Debates of Oct. 1st, 2020

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I heard from the member in his speech when he talked about the environment was talk about businesses versus capturing emissions. I think what I heard from him is that he would agree that if a business can capture all its emissions, then we want to support that. We want to capture the emissions, and he would not support businesses that do not capture the emissions.

The member talked about the great technology that we have in Canada. In particular, he talked about technology such as carbon capture and storage. I am interested to hear from the member on this, and whether in fact he could speak on behalf of his party. When there is an industry in carbon capture and storage, and it is there, and we have the President of Norway talking about how it needs to be advanced into European countries, and for the benefit of the world, would the member stand up here today and say that he would support moving towards carbon capture and storage, and the great benefits it provides?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, climate change is not a partisan issue, it is not a Canadian issue and it is not a North American issue. It is an issue facing the whole world. If Norway, the European Union or other countries, including the United States, have ideas and advantages, we can consider them.

The member talked about carbon sequestration. I can appreciate that, because in the United States right now there are tax benefits for companies that capture carbon for sequestration. In working together, I think this is something we should look at. However, no technology should be left behind, because this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that the entire world is facing.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Kitchener Centre. We all really appreciated his speech. The only problem is that the government does not seem to be walking the talk. I would like to get his opinion. He spoke with great pride about the environment, which is very important to the Bloc Québécois as well.

First, how is it that the government promised to plant two billion trees but did not plant a single one?

Second, does he feel bad at all about interfering in jurisdictions that fall exclusively to the provinces? I will not list every little thing, but some examples would be family doctors, day care services and urban parks.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the last six months, the government has concentrated on fighting this pandemic and supporting Canadians and businesses. However, this pandemic has revealed a certain fragility in society and, more importantly, some of the weaknesses we have. Right now, it is very important and very clear that as the world moves forward, as we build back better and look at what is happening in Germany and the European Union, we recognize that the environment has to be the centre point and hallmark of how we build that back together.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments on the environment. It is very important, and I hope that he will work with us to make sure that we reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear my hon. colleague say that climate change is a non-partisan issue, because it should be.

I can tell him that the people in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, particularly young people, are deeply concerned about the future of our planet. In fact, I would say that the climate crisis is probably the most foundational, existential issue facing them and their future. I therefore think it behooves all of us, particularly the government, to make it the number one issue we are facing. After all, if we do not have a healthy planet, it is hard to imagine how we can have a functioning society.

The member mentioned the planting of trees. Last fall, the Liberals promised to plant two billion trees and, of course, we all know today that they have not planted any. The NDP Government of British Columbia, just this year alone since the spring, managed to plant 300 million trees.

I am just wondering if the member could explain to the House and Canadians how it is a provincial government can plant 300 million trees and his government cannot meet the commitment it made to plant two billion trees. What went wrong?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, right now we are dealing with one of the most unprecedented challenges that has ever faced the world or Canada. I appreciate the hon. member's comments on the environment, and I can assure him that we will look for his support to make sure that we implement our environmental agenda.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I plan on sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Centre.

Before I begin my comments today, I note that why we are here absolutely cannot be overlooked. At a time when regular Parliament was already adjourned, the Prime Minister wanted to shut down the few parliamentary committees that were meeting. Why did he want to shut them down? It was because the committees heard evidence that clearly did not reconcile with things the Prime Minister and one of his ministers had told Canadians. The cover-up on this continues, which is truly shameful, and here we are with what I view as an absolute embarrassment of a throne speech. However, before I get to that point, let me preface my comments by mentioning what troubles me so greatly about the Prime Minister.

He has no moral qualms about looking Canadians in the eye and making promises he has no intention of keeping. The Prime Minister is prepared to promise almost anything he thinks young people want to hear. He does not appear to care about making all kinds of empty promises to Canadians.

How can we forget his promise to not prorogue Parliament or introduce omnibus budget bills?

I could spend my entire speech listing the many broken promises of the Prime Minister. Sadly, he repackages a Liberal Party greatest hits list of broken promises and recycles them, again and again, into his throne speeches. To me, that is wrong on every level, and I would like to think that it is non-partisan to be so greatly troubled by a leader who has no regard for the value of his word to Canadians.

