Debates of April 22nd, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke at length about how the budget reflects the heart, mind and soul of this Liberal government. He spoke at length about not being afraid of investing to meet the needs of Canadians. I think all parliamentarians agree that we need to invest to meet the needs of all Canadians.

The member also mentioned that we need to learn from the past. I was perplexed when I did my first review of the budget that it did nothing to address the key findings from the Office of the Auditor General who found, on infrastructure, that key federal organizations could not demonstrate that the investing in Canada plan was on track to meet its expected results and objectives. The reality is that Canadians, under this government, do not know where billions of dollars are going as it relates to infrastructure projects. I believe that this government can do a better job of improving its transparency so that Canadians know—

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

We have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary an opportunity to comment.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take this as an opportunity to thank the Auditor General and the whole team that the Auditor General has in ensuring that Canadians have the best information. The Auditor General's work absolutely is incredibly important to Canadians, and that is why we have restored funding to that office that was cut by the previous Conservative government.

We want to engage with the Auditor General to ensure that Canadians can count on and can trust our officials across this government to spend their money wisely. We never understand this as our money; we understand it very clearly as money that Canadians have put in. As the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills said this morning, our tax system is a way we put money into a pot to use in appropriate ways.

We will follow everything the Auditor General suggests, and I can assure Canadians that their money is—

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

We have to go to other questions.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about how the budget will help with job creation.

From a holistic perspective, I have to wonder. Increasing health transfers would lead to better care, since new equipment could be purchased. This would create jobs, including jobs in health care systems.

Increasing old age security would have a similar impact, since increasing the purchasing power of seniors, who account for 22% of our population, would create jobs in all kinds of sectors, such as the food and clothing industries.

Why did he vote against the Bloc Québécois' amendment if it would ultimately benefit the economy?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important to understand this clearly.

I will speak in English because I was not able to change my headset.

It is actually a bit tiresome, I would say. I am a little tired of this endless rhetoric from the Bloc about health transfers at this point.

The transfers that this government has made in health care have been historic, and absolutely the appropriate way that we have supported every province, including Quebec, in our health care is essential to fighting COVID.

We have also supported seniors tremendously through this program and this budget adds further support to seniors. The transfers that we made—

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

We have to have one last question.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Northern Ontario is seized with a crisis right now. Laurentian University is cutting dozens of French-language programs, including its midwifery program, the only one offered in French outside Quebec.

Where in the budget are the Liberal government's commitments to post-secondary education, including French-language programs at northern Ontario universities?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to comment on that.

Regarding Laurentian University, I am from northern Ontario, from Sault Ste. Marie. Algoma University, called Algoma College, was part of Laurentian and it is very much part of my family history.

I have a great deal of concern about the provincial government and Ontario's support of post-secondary education, but I was extremely pleased to see several interventions in this budget providing money for elementary, secondary and post-secondary education in French, which is absolutely part of Canada's heritage. We need to make sure that French language is—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so proud to speak to this budget. The hon. member laid out the vision behind this budget extremely well, and I want to follow up on it.

This is a historic budget, presented by Canada's first female finance minister. I am proud because I can see the fine hand of the Deputy Prime Minister in that budget. I can see her thinking and her vision, because it is a clear, logical, visionary budget. It is laid out in three themes, as any logical budget would do. It is a budget about people. It is about protecting people, that is the first theme; it is about supporting people, that is the second theme; and it is about investing long term in people, that is the third theme.

We are facing the greatest global human and economic catastrophe since World War II, and I think we need to remember that. This is not a crisis caused by some human error or economic mistake made by others. It is caused by a virus that is currently in full control. I want us to think about the nature of this catastrophe, because we seem to lay blame in this House for who is responsible for what and why we are not controlling the virus very well.

With the exception of Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan, every country is in lockdown right now, struggling against a third wave of mutations of the virus. Actually, Canada is holding its head above water. We hear fears raised about deficits and spending, etc. I want to ask my colleagues if we should have abandoned Canadians, or abandoned provinces that, constitutionally, have the ability to deliver health care. We have not done that.

We have invested $8 out of every $10 in the provinces and vaccines, giving provinces what they need in order to deliver health care, personal protective equipment, testing, tracing, surveilling, and ensuring the basics of epidemiology, which are test, trace, surveil and isolate when necessary, are followed. We have supplied the provinces with the money to be able to do all of that. However, it is their duty under the Constitution to deliver on that.

I want to say what the IMF said about our early response, which is the first theme in this budget. Because Canada used public health policies, grounded and guided by science and expertise, we were able to deal with the first wave of COVID in a very reasonable manner.

The variants are the problem right now. Until we can flatten the curve and until we get rid of COVID, nothing, no economic redevelopment, no starting of any economy, no transition, and no ability to plan for the future, will occur. Job one is getting that virus contained.

