Debates of April 13th, 2021

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Madam Speaker, your colleague certainly recognizes that the wage subsidy that we supported and which we even came up with, for the most part, did help these sectors. However, as I was saying earlier, there is a need for specific assistance for all industries.

I would also add that we definitely need general programs, but there is also a need for specific assistance when an industry is struggling more than others. What I am seeing in the case of the aerospace industry is that its workers are being forced into the construction industry to make ends meet. This is a serious situation that the wage subsidy, despite all its merits, has not been able to address or rectify.

I entirely share my colleague's concerns that the House may be misled. I would not want members of the House to believe that they have truly helped the aerospace industry.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I urge the member to be careful in the way he talks about Alberta's energy industry given the oversized contribution and benefit it has provided to Quebec, including in its manufacturing sector and aerospace sector. I urge him to consider that when he talks about Alberta's energy industry.

My question, though, is very much focused on the massive borrowing limit increase. I am very concerned that about $180 billion in spending is unaccounted for.

I am curious to get the member's thoughts on this. Is he, too, concerned about the massive disparity between promised spending and the increase to the national borrowing limit?

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

Madam Speaker, of course I share all of the opposition parties' concerns.

As a Quebecker, I look at the government's spending habits and the sometimes reckless way it spends its money. I have the same fears and that is why there needs to be constant monitoring.

As we know, the Liberal government does not like the committees that monitor its actions, but I do hope that as opposition parties, we will be able to work together to monitor the government's actions and spending as closely as possible.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have seen multiple polls now that have told us that three-quarters of Canadians, regardless of party, support the idea of taxing the ultra rich. I am wondering whether the member supports such a proposal. If so, does he have any feedback to share on how that might stimulate the economy?

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

Madam Speaker, in principle and out of sympathy, I say absolutely.

Of course, the NDP's motions often include other aspects. Although they may have included such things as taxing the ultra rich, they also included others that encroached and infringed on provincial jurisdictions. That is why the Bloc Québécois voted against those motions.

That said, the billionaires and others have to contribute more and that is why the Bloc Québécois has been working hard on clamping down on tax havens, including when it comes to the wage subsidy and the assistance program. It is outrageous that ultra-rich businesses that are not paying their fair share of taxes can turn around and profit from taxpayers's money. That is why, out of sympathy, I agree, provided Quebec's jurisdictions are respected.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He spoke about the federal government's deal with Air Canada, worth nearly $6 billion.

There were some conditions to this agreement, one of which is that passengers must get refunds for their plane tickets, which is a good thing. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this on behalf of our constituents for many months. Another condition is that the airline must restore regional routes to places like Mont-Joli, Wabush, Baie-Comeau, Gaspé and Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. We are now hearing that service will not be restored, but the federal government did say that it would contribute to a solution in Quebec and that it would not give even more money to the big airlines like Air Canada.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the federal government's decision.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I think that it falls short in every way. Ticket refunds are all well and good, but it is important to remember that tickets could be a lot more expensive as of next year.

That being said, regional service is very important. Unfortunately, we are talking about an agreement with just one carrier, which does not completely remedy the situation. The agreement will no doubt also be good for the aerospace industry because it involves orders for Airbus A-220 aircraft. It is good that the agreement includes orders for these aircraft, but unfortunately, in the beginning, 45 of these aircraft were supposed to be ordered, but the terms of the agreement only include 33 aircraft.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague. I found his comments about the needs of Quebec very interesting.

I would like him to talk more about the cultural industry. He said that the government needs to take urgent action to help the cultural and tourism industries, and that the government now needs to focus on the hardest hit economic sectors. An upturn is in sight. Now, I would like him to talk more about the sectors that need urgent action.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is an advocate for culture and who could undoubtedly answer this question better than I can. She is a real expert on the subject. She is an actor and singer, and she represents a riding that unfortunately lost Félix Leclerc, one of the greatest singers in the history of Quebec, maybe even the greatest.

Many things will have to be done to help the industry, and the six proposals I outlined are all about that. Indeed, the situation is such that gatherings are often a vehicle for culture, unlike sitting in front of Netflix.

