Debates of Nov. 26th, 2018

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a valid point. It is obviously very tragic what is going on in Oshawa right now. I have lived all over Ontario, including in Kitchener, where we had a lot of parts makers, like Budd, which I do not think exist anymore. What is happening in Oshawa today is happening every single month in Alberta. Last week, Total laid off 3,000 workers with high-paying jobs in Calgary. We have lost over 100,000 jobs in Alberta since the government came to power. All we have heard from the Prime Minister is that this is out of the Liberals' control. They killed off all these pipelines, but killing them off was out of their control.

The comment of the Minister of Natural Resources, who represents Ottawa, but lives in Edmonton, was that seven years is not enough time to plan and consult, so they are going to shut down the oil industry.

It is a very valid point about corporate welfare, but the government needs to stand up with the same amount of energy for jobs in Alberta as it will in Ontario.

Member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will not take too much of the House's time. I simply want to add to a question of privilege I raised earlier with respect to a member of Parliament. My friend from Yukon asked what aspect of the question of privilege I was raising. I thought some clarification for the Speaker's office and for you, Madam Speaker, would be helpful in the decision we believe is forthcoming.

This pertains to the member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. This is the member of Parliament who got up in this place last spring, in April, and said he was resigning his seat. We all clapped, I suppose, and congratulated him and assumed that was the end of it. We then found out in the subsequent month that he had in fact not resigned his seat. He continued to occupy the seat but did not show up to work. He continued to receive his pay and benefits as a member of Parliament, but did not show up. He could not make the two-hour train trip from Montreal. Some of us in this place make a great deal longer trip to be here.

What I wish to clarify is that the breach of privilege I am speaking of is not any personal infringement of my privileges. I am not unable to do my job as a member of Parliament as a result, but I refer instead to a category of privilege that affects this entire place. On page 148 of Bosc and Gagnon, 3rd edition, it states that a question of privilege can concern a matter which either infringes upon a member's ability to do their job, or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament. That is specifically what we are talking about here, the second category, the dignity of this place, which suffers often from political scandal, misappropriation of funds or just bad behaviour by some members of Parliament. We seek to protect the reputation of this place, and when a member of Parliament conducts themself in a way that infringes upon that reputation, I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to seek some remedy.

The remedy is that we appeal to the Speaker's office to find a prima facie case of a breach of privilege that then passes to the procedure and House affairs committee, which can then bring forward whatever witnesses it deems necessary—certainly, the MP for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, as well as others who might have some information. It concerns the reputation of this place and the respect for the principle of representation that operates at the very heart of our democracy. As Canadians lose faith with and a favourable view of the House of Commons in general, it makes all that we do more difficult to do.

The only place that can eventually find contempt and seek some remedy, either a suspension or expulsion from the House, is the House of Commons itself. We rely on the procedure and House affairs committee, where all recognized parties are represented, to bring forward the evidence and make its recommendation back to us. That is our process. However, I sincerely believe this goes beyond any partisanship. This is simply about our doing our jobs as members of Parliament, because we pass across the stage but for a moment, and it is up to us to make sure that we leave the place a little better than we found it, and when bad behaviour is not considered and goes unpunished, that reflects badly on all of us.

I wanted very much to clarify that particular point, the reputation of Parliament, of the House of Commons, which is the privilege we believe has been breached. That is what we are appealing to the Speaker.

I know a colleague from the Conservatives spoke in favour of, and many colleagues from the Liberals at least applauded, the effort we were making to address this issue, which I personally have not seen.

The House is very compassionate, and has shown itself to be so when members of Parliament fall ill, or a near and dear relative, like a spouse or a child, falls ill and a member cannot be here. We also understand that members of Parliament are away from time to time doing parliamentary business. That is also fine, of course, because that is the duty. Therefore, I would say that while we are not lenient, we are compassionate when dealing with this. What few arguments we have heard from this member in particular, in his speech in April of this past year, seven months ago, was that he was quitting, and that was it. We have heard nothing since. Now, we have seen from some media commentary, from posts he has made in the media, that maybe he is quitting in January or February. That will be nine months at least in which he said he was no longer doing the work, or has not done the work, that we are aware of, and certainly has not been here, and yet has been compensated as a member of Parliament. For working Canadians, that is not an experience they are familiar with. If they go to their boss and say they are quitting and say goodbye, that is usually the end of it. They do not continue to receive a salary for not showing up to work.