Let me provide a small example. In my riding, along with many others in Canada, we are potentially losing our automated 24–hour VHF radio weather warning service. Let us forget that the Prime Minister boasts that now is not the time for austerity as he looks to cut these services to Canadians. The justification for this proposed cut is that we can get the same information from our smart phones. That might make sense, or at least it is an argument, but unfortunately there is a problem. In my riding, there are still rural communities and recreational areas with no wireless service whatsoever. It is insulting to them to learn of this news, because these rural communities in many cases are the ones that most depend on the VHF weather service because they do not have wireless service. This is despite the fact that for five years now the Prime Minister has been promising to deliver wireless connectivity to rural areas.

In fact, in this throne speech, this always-broken promise is recycled: “The Government will accelerate the connectivity timelines and ambitions of the Universal Broadband Fund to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed internet.” It has been the same failed promise for over five years. Nothing happens. Very few faces change in the Prime Minister's tired cabinet of underperformers. What about the promise to cut cellphone bills by 25%? That did not even make it into the throne speech.

It is hard to believe that yet another promise to Canadians was not kept. This brings me to another important criticism of the throne speech.

The members who were in the House in previous Parliaments know that, at the end of the day, there is a limited number of bills that can be passed. That is a reality that all governments have had to accept.

Instead of setting a realistic agenda, the government included other promises in the throne speech that it knows full well it cannot keep.

In other words, the throne speech is intentionally drafted in such a way that it has an element of failure built right into it. It is not unlike being at the restaurant Tucker's Marketplace here in Ottawa and loading up a plate with every food choice possible knowing full well there will be more food on the plate than anyone could ever possibly eat. What happens to a person in this scenario? We all know a person who does this. They focus on things that appeal most to them and others will be left behind. In other words, they prioritize what is most important. This is perhaps the greatest failure of the throne speech, because if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority at all, in effect. I am reminded of the classic Liberal leader candidate debate and the words of Stéphane Dion, who famously said, “Do you think it's easy to set priorities?”

The throne speech really took a page from Stéphane Dion's play book, as it really did not target any specific priorities. What we got instead was a real buzzword salad, including the Prime Minister's new favourite expression: build back better. What does that really mean?

Austerity is another popular word at the moment. I do not think it means what the Prime Minister claims it means. The problem with this style of throne speech is that it inevitably leads to broken promises. It has only increased cynicism about Canadian politics. Let us not forget that cynicism used to be something the Prime Minister also claimed to care about.

After all, it was the Prime Minister who said, “Canadians are tired of the cynicism and mistrust that has characterized federal politics for far too long.” Of course, that was back in 2015. Flash forward to today, and now he drafts throne speeches that he knows full well his legislative agenda cannot and will not accomplish. Why do it? In this case, we know that cover had to be provided for the WE scheme.

Let us step back for a moment. No one made the Prime Minister promise that he would not prorogue Parliament. No one made him promise not to use omnibus budget bills. The Prime Minister decided on his own to make those promises. This brings to mind his throne speech. The Prime Minister could have written a Speech from the Throne that identified his government's priorities, and those priorities could have been realistically tailored to legislative agendas.

Instead we get an exceptionally long hodgepodge of “liberology” with no clear priorities. What happened to better is always possible? Why does this throne speech give us so many of the same promises and buzzwords? Canadians need a bold and new vision.

We needed new ideas and clear direction on what will be actually accomplished. Even more importantly, we need to know how it will be accomplished. Perhaps these expectations are too high for a throne speech. The Speech from the Throne is considered to be of great importance, but the Prime Minister broke his promise to not prorogue Parliament. The Prime Minister set those high expectations himself.

Although I understand that not everyone can publicly agree, I suspect we all know that this throne speech was a failure. It is just a cover for the WE scandal.

I have one other point to make before I close. There is something in the throne speech that I do agree with, as I like to close on a positive. It is a comment from the throne speech: “Canada has the resources—from nickel to copper—needed for these clean technologies. This—combined with Canadian expertise—is Canada’s competitive edge.” On this point, I agree.

