Québécois forget to respect the work of these professionals? I am not accusing anyone. I am simply asking valid questions. It seems to me that this is something that can be done, since I have already heard it somewhere.
If we want to avoid putting the people who work in our health care system at risk, people who have had it tough for months, who are dropping like flies and whose working conditions are challenging, the right thing to do is to say that there should not be an election as long as the pandemic continues.
I sincerely wish the Bloc Québécois had said so much sooner and shown consistency out of respect for health care professionals and the health and safety of all Canadians. It is good that it got there in the end.
Going back to health care professionals and National Nursing Week, I think we obviously need to talk about the federal government's responsibility to provide the best possible working conditions for these professionals. They are working extremely hard to care for our seniors and our sick. They are saving lives and caring for patients who have been suffering intensely for weeks, if not months.
I must draw my colleagues' attention to the Liberal government's failures with regard to provincial health transfers. We unanimously agree that the federal government needs to do more and increase its share of funding for the public health care system to cover 35% of the total. Right now, federal funding is hovering around 20%, which is woefully inadequate and puts tremendous pressure on the provinces, including Quebec. Austerity measures have been introduced in recent years, and they have had an impact on working conditions, particularly orderlies' wages and nurses' schedules, making their job all the more challenging and difficult.
The pandemic revealed the extent of the crisis and exposed just how badly our health care system needs more funding and a better structure, and how the people who work in it deserve more respect and recognition. The federal government needs to contribute to this effort, but it is not doing so, preferring to inject funds on an ad hoc and temporary basis so as to avoid responsibility. Injecting billions of dollars here and there is all well and good, but it all comes to an end eventually. Then the provinces, the hospitals and the health care professionals are left with the same problems.
What we are asking for is stable and permanent transfers from the federal government to the provinces in order to improve our capacity and our health care and to ensure proper care for our seniors, so that the carnage we saw in long-term care centres never happens again.
Working together is the least we can do. We have a shared responsibility, as representatives of our constituents, to work hard to ensure a modicum of decency for our seniors, so they can live out their lives in dignity, without their rent becoming someone else's profits.
As the NDP leader keeps saying over and over, profit and the private sector have no place in long-term care facilities. That is what we need to fix to help our seniors. We must prevent the problems we saw in Dorval, where some people were pocketing thousands of dollars in profits every year on the backs of these seniors, only to abandon them when the crisis came. These seniors ended up alone, dehydrated, lying on the floor, with rotten food and no one to take care of them. We have to work together to prevent this from ever happening again.
A day will come when there will be an election and people will have choices to make. This government's preferences for billionaires, big business and web giants are bad choices that do not serve the public interest, public services or the common good. Until that day comes, however, let us be responsible and avoid having an election. I am pleased that the majority of parties have come around to the arguments that the NDP has been making for months now.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on the Bloc Québécois's opposition day.
Opposition days are few and far between, and therefore it is important to choose a very specific topic to debate. Most of the time, we ask ourselves the following questions. What do electors want? What subjects do the people we represent want to see their representatives debate? What is important to them? What is important to them in these difficult times?
On a few occasions, we have used opposition days to call for an increase in health transfers for Quebec and the provinces because the needs of our health care systems are acute. In a health crisis, everyone, except perhaps the Liberals, seems to agree that health is the logical priority.
We used one opposition day to demand that EI benefits for people with serious illnesses to be extended from 15 to 50 weeks. Many Quebeckers are experiencing this type of discrimination, and they want their elected officials to fight for that.
We also took advantage of an opposition day to demand that the government increase old age security by $110 per month for all seniors 65 and over. That is what seniors across Quebec are asking for. They are also telling us that people aged 65 to 74 need it just as much as those 75 and over.
On an opposition day, we usually ask ourselves the following question: What do our constituents want? This time, the question is more like, what do they not want? They do not want a federal election called in the middle of a global pandemic. It is as simple as that.
By introducing Bill C-19 and imposing a gag order, the government is pushing us to debate, in a very limited amount of time, an issue that the majority of the people who elected us do not want to hear about. The Liberals know as well as we do that the opinion of voters is fundamental. However, they are turning a deaf ear.
An Ipsos poll conducted on April 18 for Global News found that 57% of electors believe that an election during a pandemic would be unfair. As my colleagues have said over and over again, people are already overwhelmed with the day-to-day management of the pandemic. An election is most likely the last thing on their list of priorities.
Voter turnout is low enough as it is, so calling an election now is extremely risky for several reasons. It is not just us or our constituents saying this. Everyone is saying it. The leaders of the three opposition parties are saying it, and even the Prime Minister has said it. He has repeatedly stated that he is not interested in holding an election and that nobody wants an election during a pandemic.
The problem is that, unfortunately, no one believes him, considering that the government introduced Bill C-19 and imposed closure. No one in Quebec believes him. No political analyst is buying it, and no one thinks it would be a good idea to call an election until the situation is stable. People like Mario Dumont, Paul Arcand, Bernard Drainville, Emmanuelle Latraverse, Pierre Nantel and Mathieu Bock-Côté come to mind. None of them think that triggering an election is a good idea.
If everyone agrees on that right from the outset, including all the opposition parties, the Prime Minister himself and most of his Quebec ministers, who said publicly that no one wanted an election, then no one should have a problem voting in favour of our motion. It is so simple. It reminds us that a general election was held in October 2019. Some might say that feels like yesterday, but it may seem longer to the government because it is a minority.
We are quick to forget one thing, which is the current environment. The country is going through one of the worst health crises in its history. Since March 2020, more than 1.3 million Canadians have been infected with COVID-19 and nearly 25,000 people have died as a result. It is for this simple and very important reason that holding an election during a pandemic would be downright irresponsible. We believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to do everything it can to avoid sending voters to the polls for as long as we are in a pandemic. So long as the crisis has not subsided and the situation has not stabilized, that would be not only irresponsible, but also dangerous to the health of our fellow Canadians.
I can already hear Liberals telling us that it is also the responsibility of the opposition to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls. Who gets to decide which votes are confidence votes? Is it the government or the opposition parties? Who can go to the Chief Justice of Canada or the governor general to call an election? Is it the government or the opposition parties? Who can dissolve Parliament? Is it the government or the opposition parties? The answer is obvious. It looks like the government is confusing the executive with the legislative.
I do not know about my Liberal colleagues, but it would make me feel very uncomfortable to go knocking on people's doors to talk about an election at a time when they cannot even have their own family members over, at least in Quebec. Many of them have children who have to do their schooling at home. Some of them still cannot reopen their businesses. Others have lost their jobs, because the company they worked for closed down. Some are health care professionals who are at the end of their rope or family caregivers who have been unable to see their parents for weeks.
Worse still, perhaps they themselves were infected with COVID-19 and will suffer the effects for the rest of their lives, or they have lost a loved one to the virus. That is what they are concerned about right now. They need a government that cares more about them and their needs than about its own re-election.
As my colleagues have said before me, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the government on one thing. If an election were to be held during a pandemic, adjustments would have to be made to ensure that polling takes place in accordance with the health rules set out by Quebec and the provinces.
However, from a public health and even an ethical perspective, calling an election in the current environment is not a responsible decision. From a technical perspective, Bill C-19 contains major flaws and inaccuracies that must be discussed and debated. From a democratic standpoint, it is completely inconceivable that a minority government would impose time allocation on Parliament regarding a bill intended to provide a framework for the democratic rights of citizens.
I am sure you will have guessed where we stand on this, Mr. Speaker. That does not mean we are acting in bad faith. The Bloc Québécois did propose a compromise to address this issue. The Bloc Québécois leader invited the Prime Minister to set up a private meeting with the leaders of all the parties at which they could reach a consensus and then honour that consensus instead of invoking closure. What was the Prime Minister's response? He says he does not want an election, but he keeps trying to shove a bill that would enable a pandemic election down our throats. Is that not ironic?
I think this shows a blatant lack of judgment and a failure to grasp the situation. I would even go so far as to say that taking steps to trigger an election in the short term shows a lack of empathy for voters. That is why the Bloc Québécois moved this motion today.
I could spend hours talking about why, from a public health and safety perspective, it would be a bad idea to trigger an election. However, I also want to talk about what is in Bill C-19, such as provisions for polling in seniors' residences. The bill provides for 16 polling days, 16 days during which election workers would be on site in every long-term care home and residence. We think that is unrealistic.
Another thing that bothers us is the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots. For instance, Bill C-19 would allow Elections Canada to receive mail-in ballots until the day after polling day. We think that is unjustified and would only delay the release of the election results.
That is not to mention the issue of voter turnout. A Leger poll conducted in early March found that less than a quarter of Quebeckers and Canadians would want to vote by mail if a federal election were to be held soon. According to the poll, it would take a good awareness campaign to get people to accept that this way of voting is secure. The majority of voters prefer to vote in person. It would be unfortunate if the pandemic led to a drop in voter turnout, which is already low, I might add.
Under Bill C-19, voting would be held over three days, with eight hours of voting on Saturday, eight hours on Sunday and 12 hours on Monday. However, if the vote is held on a Monday, a change of venue might be required for that day, making it very difficult to organize the whole thing.
Confidentiality is another one of the Bloc Québécois's concerns. Mail-in voting is generally safe, but the voter can be identified if the ballot is viewed or handled. That is why it is always better to exercise the right to vote in person. In addition to preserving the integrity and secrecy of the vote, it also promotes the symbolism behind the socially committed act of voting.
All these concerns have to do with the technical considerations of holding an election during a pandemic, but let us get back to basics, to the reason behind today's motion. From a public health perspective, holding an election during a health crisis is, and I cannot say this enough, an irresponsible choice. In fact, if there is one thing that all parties and every leader in the House can agree on, it is that it is inappropriate to hold an election during a pandemic.
What is even more important, however, is that the Quebeckers and Canadians we represent do not want an election. They have made this very clear. We must listen to them, respect them and ensure that they will not be forced to the polls while we are combatting COVID-19.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2021-05-13 15:44 [p.7201]
Madam Speaker, I rise today on this Bloc Québécois opposition day to speak to the important issue of elections during a pandemic.
The motion reads as follows:
That:
(a) the House remind the government that a general election was held in October 2019 and sadly note that more than 1.3 million Canadians...have been infected with COVID-19 and that nearly 25,000 people have died as a result;
The critic for seniors adds here that seniors were the first victims of this pandemic, and that the government should not try to use them in a cheap election ploy by promising them a one-time cheque for $500 in August, just before its target period for launching the election during the pandemic. I will continue reading:
(b) in the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and that it is the responsibility of the government to make every effort to ensure that voters are not called to the polls as long as this pandemic continues.
This afternoon, I will address this issue from three perspectives. First, I will explain the theme we chose for our opposition day, then I will put on my former journalism student's hat, and finally, I will put on my former political science student and confirmed social democrat's hat.
To begin with, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois does agree with one thing. If there is an election during the pandemic, adjustments will have to be made to ensure that polling takes place in compliance with the public health rules issued by Quebec and the provinces. That is the question though: Should there be an election?
We moved this motion today for several reasons. From a technical perspective, the bill is flawed and contains significant grey areas we have to discuss and debate. From a public health and ethics point of view, holding an election under the current circumstances is not responsible. Here is a specific example.
As the Bloc Québécois's critic for seniors, I am concerned. The bill provides for polling stations in residences for 16 days before voting day. Somehow or other, election workers would have to be there for 19 days. That is not necessary, and we would have liked to change that. Voters have a number of different ways to cast their ballot. If they cannot go to a polling station, they can always vote by mail, as usual.
In addition to the logistical issue, there is also the psychological issue around strangers being in these homes and constantly asking people to vote. We do not yet know exactly how it will unfold, but it is not hard to imagine.
Furthermore, as a former journalism student, I always pay attention to what commentators have to say. I will quote a few of them to show that this is not just a whim of the Bloc, as the other parties would have people believe with their rhetoric. Rather, our motion today is based on the concerns of the people of Shefford who wrote to me, as well as those of other Quebeckers and Canadians.
First, there was Mario Dumont on QUB radio. This is what he said on his show on May 10:
I remember that, at the National Assembly, the advisory committee of the chief electoral officer was meeting in camera because they did not want to have public grandstanding and bickering over the Quebec Election Act. They said that the parties had to agree first…
Invoking closure to pass new election rules for an election that is only a few weeks away is not a good thing…
This may be difficult to understand for the Liberals, who have a tendency to ignore the specifics relating to Quebec and its National Assembly.
Furthermore, on the May 10 episode of La joute, Emmanuelle Latraverse said that wanting to amend a law without going through Parliament was against the rules of our electoral system, which encourages seeking consensus.
The irony is that the Liberal Party has put a gag order on a bill to amend the elections legislation, but the Liberals made a big fuss when the Harper government tried to pull the same stunt. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The Liberals have only themselves to blame for the timing of this legislation. I could name several others who have spoken out in response to what they have heard on the ground.
Still in the media world, in order to gauge public opinion, Ipsos conducted a poll for Global News on April 18, 2021, so relatively recently, and found that 57% of voters believed that an election during a pandemic would not be fair. A Leger poll on April 16, 2021, found that only 14% of Canadians wanted an election this spring, 29% this fall and 43% later. Liberal voters are even more hesitant. Only 6% want a spring election and 26% want a fall election. Sixty percent want it to be later. That is a huge number.