Members of Parliament, of course, have some latitude because of the complexities sometimes of our jobs and lives, but only so much latitude. If we do not act on this behaviour, we are simply condoning it by our inaction. That is not to anyone's benefit, regardless of their political persuasion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this time today. I know that we will resume debate, and I appreciate being able to add to this discussion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will certainly take the additional comments under advisement as we continue to look into the question of privilege, and all will be considered.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to offer a few remarks on the budget implementation act that has been the subject of rigorous debate in this chamber. Over the course of my remarks, I hope to cover a few items that relate to the last federal budget and the implementation act, particularly the themes of pursuing economic growth but also supporting those who could use a little extra help, and some measures we have put in place to help improve the quality of our environmental protections across Canada.

When it comes to the need to help grow the economy, this is at the front of mind for most members of Parliament who become elected in Canada to represent their communities. We have seen some exciting developments over the past few years when it comes to our record of helping Canadians grow the economy. There are over half a million Canadians working today who were not working at the time of the last federal election. We have pursued new trade agreements with the European Union, with the Pacific Rim countries, and recently secured a deal with our largest trading partner, with the new NAFTA. We have invested in skills development and are continuing to invest in ensuring that when it comes to the skilled trades, unrepresented groups have a fair shake. Moreover, we are supporting small business with a cut in its tax rate to 9%, which represents the lowest such tax rate of any comparable economy in the world.

The fact is, growing the economy is front of mind for our development. I know in my own community, on the heels of a secure trade deal with the United States, we recently saw a great announcement that protected 200 temporary jobs that were made full-time and permanent, and 150 additional jobs to manufacture a new product at the Michelin tire plant in Pictou County, Nova Scotia. This is one of a number of exciting developments we have for the economy, including investments in infrastructure that are going to put people to work, like the highway-twinning project from Sutherlands over to Antigonish, the new Institute of Government and Centre for Innovation in Health on the campus of StFX University, the new Trades Innovation Centre at the Pictou Campus of the Nova Scotia Community College, and many others as well.

I would like to shift gears to talk about how this implementation act is not just about creating growth for the sake of growth, but also actually about making sure that growth works for everyone. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the Canada workers benefit, previously the working income tax benefit. It would put about $500 extra in the pockets of people who are working their tails off but are unable to escape poverty. This is going to make a meaningful difference in the lives of many hard-working Canadians who come from low-income backgrounds.

In addition to the Canada workers benefit, there is a larger rubric at play. I would like to thank the minister responsible for establishing, for the first time in Canada's history, a national poverty reduction strategy. This will rely, in particular, on serious investments in housing that we expect will reduce homelessness in Canada by 50%. It includes the Canada child benefit, which is putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families and stops the sending of any child care cheques to millionaires.

In particular, I cannot stress enough the importance of this policy change. It is one thing to cite the statistics I have just shared or talk about 300,000 Canadian children who will no longer be living in poverty, but behind every one of these statistics there is a very human story. I have had conversations with constituents of mine on Foord Street in Stellarton. I met a young mom who said that September was always a difficult time of the year emotionally for her because she could never afford a new outfit for her kids on the first day of school. She said that she felt proud of herself because the little extra bit of cash she had on hand allowed her to take care of her kids, the same way that her neighbours can take care of their own kids. These are the kinds of human stories that breathe life into the importance of these policy changes that we are making. They touch kids, they touch parents, they touch families and they touch communities, and they are making our country a better and stronger place.

In addition to these measures, we are introducing a poverty line so we can better track the number of people who are living in poverty in our country. Without good data, we do not have the basis for good policy. Our policy changes need to be based on science, facts and evidence, and I am glad that we are moving forward with gathering these data so we know that we will have people living in better conditions based on evidence, and not based on sticking our finger in the air and hoping the wind is blowing in the right direction.

I also want to touch on an important part of this budget implementation act that deals with our plan to help protect the environment as our economy grows. This concerns the topic of putting a price on pollution, which has been the subject of thorough debate in question period and over the course of a number of different committee studies, and during legislative debate in the House as well.

The plan we are moving forward with is a simple one. We do not want pollution to be free anymore. Pollution has been free in Canada since its inception as a nation. We are moving forward with a plan that is actually going to put a price on pollution and that will also leave families better off at the end of the day.

This is going to work, because it is not just people who are going to be paying a price for pollution but industries and businesses as well. We know that at tax time, families will not only be proud to be doing the right thing by our environment but will be left better off at the end of the year.