It is a refreshing change to see the Liberal government recognize the importance of mining and the natural resources sector to the Canadian economy. How can that truly play a role in the development of new technologies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change?

I have one more point to raise.

Where exactly do the Liberals want to see these mines located? More often than not, when a resource project is proposed, the usual opponents come out in opposition, and all too often the Liberal government sits in silence and looks the other way. That is not leadership.

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

Before we move to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Fredericton, Fisheries and Oceans.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the very beginning of his speech, the hon. member contended that he was facing a smorgasbord of priorities, yet I read only four: to fight the pandemic, to support people in business, to build back better and to stand up for who we are.

Does the hon. member not believe that this is a healthy meal, as opposed to an all-you-can-eat buffet?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member just described in 30 seconds what took 55 minutes and 17 pages. What I said here is true. This is where the government piled up ideas from Liberals past, Liberals present and Liberals future.

There is only so much time in a minority government. The Liberals have many of the same people around the cabinet table. They could not get it done in the last Parliament with a majority, so how will they get all these things done this time in a minority government? I do not know.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his French, which is very good.

He talked about transportation electrification and the development of green technology. He is right that this is an important avenue for the future. My riding includes part of the port of Montreal, where about 2,500 trucks drive around emitting lots of greenhouse gas and noise. We came up with a proposal for electric trucks. There is a lot of new technology in that field, and electric heavy-duty trucks are now in production.

The government has incentives for electric cars. Can it offer incentives for electric trucks? Quebec is already doing it. That would enable the Port of Montreal and other businesses to choose clean trucks.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are two copper mines in my area and I support what they do. They do it with excellence and they also bring money into Canada that would not normally be here with respect to investment and ongoing resource development. That is really important.

Before we talk about extending certain tax treatment, the same that is being done right now with electric vehicles, the government said that for three years, $100 million a year would go toward subsidizing companies that switched to electric car. First, we do not have a business case. The Liberals have spent 80% of that budget in one year. We know the adoption of it is up, but are we taking vehicles off the road or are we giving wealthy Canadian families a third or fourth vehicle to trot around in, while still having other cars burning other sources of fuel? Is there a valid business case? Are we seeing people removing a combustion engine from the road and going to an electric vehicle? We should not just be subsidizing rich people.

We could go toward a lot of priorities, but any recovery effort we make should be as broad as possible and we should always remember it is the taxpayers who want to see good value for money. We should not just jump to the next stage without considering if we are doing well with the programs we already have.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

After the throne speech, the first piece of legislation that we examined and voted on was the former Bill C-2, which was amended following negotiations with the NDP. Our party was able to improve two things, namely the Canada recovery benefit, which we increased from $400 to $500, and sick leave.

My Conservative colleague voted in favour of a Liberal bill that was improved by the NDP. When did he see the light?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member probably did not have the opportunity to hear my speech when we debated that bill.

The Conservative Party will not stand in the way of Canadians who need the benefits. However, with all due respect to this place, we come here to represent our constituents and when the government prorogues Parliament, it denies its own members and ours, whether it be the Bloc, the NDP, or Conservative, the ability to represent our constituents. We had a scheduled sitting on August 22 when we could have debated this. There are a number of things in that bill—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand again in the House and represent the great citizens of Edmonton Centre. I am also proud that our leader has given me a new portfolio, which is the shadow minister for innovation, science and industry. I am excited to be part of that and to be part of what will be a future government.

It has been a great honour to serve for the past eight months, particularly to represent small businesses, and advocate for better policies to help those small businesses. I and my colleagues have made numerous recommendations to the Liberals. Some they listened to and some they did not. I do appreciate the ones that the government did listen to, because these small businesses certainly needed our help during these challenging times.

Small businesses are unique, but when the economy was shut down, only essential businesses were allowed to stay open. It is an interesting term, “essential businesses”, because every small business out there feels like it is essential. These people their blood, sweat and tears into their businesses. To tell them that they are not essential is painful. The very least we can do is try to support them and try to ensure they have a fighting chance to succeed.