For a time, we needed to find ways to be entertained. However, in the end, we are all anxiously waiting because life in society means getting together and all of us being together. For that reason, when numbers must be limited and we must observe physical distancing, when sponsorships are lost, when ticket sales are down, we again need targeted proposals. We must understand that general programs are not the only solution and that we also need targeted programs.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is about policies.

My colleague did a good job of explaining what a policy is, but how should support programs for an industry that invests in innovation for a decade and a half be structured? We are not talking about a COVID-19 program diverted to support Air Canada; we are talking about an assistance program.

How can the government create an assistance program for an industry that needs it for 15 years?

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

Madam Speaker, obviously what we need is a policy.

In many ways, we needed a policy even without the COVID-19 situation. It was essential before that. I shared some examples earlier: greening, recycling, maintenance, liquidity support, loans and support for research and development. All these things are part of a whole policy, but it all starts with a vision. We have to understand that it is an ecosystem. We have to understand that it is a strategic industry. Financial assistance is important, but it is not enough on its own.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.

Since today is Vaisakhi, I want to start by wishing all Sikhs across Canada and around the world a very happy Vaisakhi. This is an opportunity to recognize the generations of Sikhs who have contributed to building this great nation, Sikhs who today are on the front lines fighting this pandemic, Sikhs serving in Canada’s military and Sikhs who continue to support their fellow Canadian through Seva or a duty of selfless service.

[Member spoke in Punjab]

[English]

I am honoured to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-14 on behalf of my constituents of Edmonton Mill Woods.

The bill has some aspects with which we agree. It would provide more support to those who need it during this pandemic and it would top up the Canada child benefit, which was in the platform of the leader of the Conservative Party. The bill would also fix the gaps in the second version of the rent relief legislation, a mistake that could have been prevented if we were afforded more time to properly examine the bill before it was rushed through the first time.

Throughout this pandemic, the Conservatives have proudly supported programs to help Canadians who have been the hardest hit. However, I do have concerns surrounding the increased debt with which we will be saddling our children's future. The last part of the bill would amend the Borrowing Authority Act to significantly increase the borrowing limit of the federal government, which I cannot support.

One of the things I have been hearing the most from my constituents throughout this pandemic is their concern about the state of Canada's economy and the impact COVID-19 spending has had on our federal deficit. The parliamentary budget officer estimates the government ran a deficit of about $363.4 billion in the 2020-21 fiscal year and will be running another massive deficit this year.

How will the government pay for all of this stimulus spending? The answer is found in part 7 of the bill where the government would raise the upper limit on the borrowing authority by 56.8%, from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion. However, $700 billion is far beyond what the government needs to fund all the emergency programs, the stimulus and even additional spending promises. This is another $700 billion that will be left to our children and future generations to pay.

Spending to protect and support Canadians who have been hit hard by this pandemic was the right thing to do, and the Conservatives supported it, but we cannot pass unsustainable debt on to future generations.

I would ask members to apply this scenario to real life. If I went home to my wife tonight and said that I was going to ask the bank tomorrow to increase our credit limit by 56%, she would probably want to know why, and my bank would want some type of plan as to how I would repay it. However, the Liberal government is asking us, as MPs, and the bank of the Canadian taxpayer to trust it with another $700 billion without a plan. That is completely backward. We need to see a plan for the spending.

It is worth noting that the $700 billion increase in the maximum borrowing limit that the bill proposes is vastly beyond what is needed for all the emergency programs and stimulus suggested to date. This leaves the question: To which ineffective pet projects is this money really going to? Perhaps this provides the leeway needed for the universal basic income program, or the UBI program, that the Liberals passed at their convention this past weekend, a big step toward their plan of reimagining Canada's economy. This would require the Liberals to increase personal income taxes by almost 50% and triple the GST. The simple fact is that this kind of risky and unknown experiment will leave millions more Canadians behind.

The reason we are in this position of borrowing more money is because of the Liberal's mismanagement and failures during this pandemic over this last year.

Right now Americans are seeing businesses open, restaurant patios busy and fans returning to watch in-person NHL, NBA and MLB games. Canadians on the other hand are seeing businesses close again, workers losing their jobs again or having their hours cut again, and the mental health crisis continues to drag on. That is the real-world result of the Liberals’ failures during this pandemic, especially on vaccines.