One of the things we did when it first started, as the IMF pointed out, to deal with this was we funded, $8 out of $10, the provinces and gave them the ability to deliver health care in a manner they felt fit their particular province and region. In many cases we have seen across the country that the provinces have different responses. Some have done well, as in the Atlantic provinces, and others have not done so well. That is because provinces are dealing with health care on the ground in their provinces. That is an important thing to remember. The federal government cannot suddenly impose on provinces and tell them what we think they need to do.

This is the first part, protecting Canadians, which we have done extremely well. The IMF said that we are one of the countries that did extremely well, using science and expertise to do it.

I could sit here and say that we are putting $40 billion into this and $3 billion over two years and whatever into things we have done. However, I am hoping members have read the budget and know where all the money is going and for what reasons.

I want to talk a little about the vision behind this budget. The point is we were, and are still, trying to flatten the curve. The second part of the budget is supporting Canadians, supporting workers, families, seniors and vulnerable Canadians, and supporting businesses and helping them to stay afloat. That part of the budget was about supporting Canadians so that they could survive and cope, and so that businesses, if not rising above it because nobody can rise above it until COVID is gone, could tread water.

When the time comes, and we are ready to move forward again and rebuild a new economy, small businesses will be ready to hit the ground running. That is why we looked at putting in place the wage supplement and the rent supplement for people who lost their jobs. That is why we looked to increasing sickness leave. That is how we saw the vulnerable in our society, which COVID exposed to us.

There are all of the women who had to leave their jobs. They did not lose their jobs. They had to leave them because they had to stay at home and take care of their children. There are all of the low-wage workers, who are working in risky and precarious jobs, many of them full time, who still cannot afford to make ends meet. The pandemic exposed those vulnerable people extremely well.

I think that is one of the reasons we are now looking at how to support them with a $15 minimum wage. Of course, we are helping workers, not just families but single workers too, to be able to make use of the taxes that can help them keep their heads above water. We helped seniors with money. We are looking at how we are going to help them continue to function by increasing the OAS for seniors above the age of 75, and giving them a one-time amount of $500.

We are looking at housing, not only for businesses, but also helping people and families pay their rent. We are looking at how we put money into a rapid housing initiative to deal with all of the homelessness, to help the people who have been displaced. We have put money into food banks to support people so they can eat and feed their families.

That is what this budget is about. It is about continuing to do that on until we get rid of COVID to help people to survive and cope, and have businesses able to keep afloat, so when the time comes they can rebound.

The third part of the budget is where I can see the Minister of Finance's fine hand, because it is a visionary budget. It is talking about the future. It is building for a resilient future.

This is not going to be our last pandemic. We do not know what is going to happen. Catastrophes will occur. We need to prepare for when they happen, not fall apart like we did economically and socially. We need to be able to be resilient enough to bounce with whatever hits us. That is what this budget is doing in its third phase, which is building for the future.

The important thing about this budget is that we are finding out about all the people who fell between the cracks, and they are going to have to be helped. This budget is about looking at building a new social infrastructure, so that we do not have to have people fall between the cracks again. We are looking at the people who have fallen and are falling.

We are looking at young people, and we are looking at seniors, helping them to survive and be able to move forward.

We are looking at the tourism sector and industries that have fallen apart. We want to keep them alive so they can rebound again. We are giving them money for marketing and for rebuilding.

We are not only looking at giving small businesses the help they need to restart and to rebuild, but we are also looking at helping them into the new era.

The new economic era that we are going to build will be based on the post-industrial economy. I have listened to many international fora, such as in Europe, talking about a post-industrial recovery. It is not going to be the same old, same old. We are going to have to look at how we invest in the new economy. In Europe they have talked a lot about how automation has actually begun to kill the industrial sector, and Europe has massive industrial sectors.

We are looking at how we rebuild back a new economy. We look at scientific knowledge and innovation. We are looking at harnessing our oceans. We are lucky. We are surrounded by three massive oceans. How do we get into that blue economy?

How do we utilize our oceans to produce food and protein with low greenhouse gas emissions, with renewable food sources? Oceans are not just about fish. We are going to look at how we could develop that. Although, I might say that I am very pleased to see that my province of British Columbia got a lot of help with the salmon. They are dying right now, and we got enough money to be able to rebuild that particular resource.

The important thing to remember is that we are recognizing that this new economy will have to utilize young people, who right now have no jobs. We have kept them afloat with summer jobs, and all of the other things, but we are now trying to utilize and focus on youth being able to get their first jobs, being able to get into the kinds of training that they need—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre talked a lot about all the things the government is looking into, but the one area it is not looking into is first-time home buyers. The federal government, I acknowledge, has put new money into housing, but it does not address the structural economic challenges that young buyers.