Finally, as a former student of politics, I am very worried. It is well known that every crisis carries two main risks. One is the federal government interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and the second is austerity for the recovery. This could be disastrous, especially for our health care system.
I would add to that the serious risk of eroding our democratic systems. That is why it is inconceivable that a government is imposing time allocation in Parliament on a bill meant to frame the democratic rights of the people.
Let us not forget the context for introducing Bill C-19. Since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, there have been questions about holding an election in this particular context given the minority status of the current government. Using the current provisions of the legislation, general elections were held in New Brunswick, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and two federal by-elections were held in Ontario.
Then there is the example of the provincial election in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know what happened there. That election illustrated the risks of holding an election during a pandemic. The rise in the number of COVID-19 cases forced the cancellation of a polling day and the shift to mail-in voting.
In 2019, 61% of Newfoundlanders voted and that rate fell to not quite 51% in the last election, which tarnishes the legitimacy of a government. We need to do what we can to have the highest voter turnout possible. That is what should happen. In a federal election this type of scenario could have a considerable impact on voter turnout.
Let us now continue with our timeline. On October 5, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada tabled a special report with his recommendations for holding an election during a pandemic. On December 8, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs released a report entitled “Interim Report: Protecting Public Health and Democracy During a Possible Pandemic Election”. The Bloc Québécois issued a supplementary opinion, proof of its usual willingness to collaborate.
The government ignored the work of the committee and introduced its bill to amend the Canada Elections Act in response to COVID-19 on December 10, 2020. For his part, the Chief Electoral Officer considered a range of administrative measures to adapt to operations during a pandemic.
I am going to discuss the impact of COVID-19. Since Bill C-19 was introduced five months ago, we have had only four hours to debate it. Finally, last Friday, the Leader of the Government in the house of Commons indicated that he intended to move a time allocation motion, or closure, with respect to Bill C-19 on the following Monday, May 10, 2021.
After a 45-minute debate on the gag order, there was a vote. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party voted against the gag order but in favour of sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This was followed by three hours and 15 minutes of debate, primarily on the gag order. The Liberals let this bill languish and now they are rushing it through at the end of the session, as we approach the summer break and a drop in their polling numbers.
Furthermore, running a Canada-wide mail-in vote presents some significant logistical challenges and could prevent some people from exercising their right to vote.
In conclusion, the Liberals' gag order on C-19 shows that they plan to call an election during the pandemic. That is how pundits are interpreting this unnecessary legislative manoeuvre. The Liberals are telling us that their political agenda comes before getting everyone vaccinated, helping our economy recover and lifting the health measures and stay-at-home orders. This will not all be wrapped up with a wave of a magic wand at the end of the summer.
I repeat, nobody wants an election. The Bloc Québécois wants all the party leaders to meet, reach a consensus and find common ground. Yes, the Bloc Québécois is a party of ideas.
In our democratic system, we are well within our rights to make demands of the government. The government's job is to listen to opposition proposals to make Parliament work.
We wanted health transfers to go up to 35% of total health spending. That is what Quebec and the provinces called for during the health crisis. We wanted an extra $100 per month for seniors 65 and up. Our asks are perfectly legitimate and absolutely essential. The government chose not to take them into account in its budget, so it is responsible for the fact that we voted against that budget.
We have always said that if it is good for Quebec, we will vote for it, but if it is not good for Quebec or if it is against our interests, we will vote against it. We made our intentions clear well in advance.
If the government had been sincere, it would not have hidden everything or tried any excuse to trigger elections to gain a majority. It would have listened to us and would not have settled for a budget that announced a host of electoral promises. In fact, many of the measures it announced will not be rolled out until 2022, after the next election. Is that a coincidence?
My leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, reached out to the government and suggested organizing a private meeting, inviting anyone the government chose. They could have met in an office and tried to reach a consensus, without resorting to closure—
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Anthony Housefather Profile
2021-05-13 16:14 [p.7206]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Outremont.
Today is May 13, and it my father's first birthday since his death. My father is among those people who died during the pandemic. The first part of the Bloc Québécois motion refers to all of the Quebeckers and Canadians who died during the pandemic. I want to express my condolences to all of the families in Quebec, in my riding and across Canada who have lost loved ones.
My father had been in a long-term care unit. Our country has some significant problems when it comes to long-term care. I truly hope that we will take everything that we have learned to ensure that people like my father will be better served in the future.
I fully support the idea of national standards, and I hope that all Canadians will respect not only provincial jurisdictions but also national standards to guarantee that our seniors can enjoy their right to be safe in long-term care homes.
The motion also talks about an election, and I can assure the Bloc Québécois and all the hon. members of the House that I do not have any interest in an election, nor do any of the other people I know on our side of the House. It is one of those things where we can keep repeating it and people may or may not believe us, but in the end result, that is the case.
We also, of course, understand that we are in a minority Parliament. The government does not get to control when the next election happens. All of the opposition parties could force an election, and I am not saying that it is necessarily in bad faith that people may vote non-confidence in the government. It could happen for a variety of reasons.
If non-confidence in the government is voted, then we need to have a safe election. There is no doubt about it, with the entire idea of potentially having an election. I am not blaming opposition parties for voting non-confidence. They have a right to do so, but there have been 14 times in recent weeks when opposition parties have voted non-confidence in one way or another, and as a result we could have an election, so it is really important that we appreciate that we need to find a way to bring Bill C-19 through the House in order to have a fair and safe election.
We have talked a lot about it, and I am very proud of our government having taken many measures to ensure safety in the workplace. Elections Canada needs to ensure safety for its poll workers and for all Canadians who wish to express their right to vote in our society. I am also very pleased that we are in a country where we have national rules on national elections. We see what has happened with our neighbours to the south, where there are different rules in every state and different rules, sometimes, in every county in a state. Different types of election machines in different counties led to a 2000 election where Palm Beach County in Florida managed, by itself, to reverse the results of an election.
In the most recent election in the United States, there was a candidate who refused to accept the results of the election. He launched many lawsuits, which were all unsuccessful, and now he continues to maintain that the election was unfair and is trying to get states to create legislation that makes it more difficult for people to vote.
I am pleased that we would be making it safer and better to vote with Bill C-19. We know that the Chief Electoral Officer and the procedure and House affairs committee are really cognizant of the importance of this issue, as evidenced by their significant work and associated recommendations. In addition to supporting the committee's recommendation with respect to long-term care voting and extending the voting period, Bill C-19 proposes a number of other measures to ensure that our electoral process remains resilient, taking into account the current public health context. Both the committee and Bill C-19 propose increased adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer for the purposes of ensuring the health and safety of electors and election workers, should an election occur during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In its final report, the committee acknowledged that it has the utmost confidence in Elections Canada in undertaking the diligent planning and preparedness necessary to deliver a successful and accessible election during the pandemic.
This is reflected in Bill C-19's temporary amendment to extend the Chief Electoral Officer's power to adapt the provisions of the act to ensure the health and safety of electors or election officers. It seeks to offer greater flexibility, given the rapidly changing nature of the pandemic and the diverse logistics of conducting 338 elections, and each riding having different challenges. On the committee's recommendation that rapid tests be provided, the government is committed to supporting Elections Canada's preparedness, all while respecting its independence.
An election during the pandemic also means that more electors will vote by mail, as we have seen in various Canadian and international jurisdictions. Indeed, the chief electoral officers of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island all told the committee that there were significant increases in demand to vote by mail during their respective provincial elections held during the pandemic. We certainly saw the same thing with our neighbours to the south.
In British Columbia, there was a 100-fold increase of mail-in ballots between the 2017 and 2020 provincial general elections. At the federal level, the Chief Electoral Officer testified that surveys had indicated that 4 million to 5 million electors intend to vote by mail if a federal general election is held during the pandemic. The Chief Electoral Officer noted that steps had been taken to ensure that Elections Canada would be prepared for such an increase.
Although the committee's recommendations on mail-in voting were primarily directed to Elections Canada, it is evident through the report and witness statements that access to mail-in ballots would support electors that may face barriers. As such, measures to shore up the mail-in ballot system are important. That is why Bill C-19 seeks to implement measures to improve access to mail-in voting for all Canadians in numerous ways, including the installation of mail reception boxes at all polling stations and allowing for the receipt of online applications for mail-in ballots.
The committee's final report highlights that mail-in voting was identified by several witnesses as a means of increasing accessibility for electors who face barriers to voting, including persons with disabilities, indigenous voters, persons living in poverty and students. Augmenting mail-in voting procedures will ensure the system is easy to use, accessible and responsive to voter's needs. It will also provide additional alternatives for those who are most vulnerable during the pandemic.
Ensuring that our electoral system is easy to use, accessible and responsive to voter's needs is also very much the advice we heard from international partners and experts from government, industry and civil society. We want good practice. We want a solution tailored to communities. We do not need a one-size-fits-all approach, but we need to ensure that the same access to voting exists across the country.
Multiple witnesses, including Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, told the committee that holding a federal general election during the pandemic would pose significant challenges and difficulties for Elections Canada. Elections Canada has exchanged information on our best practices and contingency planning and commissioned research.
Bill C-19 will reaffirm to Elections Canada, political entities and Canadian electors that the government remains committed to ensuring that a general election during a pandemic, should one be required, which all of us say we do not want, would be delivered in a manner that is safe for electors and election workers, and ensures the overall integrity of the electoral process.
In conclusion, I do believe it is important to pass Bill C-19, whether or not there is an election on the horizon.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
2021-05-13 16:28 [p.7208]
Madam Speaker, as we all know, our society and our government are still facing unprecedented challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
For the time being, the pandemic has forced us to change how we live our lives to keep our fellow citizens safe. To be honest, I would have loved to debate this motion and many others with my colleagues in person in the House, but here we are on Zoom in our living rooms back home in our ridings. We now vote remotely using an app.
The pandemic has forced us to change the voting procedure in the House of Commons, a first in 200 years. It has forced us to adapt, and we have had to adapt the electoral process as well. Since the pandemic hit, there have been two federal by-elections and a number of provincial, territorial and local elections. These elections have given voters a broad range of options to exercise their right to vote safely.
Holding an election during a pandemic is, of course, a major challenge. The government has drawn on the experience of elections held in Canada and other jurisdictions, as well as on the analyses of Elections Canada and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
To ensure both the safety of voters and their ability to exercise their right to vote in as large numbers as possible, the government introduced Bill C-19 on December 10 of last year.
Before getting into the details of this bill, I would like to say very clearly that I absolutely do not want an election. Throughout this pandemic, we have worked together to govern the country responsibly and in collaboration with the other parties. We did this to help Canadians and we will continue to do so.
I want to be very clear on another thing: I have nothing against this motion, but I have a real problem with the way this debate has been filled with small partisan attacks implying that the government wants an election during a pandemic. That is totally false, as the facts show.
Getting back to Bill C-19, it makes provisional changes to the Canada Elections Act to support a safe and accessible vote in the event of a general election during the pandemic. This bill is based on recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer in October 2020 regarding voting in the context of a pandemic, as well as the critical work of our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whom I thank.
Bill C-19 is structured around four main points. First, in order to facilitate physical distancing at the polls, the bill proposes to add two additional voting days, on the Saturday and Sunday before the traditional Monday voting day. This would reduce the number of people at the polls at any given time, which is very important. It would be especially useful in ridings where public health authorities have set strict limits on the number of people allowed in public places. This measure will also provide additional flexibility to those for whom voting on election day would be a problem.
Second, the bill would strengthen the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt the provisions of the Canada Elections Act to ensure the health and safety of voters and election staff. In its current form, the Canada Elections Act grants these powers only to enable electors to vote or to enable the counting of votes.
Third, the bill would make it easier to exercise the right to vote in a safe manner for one of the most vulnerable groups that has been hit the hardest by the pandemic, those residing in long-term care institutions. The bill would establish a period beginning 13 days before election day to facilitate the administration of voting in these institutions. This period would allow Elections Canada staff to coordinate with the staff of these long-term care institutions and ensure that residents can vote safely.
The bill proposes four measures to enhance access to mail-in voting for all Canadians. This measure makes sense when we know that mail-in voting was the preferred tool used in many countries such as the United States, where nearly two-thirds of voters voted by mail during the presidential election. According to Elections Canada, up to five million voters would choose mail-in voting if there is an election during the pandemic.
First, the bill would allow voters to register online to be able to vote by mail. Then, it would allow voters to use an identification number, for example, like the one on a driver's licence, to confirm their identity and their place of residence in the context of mail-in voting.
It would install secure reception boxes at every polling station and at the offices of the returning officers. This would allow those who cannot send their ballot by mail to deposit it securely.
The bill would allow people who initially chose to vote by mail to change their mind and vote in person, while protecting the integrity of the electoral process.
Together, these measures seek to ensure the security of an election that might be held during a pandemic by providing as many ways possible for voters to exercise their democratic rights.
It is important to note that these measures would be temporary. They would only apply to an election that is called 90 days after this legislation receives royal assent, or earlier if the Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that all the necessary preparations have been completed. These measures would cease to be in effect six months after a general election was administered during the pandemic or earlier, as determined by the Chief Electoral Officer after consultation with Canada's chief public health officer.