We should be focused on a plan to secure jobs and get our country back to work. On this side of the House, we know that every Canadian deserves the security and dignity that comes with a secure, stable and well-paying job. We know our economic recovery should create opportunity in all sectors of the economy and all parts of the country, not just in areas where the Liberals find political success in sectors they support or by giving handouts to politically powerful corporations with inside access to the Prime Minister’s Office. We know that only paycheques will reduce Canada’s debt, put food on Canadian’s tables, roofs over their heads and tax dollars into schools, hospitals and roads.

That is the reality of this and it is the crossroads about which our Conservative leader has talked. The two paths before us could not be more different. One veers off into the unknown, with more risky shutdowns and unfunded, unknown and untested changes that will leave millions more Canadians behind.

The other is a path of the Liberals' reimagined economy, where an Ottawa-knows-best approach picks and chooses which jobs Canadians should have and in what sector or region. It is a path where the connected few get richer while working families get left behind; a path where the budget does not balance itself but where sky-high deficits and burdensome debt will have to be paid for by some means of new income for the government, meaning higher taxes and possibly taxing the capital gains on personal property, as some Liberals have proposed.

Our Conservative team is offering a path of security and certainty that will safely secure our future and deliver us to a Canada where those who have struggled the most throughout this pandemic get back to work. It offers a Canada where manufacturing at home is bolstered, where wages go up and where the dream so many Canadian families have of affording a better life with their children can be realized.

Bill C-14 would increase the upper limit on the borrowing authority by $700 billion without a plan. The Liberal government has no plan for that spending, no plan for Canada's economic recovery and no fiscal anchor to keep our country's finances afloat. Again, while I agree with some parts of the bill that would directly help those who are struggling throughout this pandemic, I simply cannot be in favour of increasing the government’s credit card limit by 60%, especially without a plan for the spending.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the ongoing theme with the Conservatives, talking about this last part of the bill that they just cannot seem to come to terms with and therefore cannot vote in favour of any of these measures for Canadians. The reality is, and what this member neglected to mention in his comments, that this is not about borrowing the money; it is about changing the limit of what one can borrow.

In fact, this is a quote from the parliamentary budget officer, and I hope the member listens carefully, “Even though the borrowing authority can be increased, it does not grant authority to the government to spend. They have to seek spending through separate bills.” Therefore, increasing the limit does not mean we can actually spend the money. Why would the Conservatives come in here and generate this false narrative?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is asking me and other MPs to trust him that the Liberals are going to increase the spending but they are not actually use it.

Maybe the member could commit to us, on behalf of the government, that if the Liberals are going to increase it, they will not actually use it, or, if they are going to use it, to at least present a plan. That is part of the problem.

If the Liberals say they are increasing it but are not going to use it, fine, tell us that, or if they are going to increase it and use it, which I believe is what they are planning to do, then they should present a plan and tell us how they are going to use that money.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. The government has made many announcements, but each time it cannot provide us with any details regarding how this or that measure will work. What does my colleague think of the government's approach, which involves making nice announcements but never providing any concrete plans or details?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member says the Liberals have made many announcements but the results just are not there.

That is most pronounced in the vaccine procurement problem, where they made many announcements, and Canadians feel that they have heard we are getting millions of vaccines but as of right now, we are behind many other countries with our vaccine plan. America is opening up. The U.K. is announcing opening up. It is because they have the vaccines and have vaccinated much of their population, where Canada is still sitting at about 2%.

Again, as the member has said, the Liberals have made all these announcements, but the plan is not there and they have not followed through. Announcements do not help. We actually have to have plans and details. That is part of the problem with this bill. The details for the spending are just not there.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have observed that the Liberals like to talk about is how much money they have spent. It is tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars just rolling out the door. The Liberals spend and spend, and then they tell Canadians how successful they are in looking after them because they have spent x dollars.

However, since when is spending the measure of good governance? Since when is spending the measure that we use to know whether or not the Liberals are making decisions on behalf of Canadians that are actually helpful? What measure would be better?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Just talking about spending and giving out numbers does not actually help.