They are the young professionals graduating from the University of British Columbia or Simon Fraser University who followed all the rules to get ahead and did everything they were always supposed to do. They now find themselves having to pay $3,000 a month for a crappy apartment in Vancouver.

They do not want to live in social housing. These are independent-minded young professionals. They want a pathway to home ownership, and under the first-time home buyers plan, they are not getting that. Under the current government, which acknowledged that the system works better for foreign buyers—

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

I will give the member for Vancouver Centre an opportunity to answer.

The hon. member.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think what the hon. member does not remember is that in 2017, after the housing strategy had been gutted, this government put $40 billion over 10 years into housing, and since then we have topped that up. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was brought back in the housing business, because it had been taken away by the Conservative government.

We scrapped what was happening to support mortgages to help young people and first-time buyers. This is happening. This is going on in very difficult provinces such as British Columbia to help young people get jobs. I might add that one of the things IMF commented on is that we have been actually getting new jobs, the rising number of jobs in British Columbia in the last quarter has been in the technological industries with new innovations.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her speech.

I, too, would like to take a moment to salute the first budget presented in the House by a woman. It is worth acknowledging every time a woman speaks for the first time on this issue, so I congratulate the Minister of Finance on her achievement.

I would like the member to comment on whether she sees a difference between the expenses of seniors who are 65 to 74 and those of seniors who are 75 and over.

Has the government created two classes of seniors based on the belief that their expenses are different?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this budget is not only about supporting the vulnerable, but it is also about being able to recognize where those supports are best used at the moment. It has been shown statistically that of seniors over 75, 10% are in the paid workforce right now. Most of them are disabled. They are suffering from long-term health problems, and so they really needed this extra support right now.

It is shown that, for those between 65 and 74, about 35% of that cohort are working and raising money. They are able to live, and they do have some ability to support themselves. Right now we are supporting the very vulnerable group.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, like the member, I was quite excited to see the commitment to child care. I think it will be vital in women's recovery from COVID-19 and for the recovery of our economy. However, what I did not see in this budget was anything on pharmacare. Despite the fact that the Liberals ran on this in 2019, and despite the fact that the throne speech talked about pharmacare, there is nothing in this budget for pharmacare.

How can we believe that there will actually be any real action on child care, when we have seen promise after promise on a number of different fronts not be fulfilled and dropped when they become inconvenient for the government?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think this member does not recognize that both pharmacare and child care are constitutionally provincial jurisdictions. In order to get to where we were under Paul Martin, we had negotiated a full child care and early learning program with all the provinces.

We had also negotiated the Kelowna accord, and we had begun to work on a pharmacare strategy with the provinces at that time. Then, of course—

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

We must resume debate.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has the floor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today.

Centuries ago, when a community was facing a terrible plague, a man showed up wearing a coat of many colours. He claimed to be able get rid of the rats that were responsible for the plague. The town folks decided to take him up on his offer. Just as the plague was ending, the pied piper, having changed outfits, I guess he was a big fan of costumes, was now sporting a bright red hat. He lured the children out of the town, and they were never seen or heard from again.

It is a tragic story, but there are some parallels to what is going on in our country. I am quite concerned about this budget and what it means for the futures of the children out there.

I was born in the seventies and went to school at the University of Saskatchewan, starting in 1996. Some of the lessons from my university days and living in Saskatchewan are telling, and some are lessons we learned in the eighties and nineties about problems with governments living beyond their means and what comes next.

I believe what comes next is going to be a repeat of the nineties. We know interest rates are going to go up, and what that will do is pressure federal governments to make changes. In the nineties, the Liberals slashed transfer payments to the provinces, and the provinces downloaded those cuts onto institutions such as the University of Saskatchewan, where I was going to school in the late nineties.

I felt what those cuts did to the facilities. There were cuts to my education and cuts to health care in our province, and it was all because of governments living beyond their means when interest rates were low. As soon as they started moving and the crunch happened, the credit card bill came due.

That Liberal government cut transfer payments. The provincial government in my province of Saskatchewan made cuts to the University of Saskatchewan, where I was going to school. One example that really sticks in my mind concerning the cuts to transfers is that the facilities at the university I was attending were falling down. In the frugal nature of Saskatchewan, we made due with what we could to provide.

I vividly remember writing a final in the gym. It was not really a gym, it was actually a World War II hangar that was moved on to campus. However, it was not just one War World II hangar. The university took another one and stacked the two on top of each other. That is where I was writing a final one morning, and later that day, the building was condemned. It was ready to fall down. It was because of the cuts the federal government made. The credit card bill was due.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have not learned from these tough lessons. More and more Canadians are waking up to the fact that, once interest rates start moving up, we know what will happen because of the fiscal reality of our country and also becasue what the Liberals have done with printing money.