In the province of New Brunswick where this applies, this means the average household is going to have about $250 extra at the end of the year and will also have done its part to help reduce emissions. In Saskatchewan, where the revenues will be greater, because there are more polluting industries in that province, the average family can expect to retain, I believe it is, just over $600 a year. That is only in the first year.

The Canadians I talk to want to do the right thing by the environment, but they do not necessarily want to be worse off financially as a result. That is why this plan is actually going to help achieve both of those goals. If members do not want to take my word for it, we can point to the former director of policy for Stephen Harper, Mark Cameron, who has actually suggested that this is the right path forward. Members can talk to the chief budget adviser to Doug Ford, who has indicated that the single best thing we can be doing to transition to a low-carbon economy is putting a price on pollution. Members can talk to this year's winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, who came up with this kind of solution and actually pointed to British Columbia as a great example of the kind of policy that could be implemented around the world to help make a meaningful difference in the fight against climate change.

I do not want to belabour the point, but I hope members will take away from the nature of these comments that we are doing the right thing to grow the economy, but we are also doing it in a way that is going to help everyday families and not just the wealthy few. We are at the same time growing the economy and protecting the environment, as we insisted we would do during the last campaign.

I could not be prouder to be part of the government, because I know we are growing the economy in a way that works for everyone and protects the environment at the same time.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, this last weekend, I went back to Prince Albert, where they had their Santa Claus parade. It was very interesting, watching all the kids chase the candy and stuff. They were happy, but looking at their parents, looking at their eyes when I drove by, I could see the uneasiness.

Bourgault Industries just laid off 8% of its workforce, and that is on top of what happened at Bombardier, and that is one top of what has happened in Oshawa. This is heading into Christmas. These families are going toward Christmas not knowing what their future holds. There is nothing in Bill C-86 that gives them comfort. There is nothing at all.

When will the member go to the minister and the Prime Minister and stand up for these families, these families that do not have a nice Christmas coming? They do not know where their future lies. They have been shut down, whether they are in the forestry sector, the manufacturing sector or the gas sector. When will the member tell them to get their heads out of their asses and do something for these families?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would just ask the member to use parliamentary language in the House.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I apologize, Madam Speaker. He can use whatever language—

[Sean Fraser]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that when we are having these discussions, we are able to maintain composure and debate one another's ideas.

He is continuing to interrupt. I will be polite when he has the floor, and I would ask that he return the favour.

The fact is that families across Canada—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You are not listening.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member for Prince Albert that he had an opportunity to ask a question. Should he wish to try to ask another question, he just needs to stand up and do so, once it is time. In the meantime, I think he has a responsibility to hear the answer the member wants to provide.

[Sean Fraser]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we maintain our composure and maintain control of our emotions when we have these important policy debates.

The fact is that the families that are attending these parades the member is talking about are actually anticipated to be, on average, $2,000 better off at the end of the year as a result of these policies. If the hon. member is insisting that blame for any job losses that take place in Canada lay at the feet of the government, then he should similarly give us credit for the 500,000-plus jobs that have been created since we took office.

The member is yelling “government workers” from the other side, and that is not true. There has been significant full-time, private sector job growth under the government. Our record of economic growth is the stuff Conservative dreams are made of. They had 10 years to do something about this. They had the worst economic growth record since the Great Depression. The only reason the member is so upset is that we are doing something the Conservative government could never have achieved.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government did go out and buy a 65-year-old pipeline for $4.5 billion. No one could have conceived of that.

There is something interesting missing in those 850-odd pages of the budget. It is the money needed to build this new pipeline the Prime Minister keeps talking about. The Liberals actually have a line for the Trans Mountain pipeline, and in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, the figure they have associated with building that new pipeline is zero dollars. That is curious, because the Prime Minister keeps saying that he is going to build this pipeline, yet he has accounted zero dollars to do it. Besides the question of whether it is a good idea to nationalize parts of the oil industry, it is more than curious.

I am looking at the finance minister's own numbers. At the end of last week, the finance minister said that it was the strongest wage growth in years, and he claimed to have facts in hand that showed that wage growth has increased dramatically. However, according to his own departmental statistics, from September 2015 to September of 2018, inflation was 5.2% and wages grew by 4.9%. Wage growth has not even kept pace with inflation. It seems pretty condemning of the finance minister's record that this is true and that he misrepresents the facts to Canadians.

I wonder if my friend can comment.