We must take steps now to ensure that the next election be held safely and that it be accessible to all voters.
I want to commend Elections Canada for its exceptional work and thank all those who are involved and who will be involved in administering a safe election in unprecedented circumstances.
I am pleased to take questions from and debate with my colleagues.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2021-05-07 10:02 [p.6883]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here and to recap the brilliant first 13 minutes of my speech in the last six minutes that I have.
First of all, with respect to an election in a pandemic, the most important point is that Canadians do not want an election in a pandemic. The most recent Ipsos poll on April 21 said that Canadians, in the majority, thought that it would be unsafe and unfair. It is important to take their views into account.
The Prime Minister clearly wants an election, and this is why the Liberals are spending so much effort ramming these bills through, and talking about the stalling and the delaying. At the end of the day, we want to put the health and safety of Canadians over that partisan interest.
Ontario is in lockdown, and some of the other provinces are similarly struggling with COVID-19. We have hotel quarantines. It is not safe to fly. Certainly with all of those messages out there, it would be hypocritical to try to hold an election in a pandemic.
In terms of the bill and the changes that are proposed, let me just give a little tour through the things I like and the things that I do not like. We have a tried-and-true democratic process in Canada. Canadians have had confidence in this process. I think we should minimize the changes that are proposed. If we need to do something to protect the health and safety of voters and workers, those are good changes. If the change does not support that, I am not sure we want to tamper with a process we all have confidence in.
The three-day election period is a very good idea. This would give more time for people to get to the polls and allow for COVID spacing protocols.
I like the idea of the ballot boxes for mail-in ballots at the polling stations. This was tried in the B.C. election and was very well received. With the expectation that there would be huge numbers of mail-in ballots, this would help address the capacity. If people leave it late, and they are worried that Canada Post would not deliver their ballot on time, they could drop it off at the polling station.
I like the electronic request for mail-in ballots; that is a great, progressive thing. As I understand it, the methodology is going to be that if people request a mail-in ballot, they would then not be eligible to show up and vote at the polling station. They would be taken off the polling station lists. That is a good way to prevent double voting. That is not specifically in the legislation and is something that should be detailed. That is the right protocol. I have spoken to many returning officers, and they have already been trained on these changes and that is their current understanding.
There are things I do not like in this bill. There are additional powers for the Chief Electoral Officer to make changes. I do not take issue with some of the specific ones that are cited. However, there is an overarching sense that he could basically do whatever he wants for health and safety; that is a bit broad. I would like to see some oversight from each of the parties that are participating in the election. That would be a great way to make sure that changes that are warranted are approved by the oversight, and that would keep us on track.
I have difficulty with counting ballots after election day. We have always counted everything right up to election day. I think people have confidence in that. We do not want to do anything to open the door to even perceived influence in our elections. The interesting thing is that in the bill, it says it would only be done if the Monday of the election was a holiday. However, that is not the understanding of the many returning officers I have spoken to. They think they will count them if they show up by Tuesday. That is a clarification that needs to be made, both in the legislation and in the training.
The other thing, obviously, is to correct the English-French discrepancy. In the French it said that the ballots were going to be counted in the national capital, and in the English it said it would be done at the local returning office. My understanding is it is going to be done at the local returning office. I think that is the right place for it in order for them to be sure they have controlled who is requesting a mail-in ballot. They are sending out the kits, and they will then know who is not eligible to vote at the polling station. That is the way to go.
What is missing in the bill? There is a sunset clause in the preamble, but it did not make it into the bill. The government says these are temporary measures. How temporary? There is no description of what we are going to do about scrutineers and making sure that scrutineers are able to observe the process, especially with the COVID distancing.
The returning officers have been asked to prioritize vaccinations for the elderly or election workers. That is something that should be considered. It does not necessarily have to go in the bill.
A recommendation to change the hours of voting on Sunday will really limit the number of locations. We want those polling locations to have a lot of space so that they can do the COVID protocols, but if they start at 9 a.m. on Sunday, many churches will not participate. Putting that timing from 2 p.m. until 9 p.m. might allow more location flexibility.
There was a proposal for electronic voters lists so that at every polling station, somewhat like they do provincially, we would be able to see who is off the list. That would be good. What to do if what happened in Newfoundland occurs here? We definitely need to see that contingency plan and I did not see that in the bill.
It looks like that is the end of my whirlwind tour.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the government's legislation designed to make changes to the Canada Elections Act in the case of a potential pandemic election.
Over the past year, Canadians have changed much about what they are doing every day. They have changed how they do grocery shopping, how they do their work and how they socially interact with one another. In the same way, we have to start thinking about how we might change how we hold federal elections to reflect the realities of the pandemic. This is especially important in a minority Parliament, where things are not quite as stable as a majority and elections are a little more frequent.
Before I get into the government's legislation, it is important to note right off the bat that the government should not unnecessarily jeopardize the health of Canadians through an election. This pandemic continues to put a strain on all Canadians, and the last thing they need is the government putting their health on the line because the Liberals think it is good for them politically. Canadians are doing their best to keep their families safe and healthy, despite the challenges of COVID-19. Unfortunately, the government has already, on multiple occasions, threatened to send Canadians to the polls, risking their health and safety, instead of answering questions about the failed elements of its pandemic response or its ethical scandals. I was happy that, when this was discussed at the procedure and House affairs committee, the Liberal members actually agreed with this and included it in our final report.
Sadly, it seems as though the Liberal members of that committee do not hold much sway with the PMO. I only say this because, even though the government knew that PROC was working on a report that would help inform its legislation, the minister bypassed all the work of the committee and introduced Bill C-19 without taking any of the expert testimony into account. Some members of the procedure and House affairs committee are now talking about a prestudy of Bill C-19 that would rehash a lot of the same ground covered in the initial study. This suggestion could only make sense because all of the evidence was ignored the first time around.
However, with that discussion out of the way, I am happy to get into the meat of Bill C-19 and discuss the positives and negatives of it. I always try to look at things fairly, and I can honestly say that in my time as an MP I have not shied away from saying there are things in a bill that are not okay. Even if I do not like the whole thing, I like to try to find good in legislation from all sides. Members could even see that last night with the budget, and there are some good things here in Bill C-19.
For example, I am happy to see the inclusion of multiple voting days, which would be called a “polling period”. Having more than one voting day would help ensure that Canadians can come out to vote in as normal a fashion as possible, while still spacing out timing and physical distancing. Another flexible option we know already exists in Canada is the opportunity for mail-in ballots. However, in previous elections this method has not been used to the extent that we expect would happen in a pandemic election. The Chief Electoral Officer has said that we could see five million mail-in ballots if the government calls a pandemic election. We need to make sure we are prepared to receive and process these. We have spoken to Canada Post and it has assured us it is ready; we need to make sure we are ready as well.
The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for making sure Canadians know that mail-in ballots are an option. However, Bill C-19 would offer a helpful way for Canadians to be able to apply for their mail-in ballot online. To be clear, Canadians would not be able to vote online, only to apply for their hard-copy mail-in ballot. As I am sure Canadians agree, a pandemic is certainly not the time to consider massive new sweeping changes to the electoral system, such as online voting. However, allowing Canadians to apply online for their special ballot would be a positive change to help enhance flexibility.
Another positive addition of Bill C-19 would be the installation of reception boxes—
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-05-07 10:49 [p.6890]
Mr. Speaker, leadership often requires making difficult decisions. A good leader makes decisions in the best interests of the people. A bad leader makes decisions in the best interests of him or herself, often to the detriment of the people.
Since the beginning of this pandemic, the government has used the phrase “unprecedented times” to justify many ludicrous actions, such as when it tried to get away with giving itself unlimited taxing and spending powers until 2022, or when it replaced Parliament with a special committee where only certain questions were permitted, or when Parliament was prorogued in order to cover up the Prime Minister's scandal: the unethical conduct he engaged in with the WE Charity Foundation. All of these actions were taken in the name of “unprecedented times”.
Canadians are watching and are catching on. They are beginning to see a pattern wherein the government is exploiting the pandemic in order to engineer scenarios that benefit it politically. This bill is another example of exactly that. While no one would suggest that we do not want to be prepared for an eventual election with a minority Parliament, we also need to be aware that the COVID-19 crisis continues to worsen. Canadians are losing their businesses. We have the highest unemployment rate in the G7 and we have a runaway deficit with zero plan for economic recovery.
Any reasonable person would understand that other priorities need to take precedence over calling an election. In fact, every single party has said it does not want an election, speaking on behalf of what they are hearing from Canadians. What are the Liberals thinking about? They are thinking about sending Canadians to the polls in the middle of a pandemic.
We have learned from the Prime Minister that talk is cheap. He has said his government cares about protecting Canadians, but when it comes down to it, all he seems to care about is protecting his own job. Why else would this bill be rushed through the House of Commons before receiving a report that is supposed to come forward from the Procedure and House Affairs Committee? This committee conducted a study specifically on having an election during the COVID-19 pandemic. Why is there a rush? Why act so quickly? Could it be that the Prime Minister is in fact trying to time things just right so that he can go to the polls when it is most politically advantageous for him to do so? Again, a good leader would govern in the interests of the people.
Many components of this bill are cause for serious concern. They grant the Chief Electoral Officer unprecedented powers to extend the vote time, to allow mail-in ballots to be counted past the deadline, to determine what is satisfactory proof of identity and residence and to accelerate the timeline for these changes to go into effect. I do not believe I need to inform the House of what happens when a large portion of the public questions the validity of election results. Let us just say that chaos ensues.
For democracy to work, it is imperative that the public have confidence in the electoral process. Given that there are so many uncertainties at this time, the government should ensure that the rules are definitive and clear. Instead, we see the opposite in this legislation. This bill gives significant discretionary powers to the Chief Electoral Officer and creates a ton of uncertainty for voters.
While I can appreciate that adjustments need to be made to accommodate safety precautions and various health measures, I believe we should come with concrete rules, not arbitrary guidelines that can be modified on the whim of an individual. This is a recipe for disaster.
What is needed? Any additional powers given to the Chief Electoral Officer should be subject to approval by each party represented in the House of Commons. After election day, no mail-in ballots should be counted. Straying from this norm could create an opportunity for all sorts of problems, and we see this in other countries. Perhaps most importantly, this bill, which will amend the Canada Elections Act in response to COVID-19, must have a sunset clause. We have seen the Liberals attempt to entrench pandemic policies post-pandemic. That cannot be the case with the amendments being made to this legislation. This bill must stop being in effect after the pandemic has subsided. It is so important that this bill have a sunset clause.
Another change to the Canada Elections Act the Liberals are proposing with this piece of legislation is to allow polling stations at long-term care homes to commence 13 days before the end of the election. This one makes zero sense. Sadly, the pandemic has illuminated very tragic realities in senior care homes across this country. Based on the statistics, the elderly are most vulnerable when it comes to suffering from COVID-19 and the loss of life. Instead of minimizing potential exposure, the government now thinks it would be a good idea to have polling stations open even longer, therefore maximizing the opportunity for exposure to COVID-19.
In what world does that make sense? There is zero evidence for this change to the act. It is putting our most vulnerable at risk, and it must not go through. It is ludicrous. It is silly. It is incomprehensible. Clearly the Liberals are in a hurry to hold an election in the middle of a pandemic, and they are putting their partisan interests above the health and well-being of people, the elderly and those with disabilities in particular.
Canadians do not want an election in the middle of a pandemic. We saw the spikes in COVID cases after the B.C. election and the Saskatchewan election. Just imagine what that would look like on a federal level. By not considering the testimony of the health officials appearing during the committee study, the Prime Minister has wasted the valuable time of public health officials and the valuable advice they have offered.
The Liberals have continued to scheme to push through this legislation as quickly as possible, when they should have been prioritizing Canadians and our economic recovery as well as our health. There are legitimate concerns about this new legislation's effect on the safety of seniors, those in long-term care and those with disabilities. I dare say there are concerns for all Canadians.
Canadians deserve clarity around their electoral process and any changes to it, especially if they are forced to go to the polls in the potentially high-risk environment of a worsening pandemic. This bill brings uncertainty and puts vulnerable Canadians at risk at a time when so many Canadians are just trying to keep their heads above water.
It would be nice to see the leader of this country divert some attention from himself and his political career toward the Canadian public and what is in their best interests. The pandemic has exposed the true colours of the Liberal government and where its focus lies. The crafting of this legislation, and the speed at which it is being pushed forward, are prime examples. It is undeniable that this bill was unilaterally constructed on behalf of the Liberals and for the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada, not the Canadian people.
Our focus as parliamentarians should be on Canadians: on their health, safety, welfare and future. We need to see an economic recovery plan, not a Liberal election plan, as was provided in the 2021 budget. Democracy in Canada has taken some significant hits from the government currently in power. It would be my hope that for the remainder of the House, those on the side of opposition would band together and take a stand on behalf of the Canadian people, insisting on good legislation as we move forward.