What would be better is telling Canadians about results, and to have results-based spending. A part of getting to that solution would be to have the Auditor General look at that spending. The Auditor General and her team could look at it and let us know if the spending has hit the targets it intended to.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has not even funded the Auditor General's office properly for the Auditor General to do those audits. It is unbelievable that any corporation, any organization would increase its spending and decrease the number of its audits. That is the problem. We need to be able to have more transparency, to open up the books and see what that spending is doing. Let us see the results of that spending, not just the amount of the spending.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the current government seems to wear federal debt as a badge of honour. It is bizarre and quite troubling. In the party opposite they love to brag about how much money they have spent, as my hon. colleague has pointed out. They do not so much enjoy talking about the outcome, however, and perhaps that is because the outcome is abysmal.

We will take, for example, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities was recently reviewed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and he confirmed that tens of billions of dollars have rolled out the door in the name of infrastructure projects, and yet the minister is not able to show proof for 9,000 projects. They just disappeared. We have no idea where these projects were fulfilled. We have no idea where they are in their current standing, but we know that billions of dollars rolled out the door. That is unthinkable. That is a scandal of tremendous magnitude.

More borrowing does not equal good governance, as much as the party opposite would like us to believe that. As the official opposition we have supported every single spending measure put forward by them in order to ensure Canadians were rightly taken care of. After all, I do believe that if government policies are what robbed Canadians of their livelihood, then government should also step in and provide for those individuals, because they lost their job at no fault of their own.

However, it is wrong to simply look at the dollars that are being pushed out as some sort of measure of success rather than evaluating the outcome, and the outcome and benefit to Canadians that the government has offered is abysmal. It is embarrassing.

Throughout the pandemic, we have worked with the government to grant specific support measures to Canadians, but at times even our good faith has been put to the test, for example, when the Prime Minister tried to get away with unlimited taxing and spending for up to two years. It is unbelievable. When we have sought clarity from the Liberals, whether it was on spending, vaccines, unethical behaviour, the reason for proroguing Parliament this fall or the sexual misconduct allegations that are taking place within the CAF, we have consistently been silenced. We have been met with deflections, non-answers, filibusters and more secrecy.

Members will forgive me if I am a little skeptical when the government asks to expand the debt ceiling and to take a line of credit for over $660 billion. I have to take a step back, ask some very good questions and point out some very good things that need to be considered.

I referred a moment ago to the lack of transparency around infrastructure spending, but the reality is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said again and again that the current government operates with great secrecy. When the Minister of Finance was questioned at committee about the purpose for this inordinate and unprecedented amount of money that is being proposed to borrow, the minister directed the members to look at a publicly available chart. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this so-called “chart” existed, but there were no expenditures attached to it or the intent of those expenditures. I have a suggestion. Perhaps if they are going to ask to spend this amount of money, they should have a chart available. A pie chart or Excel sheet is not that difficult. However, borrowing money is not the issue. The matter at hand is much greater than dollars. It has to do with the very ethical standard the government sets for itself and the way it conducts itself on behalf of Canadians.

Canadians are looking for a way back to normalcy. They want to start earning a paycheque, rather than collecting a government cheque, so I ask where the plan is. Where is the plan? Where is the leadership? Where is good governance? Throwing money at a problem does not fix it. Money does not equate to outcomes; strategy equates to outcomes, and the current government loves to brag about how much money it is spending, how much it plans to borrow and the amount of debt it intends to take on, but this type of scheme is very short-lived and incredibly detrimental to Canadians.

In fact, Canadians know that the only way the government can bring in money is through taxation. That is it, full stop. Money spent is not a measuring stick for success, but if we want to look at lowering unemployment rates or if we want to look at the growth of our GDP, those are great measures, so let us do that. Oh, wait. That is not positive news.

When I think of Canada's future, I am optimistic nevertheless. Want to know why I am optimistic? It is not because of the government at the helm. I am optimistic because of the very Canadians who live in this country and steward its great resources. I am optimistic because of the men and women who call this nation home who are incredibly entrepreneurial, who are not afraid to take a risk, who are excited about working and getting this country back into shape. The only thing we are missing is a leader who sees this potential.