Unfortunately, the good work that we were doing at committee, particularly at the finance committee, was put to a stop. We started to make some progress on a variety of issues. Then we uncovered that the way the government was sending out some of these programs, like the WE program, was full of issues. Unfortunately, that resulted in Parliament being prorogued, which is really damning.

As a member of Parliament, I understand that we will have to adapt and change and that obstacles will get in our way in doing this job. COVID-19 is, without a doubt, the most significant issue that a generation will see. It is very important that we craft policies to get us through this. Unfortunately, a lot of the policies we have seen may have helped, but in many areas they have not helped.

The government took six weeks, took a little time out to try to craft a new Speech from the Throne. Unfortunately, it is more like recycled messages. There is a lot to unpack from the Liberal Speech from the Throne, after the Liberals took their hiatus, and I want to highlight a few of the topics they covered.

Finally, the Liberals start to talk about health and testing, and rapid testing. We have had six months to get this right and they are still talking about it. Just in the last couple of days, it looks like we might be making some small progress.

There is this wild assertion that somehow when the government takes on debt, it is not the debt of the people. It is an amazing comment to make. That debt belongs to the people. There is only one taxpayer. Also, they say “one million jobs”. Frankly, if the government could just get out of the way, get these businesses back operating, they will produce the jobs. Government does not produce the jobs; the private sector produces them.

However, the expansion of the CEBA really raises my hair. The government is going to expand something that it has not even fixed. We have been asking the government for months and months to fix the program and allow small businesses that use a personal account to have access to the program. Get it fixed and get it right.

Despite all these promises and all the things the Liberals said they were going to do, we would think we would have outstanding performance. Lo and behold, we pretty much have the highest spending among the G7 countries and the highest unemployment. How does that correlate to good programs? That tells me that other countries have got it better than us and we need to adjust. We need to stop the buzzwords, platitudes and get the programs that actually get the job done.

What this speech felt like for me was something like the first speech I heard in this place. I had used the term a “big old nothing burger”. To me, Throne speech two may have improved the recipe a little, maybe added a bit of meat or even a tomato, but, no. What we got was a recycled, stale-bread, list of old promises and the Liberals branded it under “A Stronger and More Resilient Canada”.

There has been a lot of spending, a lot of talk on spending, but very little about how we will create the revenue to get us out of this mess. The throne speech made no mention on how we would increase exports and market share. There was virtually no mention of the energy and resource sector, which has been a driver of economic growth for the country.

Nothing spoke about the western alienation that is currently happening, particularly in my great province. We have yet to see a budget from the government. When I came here, I expected that would be the first thing we would see from the government, a budget and a road map toward recovery, and we have seen neither.

I could ramble on about a whole handful of promises that are made in the throne speech, but I want to focus on a couple of things, particularly something the Liberals have been claiming they have been rapidly accelerating for five years now.

Since 2015, apparently the top Liberal priority has been to connect incredibly patient Canadians with high-speed broadband, both in urban and rural areas. This fever pitch for connectivity has only been exacerbated because of COVID-19. Students, teachers, small business people, all kinds of folks have needed the Internet to carry on in their daily lives.

What do we have? In 2016, we had the $500-million connect to innovate program; the CRTC's $750-million broadband fund; accelerated investment in 2018; and another announcement today. There are a lot of announcements for money, but little in announcements for actual action. In fact, the minister today said that soon people would have better connectivity. We need to get this right.

There is the 5G program and the delay of the spectrum auction. Those things have been held up, and we are not getting the results we need. There are innovative solutions out there. There is the potential for new providers to come into this marketplace and provide some solutions. All they need is for the government to get out of the way, give some approvals and ensure it happens.

What I heard in the Speech from the Throne was not a story about how we can grow again, not a story about how we can get the economy going, not a story about how we are going to create new jobs, not growing Canada and not growing our economy. That is why I will be voting no. There is no vision. It is a bunch of recycled promises.