It would be my hope, then, that we do not continue the trend of a declining democracy and that we vote against this legislation as it stands today.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-05-07 12:26 [p.6908]
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners note that natural time-tested immune system essentials and holistic health practices do not receive enough attention for their role in preventative health care. They are calling upon the government to educate and empower Canadians on holistic approaches to optimize and maintain their natural immunity and well-being; cover practices for health sustainability and wellness care under the Health Act, including chiropractor care, massage therapy, acupuncture and naturopathic medicines; and support, promote and enhance Canadians' access to holistic health services and natural products.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2021-05-06 19:34 [p.6843]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Jonquière.
There is nothing trivial about the reason we are here tonight. However, is the shutdown of Line 5 really so imminent, given the Canada-U.S. treaty on cross-border pipelines? Basically, the treaty states that the countries will not take unilateral action on existing pipelines.
Another question might be asked. In the event of a shutdown, is the reality as frightening as the worst-case scenario painted by the official opposition?
The issue of Enbridge's Line 5 gives us an opportunity to discuss the necessary energy transition that Canada must embark on and to put into perspective the legitimate reasons for Governor Whitmer's actions, which were neither spontaneous nor unpredictable.
The issue at the root of the debate over Enbridge's Line 5 is environmental safety. We need to know the truth about how safe the pipeline is. Given that in 2010, the pipeline spilled the equivalent of 20,000 barrels of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the public and government authorities have every right to be concerned about waterway health and safety.
The Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, criticizes the company for persistently violating the easement's terms and conditions and for not doing enough to protect the Great Lakes, contrary to what the Minister of Natural Resources said earlier about the company.
The governor says Enbridge has routinely refused to take action to protect the Great Lakes and the millions of Americans who depend on them for clean drinking water and good jobs. She also said the company has repeatedly violated the terms of the 1953 easement by ignoring structural problems that put the Great Lakes and families at risk.
The concerns of the American stakeholders are therefore nothing new. In fact, the concerns of the State of Michigan predate Ms. Whitmer's time in office. She is just the one who decided to take action. Inevitably, this will generate some discontent and concerns. It will force this oil company to review its priorities because, suddenly, the company has crossed the line and someone finally said no.
For that matter, why did Enbridge routinely refuse to be proactive about managing Line 5, particularly in the sensitive Straits of Mackinac? When the company itself reported defects in the protective coating of its structure, noting erosion and damage caused by commercial tugs, why did it fail to show any integrity?
Michigan could also be using the threat of shutting it down to force Enbridge to upgrade its bloody pipeline in order to make it safer. The company is loath to spend the money, so it is using every tool it can think of, including lobbying politicians. The Governor of Michigan is fed up, and the writing has been on the wall for quite some time.
Between 1996 and 2014, Enbridge was responsible for 1,276 spills totalling nearly 10 million gallons of oil in both the United States and Canada. These data are conservative. Why? Because they are Enbridge's data. Do not bother looking for those figures on the company's website. They were there at one point but have since been removed. The documents I consulted, which are very well referenced, reveal another worrying problem, and that is how much power this industry has when it comes to Canadian regulators.
I encourage everyone to search for the words “national energy board” and “Enbridge” in the May 2, 2016, edition of Canada's National Observer. Members might be surprised by what they learn. It is enlightening.
The Bloc Québécois cannot condone the behaviour and reactions of Enbridge and the Department of Natural Resources to Governor Whitmer's announcement. The concerns are legitimate. Michigan was already affected in 2010. The governor has decided to focus on prevention rather than remediation.
I want to be clear. We do care about the repercussions of this measure if it goes ahead. Still, we have concerns. We do not support pipelines, and we certainly do not want to continue to rely on an outdated energy source.
Such transitions take time and planning. If we plan changes and anticipate challenges and solutions, moving away from oil is not only feasible, it is close at hand.
We know that a legal, political and diplomatic showdown between Enbridge, U.S. authorities and the Government of Canada is approaching. We would like to remind members that Quebec's refineries can quickly implement a plan B and switch to other sources of supply. We should also remember that Newfoundland and Labrador is Canada's third-largest producer, so depending on what happens with Line 5, planning for supply from this region would be wise.
Nevertheless, the pipelines running beneath our rivers will continue to pose a risk to environmental safety, and the transportation of oil and gas via pipelines will continue to face political opposition, as it should.
The current situation should spur us to make the energy transition. In Quebec, the transportation sector is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter, accounting for more than 80% of total emissions. Quebec's transportation electrification industry is booming, and our expertise, whose development we have made a priority, should serve as an example to the rest of Canada.
We do not manufacture cars in Quebec, but we do manufacture trains, buses, streetcars, subway cars and public transit vehicles that are all well suited to zero-emission electric technology. We are on the right track to get our transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions down.
We need federal zero-emission legislation. The more electric transportation evolves, the less dependent we will be on oil. Supply issues will gradually go away, and we will keep our money within our own economy.
Sure, there are costs associated with the transition. The financial argument is often invoked to convince people that we must continue relying on fossil fuels, but we need to be vocal about the real cost of energy and gas, which is much higher than the price we pay at the pump. The real cost includes the upstream and downstream environmental costs, in terms of the environmental damage created by the extraordinarily dirty extraction process, soil contamination and threats to wildlife, on top of the environmental costs of atmospheric pollution caused by burning oil here and in other countries.
Add to that the social costs, including the cost to our health care system, due to the prevalence of illnesses directly related to air pollution, especially the growing number of children and even babies with lung or respiratory issues. Plus, there is all the public money paid in subsidies and tax benefits to the oil and gas industry to sustain a dying industry, starting with the obscene Trans Mountain pipeline.
What about the cost of clean-up? How do we describe the losses incurred during oil spills? According to the International Monetary Fund, the global negative externalities for 2017 alone amount to more than $2 trillion U.S.
Again, Canada's landscape is conducive to clean, renewable energy. The wind, solar and geothermal energy industries are reaching out to the government. The government just has to accept. The technology and resources are there.
The Conservatives are resolutely defeatist about their ability to break up with the extractive industries, while the Liberals insist on fuelling dependence on fossil fuels while claiming to favour a green transition. We are not fools. This is a green mirage.
Michigan's policy choices should be an eye-opener for us. They are certainly coming as a surprise to Enbridge and the powerful lobbies in their industry. Their track record, their failure to live up to their commitments, their lax maintenance of their facilities, and the arrogance that comes from feeling untouchable have just caught up with them.
Canada, the G7 country that subsidizes oil and gas production the most in relation to its gross domestic product, the country that announces to the world that it is committed to fighting climate change and then turns around and authorizes oil drilling in a marine protected area, might have avoided a diplomatic crisis and what is happening today if it had intervened with Enbridge sooner.
When governments give everything to the oil companies, the companies end up thinking they are in charge. Gretchen Whitmer has shown them that they are not in charge anymore.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I will make this a quick comment because of the time constraints.
Just to add to that back and forth between the member for Repentigny and the member for Calgary Centre, Health Canada recently came out with a study which showed that air pollutants cost, in the health costs of Canadians, about $120 billion a year. That compares almost exactly with the value of Canadian fossil fuel exports, which is $122 billion a year. Fossil fuel exports are the same as our health costs. I agree that health costs have a much more personal impact.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2021-05-06 19:49 [p.6845]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
What price do we put on a life? What price do we put on the destruction of natural environments? As I said earlier, we need big steps to achieve a sustainable energy transition that will create good jobs and ensure better health.
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
2021-05-06 20:18 [p.6849]
Mr. Speaker, we have been talking a lot about the impacts on southwestern Ontario. My riding is quite close to Sarnia, and those job impacts will be felt if the closure happens quickly.
The member did an excellent job of showing that there needs to be that smart transition and what New Democrats have been calling for in terms of heading towards a low-carbon economy in the future.
A few days ago there was a study conducted by Western University, Lawson Health Research Institute. It talked about the evidence that showed exposure to high levels of pollution could significantly hinder the development of children and that it causes a lot of asthma. We have seen that in Sarnia. It is actually quite a bit higher, the incidence of child—
View Derek Sloan Profile
Ind. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to raise my concern with the idea, not expressed by this particular member, but by others, that lockdowns are the answers to all our problems. Of course, we can cherry-pick different examples that seem to have been effective, but there are many studies that undermine the idea that blanket lockdowns are effective. There are many jurisdictions, for example Florida in relation to California, that have not been doing the lockdowns and are doing quite well.
Acting quickly is advisable, and targeted measures can be advisable, but locking everyone and all businesses down, in my view, is not helpful. I would like to also mention that Canada has failed to implement any other treatments. I am just reading the latest issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics that has a meta-analysis of 18 different studies that show significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Let us try new things and do whatever we can to address this virus.
View Mike Lake Profile
CPC (AB)
View Mike Lake Profile
2021-05-05 21:52 [p.6737]
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I sensed a question in that, so maybe I will give someone else a chance to actually ask me a question.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Uxbridge, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.
It is an honour to rise today to talk about such an incredibly important issue.
The member from Edmonton asked why I was taking the approach that the Conservatives are being overly partisan about this. It is because they have come into the House, and every Conservative, one after another, has only talked about vaccines. Yes, vaccines are very important. They are important to getting through this. They are important to getting through to the other side, but there are other important things too.
When the Conservatives come in here and only talk about vaccines, it makes me wonder why they will not talk about things that the provincial governments are responsible for, or other things the federal government could be doing. I think there is a lot of criticism to go around.
As we look back on this years from now, we will be able to say the federal government should have done this, or the federal government should have been more prepared. I hope we learn from this. If we do not learn from this, then what will we have accomplished?
First and foremost, I hope we learn that we need to do something about our vaccine manufacturing in this country, our biomanufacturing of vaccines. We need to make sure that when the next pandemic happens, because history tells us it will at some point, we are better prepared.
I am willing to let that responsibility go around, and I am willing to say that Liberals were just as responsible for that as Conservatives were in the past, but I do not think anyone saw it coming. Therefore, there was not an urgent need placed on it. Yes, we do need to do something about making sure that it is better.
When history looks back on this, we will also look at ourselves and say, when we were weighing the options, did we put too much emphasis on the economy and not enough emphasis on the advice of medical professionals? I really get a kick out of some of the stuff I have heard, not just today in this debate, but over the last number of weeks and months, and how sometimes there seems to be a complete disregard for the experts and for science.
It is based on emotion. I do not want to say ideology, but it is based on emotion. I want this to be over too, but that does not mean I should believe everything I see on the Internet that suggests there is an easier way.
From the beginning, I have always said I will take my health advice from the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada and, more importantly, the medical officer of health in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, Dr. Kieran Moore, who has done a phenomenal job of taking care of our community. For some reason, there has been this desire out there to disregard experts. If we do not shut that narrative down, we are only complicit in helping that narrative snowball and build momentum. I think that people in the House are responsible for allowing narratives to continue on.
Who else should we trust? If I am on an airplane and the pilot suddenly passes out, and we are looking for someone to fly the plane, and someone says they are a pilot, I am going to tell them to get in the cockpit and land that thing. Likewise, I am going to believe the experts and the medical officers of health, the people who have studied pandemics and have planned for them, and take their advice.
When they say lockdowns are important, then I am going to believe them. I do not understand how a body such as this, the House of Commons, has come to a place where we regularly disagree with medical experts. It absolutely boggles my mind.
When the Conservatives come in here, they are only talking about vaccines. Yes, there is a lot we could have done to do a better job of making sure we were prepared, and that includes Conservatives, Liberals and opposition parties pushing the agenda.
I know there were no Conservatives before March 2020 asking why we were not making more vaccines in the country or where our manufacturing is for this. Nobody was saying that over the last five or 10 years. No Liberal was saying it when Stephen Harper was the prime minister either because we did not see this coming.
In the same regard, we have to respect the fact that we can criticize this government's approach and delivery of vaccines as a result of the infrastructure and resources that were in place. We can criticize that. It is fair to criticize. I think history can look back on that and see where we went wrong, where we went right and how it played out.
What we cannot be critical about is that the government did lay out the exact plan. The provinces knew what the timeline was going to be. They were told in the late fall what they should expect in terms of vaccines coming along.
The only part of that plan that had a hiccup was the 10 days back in February, which the Conservatives keep talking about, when one of the primary delivery manufacturers of vaccines retooled its plant so that it could produce more vaccines, but we still ended up getting caught up very quickly.
By the end of March, provinces received more vaccines than they were told they were going to have. They were originally scheduled to get 29 million vaccines by the end of June, but now they will be getting closer to 50 million. They are getting more vaccines than they were told they were going to get.
Yes, we can be critical, but the provinces knew this was the schedule. In Ontario, and I am sure it is the same in Alberta, the province, on February 11, had its projection of the third wave and knew exactly what it would be getting and when it would be getting it. The federal government delivered more than it promised, yet the provinces still did not use other measures in order to curb the third wave. Instead, they relied on hoping that maybe, miraculously, things would go even better than the schedule, which was a horrible plan.
I regret that we are here and having this conversation, as I am sure everybody does, but at the end of the day, I genuinely believe that, if a province wants to work with the federal government, it has to take the information we have been giving it on vaccines and plan according to that. They need to understand that medical experts are going to give them advice, and they could say the vaccines we are going to get will not get us beyond the third wave. They could say we better do something about this now and start talking about other measures, such as lockdowns.
I have yet to hear a Conservative tonight say that they support lockdowns, which I cannot understand because they have happened throughout the entire world, and they have been shown to be effective. This is just like two years ago when they could not utter the words “climate change”. They cannot even utter the words because they are afraid of saying it, and I do not know why.