Speaking of potential, let me mention that it is incredibly sad that the government has offered nothing to the oil and gas sector. In fact, it has gone so far as to demonize the sector here in Canada and support the sector in other countries where there are no human rights protections, where there are no environmental protections and where there certainly is no revenue generated for us. The government would rather support places like Saudi Arabia than develop our own sector. It is sad.

The Liberals just had their policy convention. Many of the resolutions that were brought forward would certainly be applauded by last century's socialist leaders. It is hard to imagine the price tag of things like pharmacare and national basic income, but at the end of the day, Canadians are the ones who have to foot the bill. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that a Liberal universal basic income would mean a 47% across-the-board increase in personal income tax. That means if someone sees $1,000 come off their cheque right now every month, they would be seeing $1,470 come off their paycheque then. That is a lot of money. That is the thing about government spending. It always costs the taxpayer. It always costs the Canadian worker because when those sorts of socialist policies are put in place, taxes have to come up. When taxes come up, it creates an environment that is unfriendly to businesses. Then those businesses actually leave the country. When they leave the country their jobs go with them and when the jobs go with them, the unemployment rate goes up. It is an incredibly detrimental place to put our country.

The Prime Minister often speaks of building back better and creating a more equal society. With this plan of unending spending and historic borrowing he will, in fact, create a more equal society. No doubt about it, we will be more equally poor. Is that really the Canada we want? Margaret Thatcher was asked about her policies when she was the prime minister in the U.K. She said, “what the honourable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.” That is the policy of the government. It would rather that the poor are poorer, as long as the rich are less rich. That is not the Canada that the citizens of this great nation want. That is not the Canada that I can support because greater things are possible, because Canadians are capable of great things. Canadians need a prime minister who sees the solution for what it is, and it is not the government. It is the people. It is Canadians who are the problem solvers, the solution makers and the wealth generators. Canadian workers are the ones who will get Canada back on track.

In 1921, architect John A. Pearson commissioned the following scripture to be engraved over the west window of the Peace Tower in West Block: “Where there is no vision, the people perish”. Right now, Canadians are looking for a leader with vision. They want to see a leader who has a plan, a strategy to restore this country to the powerhouse nation that it can be and has always been intended to be. The answer is Canadians. The solution right now is a leader who has vision to see the answer.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, as is often the case with the opposition, it is negativity and negativity. In her speech the member made reference to the prorogation of Parliament. I would like to share with her that I am very proud to have been prorogued because we were in a crisis such as had not been seen since 1918. We needed to reset. We needed to refocus our plans to support Canadians.

Let me share with her and all Canadians the reason the Harper government prorogued in 2008. That was so it would not have to face a vote of confidence as it would have lost the minority government.

Let us talk about 2013, when the Harper Conservatives prorogued so that they would avoid the Senate expense scandal of the Conservative government. What are her comments on that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to the response, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has a point of order.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would note, as has been referenced a number of times today, that the member was not wearing a House of Commons approved headset. In light of the challenges with interpretation and ensuring that people can be heard in both our official languages, I would urge that to be remedied.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to thank the hon. member for raising that point of order. I want to double-check whether or not the interpretation heard the question. Again, this is a health and safety issue for the interpreters, so before we entertain whether that question will be answered, I want to double-check whether or not the question was understood in both official languages.

I believe the question was answered, therefore I will go to the answer of the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member referred to my speech as being full of “negativity”. Only a Liberal would say that me talking about the potential and ability of Canadians as the solution would call that negativity. Why? Why would the Liberals call that negativity? They would call that negativity because they want Canadians to be reliant on the government, and because they want to be able to control people. They do not want Canadians to be free thinkers. They do not want Canadians to be ingenious. They do not want Canadians to be problem solvers, solution makers or independent wealth creators. They want Canadians to remain reliant on the government. When I talk about Canadians being the solution, and when I talk about the incredible potential that we have in our country, the members opposite refer to it as negativity.

Madam Speaker, that question was a very lengthy question and you are cutting me off inappropriately right now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that we had stopped the time and I looked at the time to see when I would ask for the next question.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a point of order.