[Sean Fraser]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things the hon. member touched on in the question.

On the Trans Mountain pipeline, it has been well canvassed in this House that right now we are taking an extreme haircut on the cost of our national resources because we are captive to the U.S market. The fact is that if we want to grow our economy, we need to move forward with a plan that creates other opportunities for buyers outside the U.S. market. That is why we are seeking to move forward with the Trans Mountain decision, but we are seeking to do it in the right way that properly complies with the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal. At the same time, we are putting forward steps that are going to help bring our emissions down and prevent some of the environmental risks that we know come with energy development.

When it comes to families being better off, I will just remind the hon. member that we are taking steps that will leave middle-class families with $2,000, on average, extra in their pockets.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-86, the budget implementation act no. 2.

The Liberal government is attempting to ram a budget through the House that paints a rosy picture of our national finances. It insists on spending massive amounts of money and promising to increase taxes through its new tax on everything, the carbon tax. In fact, the leader of the official opposition hit the nail on the head when he said of this Liberal government, “Never has a government spent so much and achieved so little.” It is true.

Despite the promises of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, all is not well in Canada, certainly not for the people of Oshawa. For over 100 years, Oshawa and General Motors have had a partnership. Now the Oshawa plant is going to be shut down. This is a tremendous blow to the people of Oshawa and Canadian manufacturing in general.

Before going any further, let me express my concern for the people of Oshawa. I cannot imagine what far too many Canadians in Oshawa are experiencing today. My sincere condolences go out to all of those who are going to be negatively affected and will lose their jobs. This is terrible news, and it comes just before Christmas.

The GM plant is important not only to families in Oshawa but to families across Ontario and Canada. The Oshawa plant is closing, and the Liberals have nothing to show for it. Their high taxes and lack of regulatory clarity are forcing businesses all over the country to stop investing or to just plain leave Canada. They have no way of backstopping anything except through more debt. It is important to run a surplus during good economic times so that when the bad times come, there is money to be spent, and as they say, money to be invested. Running deficits during good times means there will be less when the bad times come.

For the people in Oshawa, times are hard. The only way the Liberal government can help them is through more debt. This is debt that Oshawans and all Canadians will have to pay through increased taxes down the road. All Canadians will have to pay through increased taxes down the road, as will the folks in Oshawa, but if there are no jobs, there will be no extra money to pay extra taxes. This is precisely the situation the Liberal government is creating in Canada.

The U.S. administration has cut taxes for businesses, and this has caused many businesses to choose to relocate to the United States. The finance minister and the Liberal government declined to match any of those tax cuts. Consequently, many businesses are choosing to invest in the United States as opposed to Canada. The tax cuts and the corresponding lack of action by the Liberal government may have played a role in the closing of the Oshawa plant by General Motors.

Manufacturing across Canada is concerned, particularly about the issue of tariffs on aluminum and steel. Despite significant concessions to the U.S. in the recent NAFTA negotiations, now called the USMCA, the Liberal government was not able to get the Trump administration to lift the tariffs on steel and aluminum. This is costing manufacturers and industry dearly.

In my riding, my constituent Marilyn N. is a small business owner. She imports aluminum-based products from the United States, and because of the tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs we have put on, she has indicated to me that if these tariffs are not lifted, she may be forced to lay off workers, as her costs are not sustainable in the long term.

Many business owners across Canada can relate to her story, but Liberal failures are not limited to manufacturing. The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have failed with our natural resources as well. Their failures have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and over $100 billion of investment in our energy sector.

Energy east, Pacific Northwest LNG, northern gateway, Aurora LNG, and Grassy Point LNG are all examples of the government's inability to deliver on developing and getting to market our natural resources. The Trans Mountain crisis has made things even worse. The taxpayer is on the hook for $4.5 billion for a pipeline that may never be built. Under the previous Conservative government, four pipelines were built. This included the Enbridge Alberta Clipper, the Trans Canada Keystone, the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop, and the Enbridge Line 9B reversal.

As soon as the Liberals took office, the Prime Minister and his government started their reckless spending and arbitrary regulatory changes. This caused business investment to plummet and confidence in Canada to decline. Even the Montreal Economic Institute said, “People are giving up on Canada as a safe place to invest in natural resources...It’s seen as a very hostile environment now.”