View John Barlow Profile
CPC (AB)
View John Barlow Profile
2021-05-05 22:04 [p.6739]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that all the Conservatives are talking about is vaccines and how important they are, and that is exactly right. My colleague also said there is no way anyone predicted this pandemic was coming, which is patently not true. That is what our early warning was in place for, the GPHIN program, but the Auditor General's report showed how poorly the Liberals mishandled the early warning system by dismantling the GPHIN program.
Would my colleague not admit dismantling the GPHIN program, our early warning pandemic system, has played a significant role in the position we are in today?
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I go back to what I was saying. History can look back and judge that stuff, absolutely, but the situation Alberta is in right now—
An hon. member: It would have been better.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: No, the member cannot say that would have been significantly impacted. It has been a year. It has been over a year. How can he possibly say that?
Medical experts, as in Ontario, were predicting the trajectories of the waves for Alberta and could calculate that against the arrival of vaccines. They did the calculations, they knew how it was going to go. In Ontario, unfortunately, it happened exactly as predicted because the province would not put in the lockdowns when it should have.
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-05-05 22:07 [p.6739]
Mr. Speaker, it is important we reflect on the fact this motion is about an absolute public health crisis going on in a Canadian province right now. It is not just the risk to an individual. When our health system's capacity is overwhelmed, if someone gets in a car accident there may not be a place for them to go.
The Conservative argument has been essentially that their vaccines did not come quickly enough. If we accept their argument, which I do not, I still do not understand how it justifies not putting in place the other public health measures we know will save lives. Can the hon. member offer his thoughts on the importance of putting those public health measures in place until there is herd immunity through vaccination to ensure we can save lives we know will be lost in the absence of these kinds of measures?
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, this is the point I have been trying to make, and the parliamentary secretary is absolutely correct.
The province knew when it was going to get the vaccines. It also received professional medical advice from the experts as to what the waves would look like, yet it still chose not to take additional measures.
Absolutely, if vaccines came sooner we probably would not be standing in this place right now, but my point is the provinces knew we would be in this place right now. That is the whole point. They knew we would be here because they knew the trajectory of vaccines, and it has only been better than what they had been promised.
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands. I could have listened to a 20-minute speech by him. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also gave a speech that I really appreciated this evening. I will pick up on her speech, as well as the speech just given by the member for Kingston and the Islands. The point of this debate is truly important and they both touched on the theme. I am sure others have, but I am calling these two members out in particular.
Where the member for Kingston and the Islands finished off is where I would like to begin. He spoke about how we can look back at where we could have done things better, where things were done well, where we were a success story or where we need to be better prepared. He and I both came from municipal politics, where there were all these plans in place and after years and years of a pandemic or an emergency not coming, unfortunately, sometimes plans sit on the shelf. I am not saying that is the right approach, but the lessons we are learning are incredibly important and a constant reminder to never take our eye off emergency preparedness.
The member for Kingston and the Islands said that we can look back and do that work, but what has been frustrating in listening, in particular, to Conservative members is all they are doing is looking back. I made note of some of them. One pointed out where we were 52 days ago. My God, how the people of Alberta must feel hearing that tonight. What are we going to do today, tomorrow and the days and weeks after that to support and help the people in this country? We can look back on vaccines, we can look back on whatever else the Conservatives want to look back at, but are we not going to focus our collective energy to support the people in this country now?
I am listening to this debate as a member from Ontario and people in my home province are living it now. I think about the anxiety people felt when these spikes first happened, the confusion, the lockdowns, no lockdowns and the pointing of fingers. I think of my friends, neighbours and family who just want to know how we are going to get through this. That is what our government has been focusing on.
Many members have spoken about no country being perfect, but that does not mean we stop acting. It means we continue to move forward, to provide the supports the provinces and territories need. It means getting vaccines faster, getting the Red Cross out to support the vaccination efforts, if need be. It is seeing health care providers in Newfoundland and Labrador coming to Ontario to help support health care workers. It is seeing people step up in unimaginable ways during this time. It is what else the federal government can do.
As the member for Kingston and the Islands just said, we will work with provinces and territories and provide whatever they need, particularly in Alberta, providing mobile health units, contact tracing, rapid tests, funds for the safe restart agreement to help protect and insulate between the second and third waves, even between the first and second waves. The government has provided whatever each province and territory has needed. Every province and territory in this country is different, has different needs and requires different resources. We have been there. We have heard Quebec members talking about the supports needed in long-term care. We were there for that. We were there for PPE.
We should not be talking about all the things that we have done; we should talk about all the things we are going to continue to do until we are through this. That is what Canadians expect of us. That is what this debate should be about and why I noted the speech of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This is the debate we should be having.
Conservatives consistently stand up and say there is confusion and mixed messaging. Nothing has frustrated me more because the confusion and mixed messaging is coming from the Conservatives themselves. They can go back to early March of this year when their own health critic was saying to remove border restrictions, ease the border restrictions, that all they need is a pre-boarding test and then a test when they land and people should just go on their way. If we had listened to them, we would not have caught those people who had tested positive after being tested when they landed. They would not have been in isolation and they would have been out in the community. Again, there are additional measures we can continue to take and we will happily be here to support Canadians to do that.
They are Conservatives who constantly stand in this place and say, “we do not need restrictions, we need freedom”. The member for Carleton posts pictures when he is sitting outside, eating on a patio and goes, “freedom”. Then, they have the nerve to come in this place and say that vaccines would have solved everything when they refused to listen to the public health experts, and not even Canadian public health experts if they do not want to trust Canadians. Globally, we know that vaccines are an important tool, but they will only work if the public health measures are also in place.
The Conservatives love to quote the U.S. or Israel or the U.K. for their programs, but the U.K. and Israel both saw, during their vaccination campaigns, that as they lifted restrictions too quickly they saw spikes. We heard testimony from experts at the health committee. Governments there quickly realized that vaccinations are not the only tool, they have to be done in conjunction with strong public health measures to give vaccinations the time to work, the time to be distributed across the communities and to become effective.
It is this ignorance of listening to the public health advice, which is not governments' opinions but public health advice, that is frustrating to watch because I see people suffering, I see small businesses close and I see people being sick. To send out a message saying that if only we had done this nobody would have suffered is simply unfair to Canadians. We need to be honest with Canadians that as our vaccine campaign is rolling out and everybody needs to roll up their sleeves and get vaccinated, we also need to listen to the public health advice. Those mixed messages coming from the Conservatives, saying lockdowns are not needed and looser border measures would be okay are just not truthful, are not helpful and are certainly not going to help the people of Alberta or those in my home province of Ontario or anywhere else across this country as we battle this third wave.
I hope we get to the point where we are having conversations about what more we can do to support Alberta, what more we can do to support any jurisdiction in this country to get through this third wave, and actually acknowledge and admit that the public health measures are there to work in conjunction with vaccines and that we are only going to get through this if we listen to the experts and medical health professionals who know what they are talking about. We have seen it work in other countries, so we do not even need to imagine it; we know it is real. I truly hope that the Conservative members will come and work with us on helping to support our fellow Canadians during this difficult time.
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-05-05 22:53 [p.6745]
Madam Speaker, for reasons others have articulated previously this evening, I vehemently disagree with the member on the success of Canada's vaccine procurement. However, if I accept her position that the federal government's procurement strategy has been insufficient, I cannot find a charitable interpretation of her argument that would suggest that public health measures today in Alberta would not be required to stem the spread of COVID-19.
What public health measures does the hon. member think should be implemented in order to protect the public's health until sufficient vaccines are present to innoculate the population?
View Stephanie Kusie Profile
CPC (AB)
View Stephanie Kusie Profile
2021-05-05 22:53 [p.6745]
Madam Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary had a brief residence in Alberta. I had the pleasure of sitting on the status of women committee with him.
The way out of this is the vaccine. It could not be more crystal clear than that, so the focus should be on receiving the vaccines, distributing the vaccines and getting them into the arms of Canadians. Everything that is going on now, this week, all of the sacrifices that Albertans have been making and will continue to make even more severely in the coming three weeks are the residue of this government's inaction.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to be able to speak about Alberta, the province I grew up in, live in, represent and love so much.
This is an important debate. I will say it has also at times been an odd debate, odd I think because the federal New Democrats, especially my hon. friend from Edmonton Strathcona, are using the federal House of Commons to offer a highly partisan critique of the UCP government in Alberta. I am not here to praise or critique the UCP government. I think I have enough to do seeking to hold the federal government accountable in the federal House of Commons, to push it to adopt policies that are in the national interest and protect Canadians by getting us out of this pandemic.
The NDP members have declared that Canadians do not care about jurisdiction, they want politicians to act. To this, I would observe that jurisdictional details are actually extremely important to how we resolve this crisis. The federal government cannot impose gathering restrictions and provincial governments cannot control borders. Everyone needs to do their job in their own area of jurisdiction. It is silly to pretend that jurisdictional responsibility does not matter. Jurisdictional responsibility is crucial. Politicians need to understand where their responsibilities lie. Then they need to act in those areas of responsibility to do their part to get the outcomes that we are all looking for.
What we have seen during too much of this crisis is an obscuring of responsibility. It is not just the NDP; many federal Liberals have also taken every opportunity to slam the actions of various provincial governments. That might be understandable if the federal government had carried off its own responsibilities flawlessly, but that is far from the case, so now instead of acting effectively it is often shifting responsibility.
I want to pose what I think is the fundamental question for this conversation, the question Canadians have been asking for a long time. Let us end the finger-pointing between different levels of government and let us establish who is responsible for solving the problem of COVID-19 in Canada. Who is responsible for getting us out of this crisis, for charting a course to something different, for building a plan to get us beyond the current pandemic? Who is responsible?
Too often we hear from the provinces that the feds should do certain things, we hear from the feds about what the provinces should do, meanwhile both are saying they are deferring to experts. The public health experts in different jurisdictions do not always agree with each other and do not actually have the ability to publicly contradict the politicians they report to.
Further, when it comes to expertise, it is, by its nature, specialized. One expert may be well placed to tell us about the spread of a disease, but less able to explain the social factors that contribute to whether or not people follow guidelines in certain situations. A different expert still may be required to explain the impacts on life and well-being that are associated with large-scale unemployment caused by certain kinds of policies. The point is that generally we expect politicians to gather the feedback of different experts and make a decision that synthesizes that feedback and applies collective values as dictated by the electorate. That is the point of having a democracy instead of an aristocracy of expertise.
Today, the politicians say they are deferring to the experts when in reality the experts still report in private to politicians and politicians are the ones actually taking decisions, so again there is a lack of clarity about who is actually responsible. When I say “who” is responsible, I am not intending to refer to the World Health Organization, although it is evident that many people in this government would like to defer responsibility for their decisions to the WHO, even though it has been clear from the beginning there have been serious flaws in its approach and recommendations. The WHO is ultimately constrained by its member states. As we have seen, that has limited its action in particular, for instance, in response to identifying issues coming out of China at the beginning. There has been a lot of just passing back and forth the—
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I was of course intending to say that I was splitting my time. I was saving that for the ninth minute, just to make sure Sean and Sebastien are still awake.
There has been much passing back and forth of responsibility throughout this. It goes without saying that there have been mistakes made at lots of levels, but what we need now is to stop this extended process of finger pointing, and for someone to finally stand up and say, “I am responsible and I have a plan to get us out of this.” That person, the person we need to show national leadership, take responsibility and give us a plan for getting us out of this pandemic is the Prime Minister. He has the opportunity, better late than never, to step up and work to unite this country and work to build a safe recovery by leading from those critical areas of federal responsibility.
In my view, the most critical actions required for a long-term solution to this pandemic are all in federal jurisdiction. Therefore, I want to give the Prime Minister some suggestions about what a path would look like to get us out of this in federal jurisdictions.
Making vaccines available to Canadians is critically important. Much has been said, I think very well, by my colleagues about the government's failure to do that. However, as we have also discussed, vaccines are not the whole picture.
We live in an increasingly interconnected world where pandemics are going to become more and more common. Locking ourselves down and bringing our nation to the precipice of a debt crisis every time there is a novel virus outbreak or a vaccine-resistant variant, and then waiting for vaccine development is likely not going to be a viable strategy in the 21st century.
We need to learn how and act to build a system that allows us to stay safe and stay open during pandemics like this. Some countries have done that. Some countries beat COVID-19 long before there was a vaccine. I spoke about that in a question that I addressed to the health minister on March 25, 2020, well over a year ago. Here is what I said at the time:
Madam Chair, Canada must look at international comparisons and copy strategies used by countries that have been successful in controlling COVID-19. South Korea provides one such example. Its approach emphasizes widely available testing and tracking of the spread of the virus, making people aware of specific places where they might have been exposed and providing them with the test results as quickly as possible. This targeted testing and tracking approach has helped South Korea turn the corner. Taiwan's approach has been similar and similarly effective.
Has the government studied, and is the government preparing to adopt, the very successful containment model used by Asian democracies which also have more experience at pandemic control?
I asked the health minister that on March 25, 2020, more than a year ago, and the health minister replied that yes, they were looking at these models and different experiences around the world, and yet, we still have not seen the plan to implement some of those successful measures.