I do have confidence, though, in the human spirit and the ability of businesses and the private sector to grow. I do have confidence that they can overcome the challenges that we have today. We have great innovators and great businesses. They can do it if we let them do their jobs.

Unfortunately, Canada fell out of the top 10 ranking of the world's most competitive economies and Canada has fallen nearly to the bottom of its peer group on innovation, ranking 13 out of 16 peer countries by The Conference Board of Canada. Global Innovation Index ranks Canada 16th out of 20 countries. This is not acceptable. This is a country that should lead, not follow, and it is unfortunate we have not had the policies to get this done.

Therefore, it is time to get busy. It is time to get off the platitudes. It is time to talk about policies that will unleash the private sector by reducing regulation, encouraging investment and allowing Canada to be competitive again. We have a great country that has incredible potential. We have great people who want to succeed and I want them to succeed, but we need policies that support this. Unfortunately, the government is on a trail that does anything but that.

Let us get busy, let us make our country go again and let us get it right.

[William Amos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I want to go specifically to the member's recommendations and comments on rural Internet. As he will surely recall, I brought forward Motion No. 208 in the last session, which was agreed to unanimously by the House. I want to ask one specific question about rural Internet because it bears mentioning.

Prior to Liberals being elected in 2015, not a single private residence in rural Canada was hooked up to Internet, thanks to investments by the federal government. Why? Because the previous Conservative government did not invest a red cent in doing that. Therefore, we find ourselves in a very deep hole in Canada, in part because the previous administration, led by Prime Minister Harper, did absolutely nothing, except to hook up libraries, hotels and fire halls. Therefore, we needed to go a lot further.

What does the member opposite have to say about the past performance of the Harper administration in hooking up rural Canadians to the Internet?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hear this constantly in this place. The member can refer back to five or 10 years ago. That is not the solution to the problem. Pointing fingers back to some other time is not the solution. We have the opportunity to move now. From my speech, the member across is fully aware that the Liberals have had six years. There is lots of capital. They have put money into it, but the money is not going to work.

There are innovators out there who want to be able to participate. I mentioned in a question today that Starlink is interested in coming into the Canadian marketplace. What does it need? It needs its licences approved. It has not asked for a dime. Let us get it done.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is currently in the midst of the worst health crisis the world has ever seen.

Various Conservative governments cut the indexation of health transfers to 3%, which means that, in a few years, the federal government will be providing only 18 cents for every dollar. The provinces and Quebec have formed a united front and are asking the federal government to make up for lost ground by providing $28 billion, which means that the provinces would be receiving 35 cents for every dollar spent on health care instead of 18 cents. We need to go back to a 6% escalator.

In question period, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said that his party was in favour of stable, predictable transfers. However, they were stable and predictable at 3%.

I want to know what his party thinks about the united front presented by Quebec and the provinces. Does his party agree with it?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly we believe in stable funding. Provinces have to understand what the funding looks like for health care. Unfortunately, with the Liberal government, it is up and down and we never know where it is going to go. We are not in government. It is not our decision to make, but I can assure the member across that our leader has suggested there will be stable funding for health care.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the amendment we are voting on this evening that was put forward by the Conservative Party, specifically the new policy toward China and what we are going to do about the Canada-China FIPA. This is no ordinary FIPA, like many of the FIPAs we have signed with other countries. Instead of a one-year get-out clause, there are 31 years for state-owned corporations to be invested in this country.

This idea of investing in the oil sands, building pipelines and being able to rip and ship raw resources out of this country, and to then have state-owned corporations be able to challenge any blocking of that by making Canadians pay, tooth and nail, billions of dollars in compensation, was brought forward in an order in council by the Harper cabinet. We cannot block Huawei on national security grounds based on the Canada-China FIPA, so I am wondering, with this new policy that we are thinking about, how we are going to deal with this incredibly anti-democratic and lopsided agreement the Harper government has locked this country into.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Certainly you have heard from our leader that we understand—

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

I would remind the member to speak through the Chair.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, our leader has been quite clear that communist China and the tactics it is using are unacceptable. A Conservative government would stand up to those countries, particularly communist China, and stand up to the actions that—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.