It is quite clear that the Liberal government has failed in encouraging foreign investment in Canada. Our country has so much to offer and the Liberal government is throwing away potential investment opportunities because of its failures. In fact, though the economy has grown, very little has been the government's doing. Growth was driven by oil and gas markets, a strong housing market and consumer spending. Consumers were able to spend because interest rates were low. The Liberal government has had very little to do with any of that. It has not helped and in many cases it has hindered growth areas in our country.

When it comes to oil, the Liberal government, under the current Prime Minister, has been an absolute failure. When he formed government in 2015, he did so with three large pipelines ready to be delivered. Two of those pipelines abandoned Canada due to the regulatory environment created by the Liberal government. The third was bought by Canadian citizens, through no choice of their own, for $4.5 billion for a pipeline that was worth just over a billion dollars and a potential of building and constructing a new pipeline for another $3.5 billion. That was basically goodwill, and now that goodwill does not look like it is going to be worth very much.

The Prime Minister has failed to realize that oil and gas is not an unfortunate part of Canada; it is a vital component of Canada and our economy. It is important to the people of Alberta and all Canadians who depend upon government services, which are possible because of oil royalties.

When the Prime Minister said that he wanted to phase out the oil sands, I think he meant it. The cost to Canadians has yet to be fully accounted for, but already it is hurting our country. His reckless commitment to dismantling the oil and gas sector, an essential of Canada's economy, will undoubtedly lower our growth potential.

In addition, his inability to build a pipeline to tidewater means that our oil is largely captive to the American market, where it is bought for considerably less than it would be worth on the world market. Less money in the provincial and federal coffers means that without spending cuts, the governments must either raise taxes or borrow more money.

If governments borrow more money, interest rates will go up. Higher interest rates will affect consumer confidence. Less consumer confidence means less willingness to undertake large expenses. Housing will suddenly be less sought after as Canadians are forced to pay more interest. They will borrow less money. Suddenly, the three main drivers of growth in Canada, oil and gas, housing and consumer spending, are no longer the powerful drivers that they once were.

Due to high levels of government debt and historically low interest rates, the federal government will have very few tools left to deal with any upcoming crisis. This is not a healthy place for a government to be in. Nor is it good place for our country. The next crisis to befall Canada is going to be dangerous.

The Liberal government loves to talk about the debt-to-GDP ratio. That sounds good. However, it is only one tool and if we consider the implications, it is not reassuring at all. In fact, it could be bad and very bad for Canada. This way of accounting is only positive if the economy grows. It is based on economic growth. If the government continues to spend money, but the economy starts to slow, then we are in a bad situation and that debt-to GDP ratio quickly gets skewed.

Debt consists of principal, which is the amount borrowed, and interest, which is the amount paid to service the debt. If interest rates go up, we are paying more for the money that we have borrowed. Debt is a reasonable option if it allows for long-term gain. However, the Liberal government has borrowed money with reckless abandon and very little of it has gone to any kinds of projects with long-term sustainable benefit to Canadians.

Spending on infrastructure has not materialized. Of the $180 billion that the government committed to infrastructure spending, only 6% or just under $10 billion of that has actually been spent and invested in Canada. That would be a real investment, spending money on infrastructure, but the government has not allowed it to happen.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to hear the interventions of my friend for Provencher, Manitoba. However, I want to point out the things that are happening. The member has mentioned several critical issues that are unfortunate. We hope to make better and make whole the economies of the hard-hit areas of our country, and he gave some good specifics.

In the particular, in the case of my city, the Conference Board of Canada cites 32,000 net new jobs in 2017. The unemployment rate is at 4.9% and the economic growth has been at 3.6%.

Among the facilities that have been enhanced by government investment is the Parrish & Heimbecker flour mill. Parrish & Heimbecker from Manitoba saw advantages in shipping grain through the port of Hamilton, created a facility, and our government was pleased to provide several million dollars to allow for the creation of a flour mill. Of course, rail cars are being made in Hamilton at that facility, which will enable grain to move in his province and so on.

Would my friend not admit that even though there are serious issues that we have to approach, some good has been created, such as the 32,000 net new jobs in Hamilton?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that Hamilton has experienced 32,000 net new jobs. However, the Parliamentary Budget Office paints a different picture. This year, so far the only growth in real jobs has been in government jobs. In the private sector, there actually has been a shrinkage in real job growth. That is not very encouraging news.

I recognize that part of the Liberal ideology is bigger government, more control, more taxes and more spending. However, I am delighted that the member from Hamilton has seen good things happen in his constituency.

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]