Earlier than that, on March 11 of the same year, I tabled a petition in the House calling on the government to strengthen border screening, including having effective temperature testing at the border. Because the federal government has responsibility for developing and approving new testing technology, for coordinating national systems of tracing, for securing our borders and, yes, for providing clear and accurate advice on masking, something else that the government unfortunately failed to do, it has failed to act and has, in many cases yet to act, in terms of putting in place the systems and charting the path that is going to get us out of this. That points to why we are still really in the midst of a third wave that has not hit many other countries around the world, a third wave that is in Canada and it is hitting every province at different magnitudes in different provinces. We have a third wave hitting this country because of a failure of the federal government to act in areas of its jurisdictions.
I agree strongly with my colleagues about the vital necessity of making vaccines available. The Province of Alberta has been rapidly deploying vaccines as they have been made available, but we also must develop systems of effective border control, testing and tracing, things that the federal government must lead on.
On the issue of responsibility, it is important to say that it is not just about government. All of us are responsible. For our collective response to COVID-19 to work, citizens must choose to be engaged and there has to be a level of social trust.
People have to listen to health directives and follow them. It goes without saying that the spread of COVID-19 is determined by the practical actions of people on the ground, and it is only affected by the regulations that are in place insofar as those regulations are followed. However, trust also has to be earned. When we have a national government that has been inconsistent in the advice it has given, and that is routinely attacking the Province of Alberta and other provinces, it unfortunately undermines trust. The government, in addition to the policy measures, needs to work to rebuild trust with people on the ground, especially people in my province.
With that, I look forward to responding to questions.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-04-29 11:12 [p.6387]
Mr. Speaker, as luck would have it, today is the day that I get my first vaccination. I am 66 years old. I have been waiting my turn, and I am being very careful.
I regret this kind of debate because of the level of partisanship in it. I suspect that if the constitutional responsibilities were different so that it was up to the provinces to order the vaccines and up to the feds to do other aspects, the Conservatives would want to debate how terrible it is that the vaccine rollout is bad and what a great job the provinces are doing in ordering vaccines.
I do not think that is the right approach. I think we run a risk. Number one, I wish we were doing better in getting our vaccines rolled out, and I agree with much of what the member for Calgary Nose Hill has said. However, I also think we are at a real risk with the variants, as many have warned, including the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.K. and Israel. They are all looking at the situation and saying that people should not reduce their level of caution because they have gotten the first vaccine. We could run a risk with variants that are resistant to vaccines. The longer the variants move in our population, the more we will get.
In a holistic approach, does my hon. colleague agree with me that we need to do more to protect ourselves from the variants, as they move as aerosols, not as droplets?
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2021-04-29 11:13 [p.6387]
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very glad to hear that the hon. member will be getting her jab. I know she will feel, as millions of Canadians have, the relief that comes with it. I certainly wish her good luck, and hope, of course, that she continues to be cautious when it comes to looking after her health.
Indeed, we want to follow the most up-to-date science in making sure that Canadians protect themselves against all possible permutations of this virus. We want to make sure that Canadians continue to follow all of the public health prescriptions for masks, distancing and washing hands, and do that right through to when we achieve herd immunity. I know we are all looking forward to that day.
We will continue, on our part, bringing in vaccines as quickly as possible so that Canadians can get the two doses that are needed in most cases, except with the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The two-dose regime will bring a lot of relief, and it will bring a lot of hope to Canadians that the pandemic will soon be behind us.
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
View Julie Vignola Profile
2021-04-29 11:33 [p.6389]
Gosh darn it, Mr. Speaker, I have had enough of this pandemic. I am completely fed up, I want no truck with it, and I grew up in Fermont, where we like our trucks, so that is saying something.
Like everyone here, in February, I asked some questions of the government, specifically the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement. When doing so, I told them that I hoped that they would succeed in meeting their vaccine procurement objectives, but I also told them that I was worried about the fact that Canada was so highly dependent on foreign countries.
That has nothing to do with the ability of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to negotiate. She lives up to her reputation as an organized, determined and hard-working woman. The current results regarding the procurement of vaccines lend support to that reputation, despite the delays.
Today we are debating a motion moved by a woman who is just as organized, just as determined and just as hard-working. That is why this motion surprises me.
I would like to explain my surprise by commenting on each aspect of the motion. Let us keep in mind that the motion is calling on the government to ensure that every Canadian has access to a vaccine by the May long weekend, which is when Quebec celebrates National Patriots Day and the rest of Canada celebrates Victoria Day.
The first paragraph of the motion states that 2.7% of Canadians are fully vaccinated. However, 33.7% of Quebeckers have received their first dose, as have 29.9% of Canadians, which places them 8th and 13th in global rankings, respectively.
When the Conservative Party calls on the government to ensure that every Canadian has access to a vaccine, does it mean access to two doses, given that the percentage referenced is for fully vaccinated Canadians? If so, that would mean the Conservative Party wants almost 74 million doses to arrive and be administered by May 20. That would mean receiving and administering over 3.5 million doses per day.
In Quebec alone, that is almost 775,000 doses to receive and administer each day. Since Canada is not a vaccine producer, I do not see how it would be humanly possible to do that. We have to be realistic.
After doing a few calculations, I was sure I had made a mistake. Maybe the motion is asking for one dose per person by May 20. That involves the receipt and administration of 26 million doses by May 20, or 1.2 million doses received and administered each day across the country. That means more than 271,000 doses received and administered each day in Quebec alone. That is a lot.
I reread the motion, and thought that not every Canadian wants to be vaccinated. Maybe the Conservative Party wants to achieve herd immunity, or about an 80% vaccination rate? I crunched the numbers again: herd immunity at 80% means 20.8 million doses received by May 20, one dose per person, so more than 990,000 doses received and administered each day, and more than 217,000 doses received and administered each day in Quebec alone.
Then I thought that maybe 80% of Canadians do not want to be vaccinated. We cannot force people to get the vaccine. Only those who want it will get it. How can you calculate the desire to be vaccinated? How do you calculate the number of people? It is impossible to calculate the number of doses we need.
In short, how many vaccines will the Conservative Party force the government to receive, and Quebec and the other provinces to administer, each day?
With respect to the second point in the motion, the federal government failed to ensure a sufficient and constant supply in January and February. We all agree on that.
That being said, I would like to point out that past policies and decisions made by both the Liberal and the Conservative parties created a situation in which pharmaceutical companies packed up and left Canada, making us extremely vulnerable not only to what happens in this country, but to our relations with other countries. We are dependent. That is the problem we must work to resolve, both in legislation and on the ground.
For example, India's doses of AstraZeneca are staying in India, which is seeing 200,000 deaths a day. India wants to protect its own people. Is the motion asking, between the lines, that Canada oblige countries to supply us with vaccines despite their own situation, putting the lives of their own people and the health of their own economy at risk to save ours?
Knowing how generous and kind my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill is, I know that that is not the case. Nevertheless, the result is the same: We are dependent on what we can get from other countries. That is what we need to work on. We have the specialists, the knowledge and the workers we need not to be dependent. That is what we must focus on. We must make sure that we never find ourselves so dependent again.
The third point in the motion establishes that the government extended the recommended interval for the second vaccine dose to four months against the recommendations of vaccine manufacturers.
I remember that, in January, the Liberal government said in a press conference that it was irresponsible of Quebec to give as many people as possible their first shot and to give them their second three to four months later.
Only fools never change their minds. Canada has now adopted Quebec's strategy. The United Kingdom also successfully adopted the strategy, authorities in France and Belgium have announced similar measures, and other countries in the European Union are considering following their lead. The aim is to ensure that as many people as possible get at least one shot. The first dose is 75% effective. That slows the spread of the virus.
No one enjoys living under these restrictions. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am eager for a return to normalcy. A grandmother wrote to tell me that she has not hugged her grandchildren in more than a year. She was angry, and I understand. A friend of mine closed her hair salon and made a career change. She had been considering it, but the repeated closure of non-essential services hastened her decision. My own mother has not seen her grandchildren in months. That being said, what would have happened if we had not imposed any measures at all? We saw what happened in countries around the world. Let us rather focus on the refusal to take swift action, particularly when it came to closing the border.
I would like to return to the first point, that is, the number of vaccines needed. Today's motion does not take into account the ability of Quebec and the provinces to administer the vaccine. It represents an unknown number of vaccines, perhaps as many as 775,000 doses per day in Quebec alone. Do Quebec and the provinces have the necessary infrastructure and personnel? Health care workers are exhausted, and we would be asking them to work 24/7 in addition to hiring new personnel.
The motion's vagueness on the number of doses required and the fact that it does not take into account the capacity to administer the vaccine, both in Quebec and in the Canadian provinces, mean that I cannot support the motion, with all due respect to my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. Let us focus on ways to ensure that Canada will never again have to depend on other countries to survive future disasters and crises.
Of course, mistakes have been made. There is still room for improvement, even today, but let us look toward the future. Let us make sure these mistakes are never repeated, so we can move forward, restart our economy, hug our loved ones and have a beer on a patio with friends. Vaccination is how we get there.
Demanding an excessive number of vaccines, given the capacity of Quebec and the Canadian provinces to administer the doses, is pointless. This debate is not helpful. Let us get the first round of vaccines into arms quickly. We need to be specific, fair and equitable.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-04-23 12:17 [p.6101]
Madam Speaker, the second petition highlights that proactive holisitic health practices play an important role in building immune system strength and help to keep people healthy. The petitioners are concerned that there is not enough focus on proactive health and wellness care. The petitioners request that the Government of Canada increase the focus on education and empowering Canadians on holistic approaches to optimize and maintain their natural immunity and well-being. They call upon the government to include proactive health and wellness care practices in the Canada Health Act and enhance access to these services.
View Hedy Fry Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Hedy Fry Profile
2021-04-22 12:29 [p.6018]
Madam Speaker, I am so proud to speak to this budget. The hon. member laid out the vision behind this budget extremely well, and I want to follow up on it.
This is a historic budget, presented by Canada's first female finance minister. I am proud because I can see the fine hand of the Deputy Prime Minister in that budget. I can see her thinking and her vision, because it is a clear, logical, visionary budget. It is laid out in three themes, as any logical budget would do. It is a budget about people. It is about protecting people, that is the first theme; it is about supporting people, that is the second theme; and it is about investing long term in people, that is the third theme.
We are facing the greatest global human and economic catastrophe since World War II, and I think we need to remember that. This is not a crisis caused by some human error or economic mistake made by others. It is caused by a virus that is currently in full control. I want us to think about the nature of this catastrophe, because we seem to lay blame in this House for who is responsible for what and why we are not controlling the virus very well.
With the exception of Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan, every country is in lockdown right now, struggling against a third wave of mutations of the virus. Actually, Canada is holding its head above water. We hear fears raised about deficits and spending, etc. I want to ask my colleagues if we should have abandoned Canadians, or abandoned provinces that, constitutionally, have the ability to deliver health care. We have not done that.
We have invested $8 out of every $10 in the provinces and vaccines, giving provinces what they need in order to deliver health care, personal protective equipment, testing, tracing, surveilling, and ensuring the basics of epidemiology, which are test, trace, surveil and isolate when necessary, are followed. We have supplied the provinces with the money to be able to do all of that. However, it is their duty under the Constitution to deliver on that.
I want to say what the IMF said about our early response, which is the first theme in this budget. Because Canada used public health policies, grounded and guided by science and expertise, we were able to deal with the first wave of COVID in a very reasonable manner.
The variants are the problem right now. Until we can flatten the curve and until we get rid of COVID, nothing, no economic redevelopment, no starting of any economy, no transition, and no ability to plan for the future, will occur. Job one is getting that virus contained.
One of the things we did when it first started, as the IMF pointed out, to deal with this was we funded, $8 out of $10, the provinces and gave them the ability to deliver health care in a manner they felt fit their particular province and region. In many cases we have seen across the country that the provinces have different responses. Some have done well, as in the Atlantic provinces, and others have not done so well. That is because provinces are dealing with health care on the ground in their provinces. That is an important thing to remember. The federal government cannot suddenly impose on provinces and tell them what we think they need to do.
This is the first part, protecting Canadians, which we have done extremely well. The IMF said that we are one of the countries that did extremely well, using science and expertise to do it.
I could sit here and say that we are putting $40 billion into this and $3 billion over two years and whatever into things we have done. However, I am hoping members have read the budget and know where all the money is going and for what reasons.
I want to talk a little about the vision behind this budget. The point is we were, and are still, trying to flatten the curve. The second part of the budget is supporting Canadians, supporting workers, families, seniors and vulnerable Canadians, and supporting businesses and helping them to stay afloat. That part of the budget was about supporting Canadians so that they could survive and cope, and so that businesses, if not rising above it because nobody can rise above it until COVID is gone, could tread water.
When the time comes, and we are ready to move forward again and rebuild a new economy, small businesses will be ready to hit the ground running. That is why we looked at putting in place the wage supplement and the rent supplement for people who lost their jobs. That is why we looked to increasing sickness leave. That is how we saw the vulnerable in our society, which COVID exposed to us.
There are all of the women who had to leave their jobs. They did not lose their jobs. They had to leave them because they had to stay at home and take care of their children. There are all of the low-wage workers, who are working in risky and precarious jobs, many of them full time, who still cannot afford to make ends meet. The pandemic exposed those vulnerable people extremely well.
I think that is one of the reasons we are now looking at how to support them with a $15 minimum wage. Of course, we are helping workers, not just families but single workers too, to be able to make use of the taxes that can help them keep their heads above water. We helped seniors with money. We are looking at how we are going to help them continue to function by increasing the OAS for seniors above the age of 75, and giving them a one-time amount of $500.
We are looking at housing, not only for businesses, but also helping people and families pay their rent. We are looking at how we put money into a rapid housing initiative to deal with all of the homelessness, to help the people who have been displaced. We have put money into food banks to support people so they can eat and feed their families.
That is what this budget is about. It is about continuing to do that on until we get rid of COVID to help people to survive and cope, and have businesses able to keep afloat, so when the time comes they can rebound.
The third part of the budget is where I can see the Minister of Finance's fine hand, because it is a visionary budget. It is talking about the future. It is building for a resilient future.
This is not going to be our last pandemic. We do not know what is going to happen. Catastrophes will occur. We need to prepare for when they happen, not fall apart like we did economically and socially. We need to be able to be resilient enough to bounce with whatever hits us. That is what this budget is doing in its third phase, which is building for the future.
The important thing about this budget is that we are finding out about all the people who fell between the cracks, and they are going to have to be helped. This budget is about looking at building a new social infrastructure, so that we do not have to have people fall between the cracks again. We are looking at the people who have fallen and are falling.
We are looking at young people, and we are looking at seniors, helping them to survive and be able to move forward.
We are looking at the tourism sector and industries that have fallen apart. We want to keep them alive so they can rebound again. We are giving them money for marketing and for rebuilding.
We are not only looking at giving small businesses the help they need to restart and to rebuild, but we are also looking at helping them into the new era.
The new economic era that we are going to build will be based on the post-industrial economy. I have listened to many international fora, such as in Europe, talking about a post-industrial recovery. It is not going to be the same old, same old. We are going to have to look at how we invest in the new economy. In Europe they have talked a lot about how automation has actually begun to kill the industrial sector, and Europe has massive industrial sectors.
We are looking at how we rebuild back a new economy. We look at scientific knowledge and innovation. We are looking at harnessing our oceans. We are lucky. We are surrounded by three massive oceans. How do we get into that blue economy?
How do we utilize our oceans to produce food and protein with low greenhouse gas emissions, with renewable food sources? Oceans are not just about fish. We are going to look at how we could develop that. Although, I might say that I am very pleased to see that my province of British Columbia got a lot of help with the salmon. They are dying right now, and we got enough money to be able to rebuild that particular resource.
The important thing to remember is that we are recognizing that this new economy will have to utilize young people, who right now have no jobs. We have kept them afloat with summer jobs, and all of the other things, but we are now trying to utilize and focus on youth being able to get their first jobs, being able to get into the kinds of training that they need—
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
View Todd Doherty Profile
2021-04-20 11:51 [p.5840]
Madam Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in this 754-page document, which is basically an election platform. It is not really a budget. I would offer that a lot of what is said in those documents is in year two and year three. If we read the fine print, the spending is over five years.
We are in the middle of a mental health crisis, and not only a mental health crisis, an opioid crisis as well. While a billion dollars for mental health is not a small figure, it is merely a drop in the bucket, and $116 million spread out over five years to fight the opioid crisis is truly a drop in the bucket.
Does my hon. colleague feel that more should have been spent on fighting some of the worst health crises, mental health and opioids, that our country has ever seen?
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-04-20 11:52 [p.5840]
Madam Speaker, while we are in the midst of a global pandemic, and that is a major crisis, it does not mean that other crises have gone away. We still have an opioid crisis, which has taken so many lives in our country. We still have a mental health crisis. In fact, it is going to increase given the additional pain of this pandemic: The isolation, the lack of activities and the lack of interaction will only make problems with mental health worse.
We absolutely need to make sure we are prioritizing mental health. We believe, in fact, that mental health should be included in our health care system so that we truly have a head-to-toe health care system. It is going to be vital coming out of this pandemic. The second piece is the opioid crisis. We believe we need to immediately—
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2021-04-16 11:51 [p.5748]
Madam Speaker, transitioning away from neonicotinoids is also essential for public health.
The Institut national de la recherche scientifique found that these pesticides act as endocrine disruptors in humans and may have consequences, especially for women's health.
It is clear that these pesticides are harmful to the environment and to health, but we cannot leave farmers in the lurch by banning them without offering an alternative. We have to invest in research and support farmers through the transition.
When will the government pull its head out of the sand?
View Marie-Claude Bibeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, we are making major investments in research to help our agricultural producers. We are very serious about striking a balance to make that transition happen while keeping Canadians safe and healthy, which is obviously our top priority.
Regulations are in place, and we are investing in science.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-04-16 12:23 [p.5753]
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to table petition e-3108, which has over 3,000 signatures and was initiated by constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
The petitioners note that natural, time-tested immune system essentials and holistic health practices do not receive enough attention for their role in preventative health care. They request that the Government of Canada educate and empower Canadians on holistic health approaches to optimize and maintain their natural immunity and well-being. They ask to cover practices for health sustainability and wellness care under the Canada Health Act, including chiropractic care, massage therapy, acupuncture and naturopathic medicines. They ask the government to support, promote and enhance Canadians' access to holistic health services and natural health products.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, the member criticizes us for what we were talking about in our convention when we were talking about important social programs for Canadians. At his convention a week before, the Conservatives were discussing whether or not climate change was real, and 54% of them said it was not.
Let me jump to another thing. On the topic of resilience, the member talked about why the world did not know right at the beginning, on day one, that masks should be worn to fight the pandemic, as though he does not realize that this was an evolving threat that nobody had faced before. The World Health Organization did not even start saying that people should wear masks until June 5, 2020. My own community only started advising it about a week or two later.
Can the member explain to us, since he had all of this insight into what we should have been doing right on day one, why he did not come forward and share it with us?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the member should look at my Twitter feed and Facebook feed. He will find posts from me in March of last year talking about why people should wear masks. Why was I saying those things in the House and elsewhere? It is because the countries that were successfully fighting the pandemic had been deploying masks for years. We had the SARS pandemic over 15 years before, and at that time the government created a stockpile of masks. Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea were giving people advice and direction about masks. Mask-wearing was widespread, and they still have far lower rates today.
The World Health Organization was wrong, as was Dr. Tam, as was the CDC, but the data was out there. The member can check. There were people in the House who were saying to wear masks, but his government was saying not to, and it was harmful misinformation, because—
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-04-13 10:29 [p.5475]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights that proactive holistic health practices play an important role in building immune system strength and help to keep people healthy, and that there is not enough focus on proactive health and wellness care.
Petitioners request the Government of Canada increase the focus on educating and empowering Canadians on holistic approaches to optimize and maintain their natural immunity and well-being. They call on the government to include proactive health and wellness care practices in the Canada Health Act and enhance access to these services.
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-04-12 12:07 [p.5387]
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate on Bill C-14, which is set to implement certain aspects of the fall economic statement that was tabled in Parliament a number of months ago. Before I get into the specific measures included in Bill C-14, I think it is important to reflect upon the year we have just been through and the pandemic that very much continues today.
Over the course of the past year, we have seen communities suffer in a way that I had never envisioned I would see in my lifetime. We have also seen communities across Canada respond in a way that is more admirable than I could have possibly imagined just a year and a half ago.
I remember, when COVID-19 first entered our collective vocabulary, the fear I saw in our communities. I remember what it was like to show up at the grocery store and, when the warnings were to keep six feet apart, people were doing their best to keep 20 feet apart. At that point in time, people were showing up wearing the Rubbermaid gloves meant for washing dishes and masks made of whatever they had at the house. This was before there was the opportunity to purchase them.
Perhaps what was most encouraging were the precautions I saw people taking. The behaviours I saw people demonstrating were rarely motivated by self-interest, but instead by an interest to help their neighbours and protect the integrity of our health care system. Warnings were coming through national media about the pressures that were being put on the public health care system in various provinces and the ability to take care of our communities' most vulnerable. I have never been so proud to be a Canadian and to be from the community I come from as when I saw my community members step up to help their neighbours.
I have also been very proud to be part of a government that exhibited that same attitude. I must say, I give full credit to certain members of various political parties who reached out to me in a non-partisan way to demonstrate that they also had ideas they thought would help folks in their community as we were struggling with this pandemic.
Our approach to combat COVID-19 has been first to do whatever we can to quell the spread of the virus as quickly as possible and, second, to support Canadian households and businesses so they will still be here to contribute to the recovery when it is over. The fall economic statement implements portions of that plan. Of course, in the early days of the pandemic, when Parliament was not sitting in the way that it typically does, we advanced a series of measures that were designed to keep people afloat.
I am thinking of CERB, which reached the kitchen tables of over nine million Canadians; the wage subsidy, which has kept over five million Canadians on the payroll at their work; and programs such as the Canada emergency business account, which has helped nearly one million businesses literally keep the lights on and the doors open. These are important programs that I anticipate will be viewed quite favourably when history shines a light on the economic response that Canada has put forward in this global pandemic.
I will now turn my attention to the specific bill before the House of Commons, Bill C-14. There are a number of specific measures included in this bill, but largely they play into the strategy that I described at the outset of my remarks, which is to help diminish the spread of COVID-19 in our communities, particularly among vulnerable members of the public, and to support households and businesses as we continue to weather the storm, so they can contribute fully to the economic recovery when the time is right to do so.
The first policy I will draw members' attention to is the Canada child benefit. This was a marquee campaign commitment from our 2015 election. I will point out that I have recently seen data that indicated that the Canada child benefit has now helped lift more than 435,000 Canadian children out of poverty. That is something I am extraordinarily proud of, but there is still work to do.
When I look at the child poverty numbers in my home province of Nova Scotia, I find it unacceptable that any child goes without the food they need, or are in a household where parents, through no fault of their own, may not be able to afford the very basics so many of us take for granted. That is why I am supportive of this particular measure to increase the Canada child benefit up to $1,200 per child under six this calendar year.
Importantly, the pay periods of January and April have now passed, which means that as soon as this bill achieves royal assent, we can expect the increased child Canada benefit payments will flow to Canadian families this year.
This is the kind of thing that not only helps lift children out of poverty, but also helps with the increased cost of child care, which many families are dealing with. I can speak first-hand about the difficulty in trying to arrange ad hoc child care with a five-year-old at home who attends the pre-primary program in Nova Scotia some days of the week but not others. Finding someone to step in can be a challenge for parents. I know that this increase of up to $1,200 to the Canada child benefit this year would make that a little easier for a whole lot of families.
I also want to draw attention to the change to the regional relief and recovery fund. In my mind, one of the strengths of our pandemic response, and I have heard this from constituents from the early days of the pandemic, was a willingness to consider the initial policy design and make changes as we realized the circumstances demanded such changes.
At the outset of this pandemic we launched a number of programs that have developed over time. A great example of this is the increase of the initial version of the wage subsidy from 10% to 75%. I am thinking of changes such as increasing the Canada emergency business account, which was initially from $40,000 with $10,000 forgivable, and is now $60,000, of which $20,000 is forgivable.
Some of the changes we are looking to make in the scale and scope of the Canada emergency benefit require a legislative change to help those businesses that may not have been eligible to seek access to the regional relief and recovery fund through regional development agencies. The bill would align those two programs to ensure that if a business did not access CEBA, but could access the regional relief and recovery fund, it would benefit largely from the same terms under either program. We heard testimony at the finance committee specifically indicating that as soon as the bill achieves royal assent, that money could flow to businesses in need to help them keep their lights on.
There are a few other programs I would like to draw to members' attention, and before I turn to certain public health measures, perhaps I will look at one other along the lines of direct support for individuals. Long before I came into federal politics, my first foray was as a university student. I was the student union president at my undergraduate university, StFX. One of the things I took on in that role was to become an advocate in federal politics for policies I felt would benefit students. I remember sitting across the table from MPs in Ottawa when I was a student in Antigonish asking for certain measures to be adopted that would make life easier for students and young professionals.
One of the things we always looked for was relief on the interest that accrued for students who had Canada student loans. A similar issue faces students at community colleges or polytechnics who may have accessed a Canada apprenticeship loan. One of the changes in the bill would put an end to interest accruing this year on the loans they may hold through federal programs.
Given the disproportionate and negative impact that COVID-19 has had on the economic prospects of young people right across Canada, this is good policy. This is something that is going to make life a little more affordable for young people as they embark on their careers.
I want to turn the House's attention to some of the public health measures included in Bill C-14 because we know they are the right thing to do to fight the virus, but they are also the smart thing to do from an economic perspective. Recent data indicate that the best economic strategy we can adopt is to advance a significant public health response and try to achieve a zero-incidence rate of COVID in our communities.
I point out in particular, being from Nova Scotia, that we have had some real success in managing the COVID-19 pandemic compared to some of our counterparts in different regions of Canada. In my community, I can still take my daughter to swimming lessons. In fact, I have to do that this evening after we wrap up in the House. I can still visit with friends up to our gathering limits without social distancing and without masks. We still choose in many instances to take those precautions.
Businesses by and large remain open, despite very serious early shutdowns and the public response has really shown that they have bought into the idea that we need to continue to take care of one another during this time of emergency. While I say it is also a sound economic policy, members do not need to take my word for it. We can look directly to the recent labour force survey results, which come out each month. The reason I argue this is because it is true.
Nova Scotia has now reached 100% of its pre-pandemic job levels. That would not be possible if we did not have such a strong public health response to COVID-19. It makes sense, of course, that when businesses must close down in order to protect the public's health, the jobs located in those businesses will disappear from the labour force survey. However, if they initially took the smart step to lockdown when it was appropriate to do so, and then continued to monitor community spread diligently, then there would be the opportunity to safely operate in their communities.
Those strategies benefit from serious federal investments through the safe restart agreement with the provinces. They benefit from serious investments and things such as rapid testing and personal protective equipment. They seriously benefit as well from some of the economic measures we have extended to support households and businesses. Those measures, collectively, have allowed certain provinces to do what may have seemed like a difficult thing at a time, but what was the right thing and ultimately has been proven to be the smart thing.
Specific to Bill C-14, there are certain public health measures that will continue to enhance the public health response to COVID-19 across Canada, but will also contribute to our ability to enter the recovery phase more quickly. Specifically, I want to draw members' attention to the issues around long-term care.
The deaths we have seen in our long-term care facilities across Canada have been nothing short of a national tragedy. I think everyone in the chamber, whether present virtually or in person, knows someone who has been impacted by the spread of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities. I take everyone at their word that they want to address this issue when they say so. This bill is going to advance in excess of $500 million toward our long-term care facilities. It will help reduce the spread of COVID-19 among the vulnerable populations who live in those facilities.
However, that is not the only public health measure included in this particular bill. Before COVID-19 was something that we had heard about, health care was the number one priority for my constituents. By and large, after being asking time and time again, this was an absolute priority. In particular, mental health and access to family doctors were at the very top of that list.
This bill would not necessarily solve the shortcomings in the provincial health care system when it comes to accessing primary care or expanding support for mental health, but it will make a difference in the short term in a few very particular ways. This bill specifically is going to advance $133 million toward virtual care and mental health care.
One of the things that I would urge people to do is this. If someone has never used virtual care, telehealth, or an online portal for mental health, it is easy to dismiss them as being less than having a person in the room with them. For some people, in-person care is essential, but there are others who will be able to access the quality of care they need virtually.
I will give an example of telehealth, in particular, that I heard from my own community recently. It was in response to a comment about how these 1-800 numbers for certain health care do not really make the difference that certain people would like to see. The response came from the executive director of a local non-profit. She cited Kids Help Phone as one of those mental health supports offered through a 1-800 number.
She explained to a room filled with people who were actively questioning the value of these telehealth opportunities that when a child calls Kids Help Phone, they often do not know where to turn. They do not have any other options, but they are not met with an operator or a robot on the other side who does not understand what they are going through or what resources may exist locally. In fact, in this instance, the person on the other side of that call said, “I know of a local non-profit in your community. It's a few blocks from you. You can go down and speak to a person who's going to find an adult who can help with the situation that you're dealing with.” I will reserve any details about who these individuals were for sake of their privacy.
At the end of the day, access to that telehealth option provided a young person in my community with access to a professional who they were able to deal with and they continue to maintain a relationship with today. That is a positive outcome from embracing telehealth.
I have spoken with many people who have now dealt directly with a physician over a video call or through a simple text or phone call. The Wellness Together portal, which has been advanced with the support of federal money through this pandemic, has provided access to a huge number of Canadians who can conduct self-assessments and gain access to a professional if needed. I would encourage anyone who might be struggling with mental health or substance use to check out the Wellness Together portal that has been made available online through this pandemic, because it has helped a significant number of Canadians already.
My hope is that some of the measures outlined in this bill and our pandemic response actually survive the pandemic. I am from a province that has historically had fewer family doctors than we would like to have, and I envision one day being able to create the opportunity for someone who lacks access to primary care in Nova Scotia to reach out to a doctor in western Canada who is looking for patients, and to access their services for basic prescriptions or referrals virtually. These are the kinds of innovations that may stem from this pandemic that would provide a long-term systemic benefit for Canadians right across our country.
Our pandemic response has been expensive, but inaction would have been more expensive. We know that to do the right thing, we had to make serious investments to keep businesses afloat, keep workers on payrolls, keep families fed and ensure that provinces had access to the testing or personal protective equipment that they needed.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel now, as we get closer to vaccine appointments. I think my parents are scheduled for theirs later this week, which is deeply encouraging, I must say, though I live in an area that has a relatively low number of cases. To see family members, friends, neighbours and particularly the most vulnerable members, front-line workers in the health care system and in retail, start to see the end coming is deeply encouraging.
However, we are not there yet. We need to continue to advance the kinds of supports that are outlined in Bill C-14. It has been a pleasure, once again, to speak on this important piece of legislation. My hope is that this will pass unanimously in Parliament so that Canadians can access the supports they so desperately need. It would help protect our health and our economy in the long run.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the clause in Bill C-14 that is authorizing a health-related payment of about $64 million for mental health and substance abuse. Investment in this area is very welcome, especially for communities like mine. However, it seems that when the government has opportunities to do big, bold things to finally tackle the opioid crisis, such as declaring a national health emergency or even Bill C-22, the recent justice bill, they are full of half measures.
To this day, with all the statistics in place, why has the government not taken the big, bold steps to finally confront and put an end to the opioid crisis, which is ravaging so many small communities like mine?
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-04-12 12:31 [p.5390]
Madam Speaker, I sincerely appreciate my colleague's advocacy on this issue, not just today but over the past number of years. It is important to reflect upon the opioid crisis, which is a massive problem that is perhaps, in some regions, underappreciated in its severity. We may not see the concentrations of case numbers they have in his community, but nevertheless we are suffering serious consequences as a result of addiction.
We have been trying to work with the provinces to advance funds for mental health support. In Nova Scotia alone, as part of our 10-year agreement, we reached a funding arrangement that saw $130 million that must be spent directly on mental health in the province. If the province believes tackling the opioid crisis with that money is the best thing to do, then we will be there with them. We do not want to substitute exclusively our own priorities for those of the provinces but we will—
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-04-12 13:34 [p.5399]
Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise on behalf of the people of Courtenay—Alberni and as the critic for the federal NDP on small business, tourism, fisheries and oceans, and economic development.
As we know, the third wave is among us, especially here in British Columbia. I would not be surprised if further measures are announced by the provincial government today, but right now we know that restaurants are closed for the better part, unless they are serving on a patio outside. Many small businesses are restricted in what they can offer right now. It is having a huge impact on everyone in all of our communities, on their mental health and well-being, and on economic opportunities. People are scared. People are wondering how they are going to survive the pandemic, especially those in the hospitality and tourism sector. We know that small business owners have done the right thing. They have closed their doors or they have adhered to public health measures to protect public health. They are truly the unsung heroes, I believe, of this pandemic.
In my riding, tourism alone is almost 10,000 jobs, so it is having a huge impact on people in our communities. Right now we still are not seeing any supports for start-ups, for example. There is a brand new bakery called Wildflower Bakery. It really is a wildflower. It is a fabulous and great eatery that has just opened up. The bakery is employing people, creating economic development and prosperity in our community, offering diversity of cuisine. It is a new start-up and it has not been able to access the wage subsidy, rent program or the CEBA loans program, yet it is still paying rent. There are common-sense provisions that the government could provide so that it could qualify for the wage subsidy and the rent program, but the government has chosen to leave them out. It has been abandoned by the government.
We know that there is a group that started savestartups.ca that is building momentum. This is a generation of businesses that we could lose if the government does not amend the programs and create more flexibility. We are hearing from a lot of people who have fallen through the cracks who cannot access these programs, whether it be the HASCAP or many other programs that are being offered. They might be off a basis point or two, or somehow fall through the cracks in terms of the timing of when they started or whatnot. The government needs to create more flexibility to support these businesses or we are going to lose them. The cost to the Canadian economy is much greater than saving them right now.
We are calling on the government to come up with a program. I asked the Minister of Finance about this very concern. She said that the government understands that this is a problem and that it is looking into it. The government has been looking into it for months. Meanwhile, people are losing sleep or losing their businesses and wondering how they are going to survive it, if they can.
The other thing that we are hearing from businesses is that they want certainty. Whether it be the wage subsidy program or the rent program, we know that there is a commitment from the government until June. We need the government to commit that it is going to be there, in place, until the end of the pandemic. We just met with the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, which is deeply concerned. We know that this summer, for example, regardless of how quick the vaccine rollout is, it is very unlikely that we are going to have international tourists coming to our region. If one's business relies on international tourism, it is going to lose a second summer. We need the government to commit that it is going to be there right until the end, instead of actually doing segments like we are doing. This uncertainty is killing business. Also, it is very difficult for business owners to go out to seek financing and get the leverage needed to continue to get through these difficult times.
The other thing is with regard to the CEBA loan program. The expected repayment date is the end of next year. It will be nearly impossible for small businesses, given that there is a third wave coming with such force and with the new variants spreading so quickly. We need the government to extend those repayment periods. In fact, I know when I had a loan with a community futures development corporation in my riding that it was a 10-year loan for $40,000, so to expect that repayment date to be the end of next year is completely unreasonable. Businesses need to be certain that they are not going to be gouged with a high interest rate should they have to repay it. As well, the government needs to increase the loan. I know the government just extended it to $60,000, but it needs to increase it to $80,000.
Given that it is the third wave, it is the third round of impact that these small businesses are going through, and it is just impossible for many of them to survive without better support. In increasing that $20,000 that they do not have to repay if they repay the loan in a certain period of time, the government could help absorb some of the costs that they are incurring.
Also, the government is talking a lot about a child care plan. Here in British Columbia, we have a provincial government that is investing in child care, and it needs a federal partner to create accessible, affordable, universal child care for everyone. The chambers of commerce in my riding are calling for that, and were calling for it before the pandemic. In fact, the Comox Valley Chamber of Commerce cited that as its number one priority before the pandemic. We know that it is needed now more than ever before, given that women have been disproportionally impacted by the pandemic, and many of them are struggling with how they are going to get back to work and how they are going to get the support they need.
As well, the government continues to not want to tackle the merchant fees. We are paying some of the highest merchant fees in the world. There is a voluntary rate of 1.4% based on the big players, whether it be Walmarts or large multinational corporations paying an even lower rate, which means that the smaller businesses are paying a higher rate. However, in Europe, they are paying 0.3%.
We know that this is not a priority of the government. In fact, in the last government, Linda Lapointe, a former member of Parliament from Quebec, made commitments to the Quebec Convenience Stores Association and other groups in Quebec to take on this issue. She moved debate on her bill 16 times. Clearly, the government did not want this bill to be debated, and it does not want to tackle merchant fees. I was appreciative of the spirit of her efforts, but it got shut down, and the government needs to take this on. The Conservatives do not believe this is an issue that they should intervene on either. We heard from their finance critic that they do not want to see government intervene. However, government does have a role and a time to intervene, especially when small businesses and merchants are being gouged by large corporations.
I have met with Visa and MasterCard and they say that it is not their issue but the big banks' issue. The big banks are getting record profits right now, which is public information, and they are not paying their fair share in this pandemic. We are calling on the government to hold them to task and make sure that they pay their fair share.
Members have also heard me speak about the wild salmon emergency and how critical it is that the government invest in wild salmon in this upcoming budget. However, there is nothing in Bill C-14 for that, despite the fact that we had the lowest return in the Fraser last year and the year before.
One thing that is really close to me and the people in my riding is the lack of investment in affordable housing. With the rapid housing initiative, the government committed $1 billion. Out of the hundreds of billions of dollars in COVID support, there are people who are most marginalized, there are people who are falling through the cracks more now than ever. They are being isolated are dying on our streets.
We have an opioid crisis. I was talking to Julia Mewhort from Qualicum Beach, who has now joined up with Moms Stop the Harm. She lost her son, Stephen, to a preventable opioid overdose that resulted from fentanyl poisoning, a drug source that was tainted, which has killed over 16,000 Canadians, yet the government still has not declared a public health emergency. We know that it requires a national public health emergency declaration from the federal government under the Emergencies Act so that we can manage and resource this issue to reduce and eliminate deaths that are preventable. She is calling for action so that more sons like hers do not die due to tainted drugs.
The current war on drugs has clearly been grossly ineffective and has resulted in widespread stigma for addiction and those who use illicit drugs. We know that the government's new bill still carries with it the stigma and is not solving this issue. Criminalization of particular substances has resulted in the establishment of a drug trade that now trafficks dangerous and lethal products such fentanyl.
We need new law reform, and the Liberals are not doing enough to end the stigma. We need to decriminalize and regulate to ensure safe sources and proper measures and supports that will reduce the number of deaths that are happening in our communities. We did not see anything in Bill C-14, but I am hoping that in the next budget the government is going to make it a priority, declare a national public health emergency and invest a lot more than $1 billion in rapid housing. We are watching the sons and daughters of our communities die on the streets, and it is all preventable.
Results: 1 - 60 of 559 | Page: 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data