There are numerous countries and societies that thought it would be a good idea to print money to pay bills, but unfortunately we know how that ends for governments, and it is probably worst off for citizens. It is going to cause inflation. Inflation is going to be at a runaway pace with the current plan of the Liberals, which will result in interest rate changes. Interest will go up, which will unfortunately force future governments to make the decision, similar to the nineties and the Liberals, to cut transfers to the provinces, cut services and raise taxes.

That is why I cannot support this budget. This budget contains a lot of new spending and a lot of structural spending, which is going to force us into a worse structural deficit. I am the shadow minister of families, children and social development, and the government day care program falls within my duties. I am very concerned about the direction it will take us fiscally.

Different projections show that by 2026 we are going to be spending $8.3 billion on child care, if this fantasy the Liberals are once again telling comes together. They have been telling this story for the last 30 years.

In 2026, even with interest rates as they are currently, we are going to be paying $39 billion to service the debt. What kind of future are we giving children who apparently are going to be paying for this government's day care program? The problem with what the Liberals are proposing I think is worse because it limits a family's choice. We should be trusting families to make the choices that are right for them. We should be empowering parents and sending them supports to make those decisions, be it for regulated day care, a relative who helps out or someone else who helps with their children. I am very concerned that this program will never get off the ground.

The problem with this budget is there is not a thin nickel going to the provinces in transfers directly for health care. Provinces right now are on their knees. Not one province is in surplus. If a province was going to spend an extra dollar to take care of its responsibilities, as this is a provincial responsibility, it would not spend on child care right now. Because we are in the middle of a pandemic, it would go to health care, and rightfully so. No province is going to be willing to forgo providing the health care we need in order to start a national program with the federal Liberals. I find it very difficult to believe, and this is why it has not gotten off the ground in the 30-some years that the Liberals have been promising this fantasy.

On a positive note, I would like to highlight the spending on the VIDO centre in Saskatoon. It took me 12 months of lobbying to get these dollars finally flowing. This facility was the first to isolate COVID-19 in the world. It has world-leading scientists working on these problems. It had to wait for the budget consultation and 12 months to get its funding, which is wrong.

There are a lot of things wrong with this budget. There are supports that Conservatives supported to make sure we get through the pandemic. We should be there for people who are not able to provide for their families because of government restrictions on their ability to work. We have supported those short-term relief programs. However, the structural deficit this creates, which we were already in before the pandemic, is going to result in a future for our children that is a lot darker than ours. I have issues with spending future generations' wealth today and what that results in. We talk about fiscal pressures that are going to exist with inflation. What is the Liberal government going to cut when the structural deficit credit card bill comes due? This is not a way to operate a country, and I hope that more Canadians are waking up to this pied piper dream. It will result in a darker future for our country and our future generations.

I wish this budget was based more in reality. The fact is that the fiscal capacity for our country is going to be shaken, just as in the 1990s, and I am fearful of what is going to be cut when the credit card bill comes due. Canadians are counting on us. We should be there during the pandemic for relief programs in the short term, but we have to get back to balance.

Circling back once more to the children's story of The Pied Piper of Hamelin, at the tail end of the play, he wanted to take the town's gold or its children. It is important not to see too many parallels with today. For one thing, we should remember that the pied piper actually did a good job of ending the pandemic and, for that matter, what he really wanted was to steal either the town's gold or its children's future, but not both at the same time.

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

Madam Speaker, one by one Conservatives have been trotting out and talking about the debt and the deficit. That is a really important conversation to have. I get it, and we need to talk about that because it is a lot of money, but they are not giving any kind of indication of what they would remove from the budget. If the member is not convinced of the amount of debt, then he should pick a number. He wants to halve it. What if it were only half? He should tell me what he would cut from it.

Can the member tell me what he would cut from it? Conservatives want to start cutting things from the budget, but they should tell us what those things would be rather than just complaining about the number.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would hope the member would believe his own words: that we need to get back to balance at some time. Running up the credit card bill is only going to get us in worse shape down the road, and those choices that we are going to have to make as a country when the interest rates go up are going to be horrific. For the member to say that we are in a good spot, and that this extra spending is going to relieve the concerns we have in our country about fiscal deficits or a structural deficit, I cannot accept that. We are forgoing so much opportunity for future generations with the direction of the government.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government refuses to take action in response to the unanimous request of Quebec and the Canadian provinces to permanently increase health transfers to 35% per year.

Permanent transfers are a way to make long-term investments to help people in terms of their health, the economy and employment, which will affect their ability to afford housing, food, clothing and so on.

My question for my esteemed colleague is this: Does he realize that by voting against health transfers last night, his party is being inconsistent and demonstrating that it lacks a long-term vision regarding how these transfers can have a positive impact on the economy?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it was an important debate last night. We need to remember, if we are talking about the Bloc's amendments, that they removed all reference to being fiscally responsible. There is a need to live in reality versus this fantasy world where we can just keep spending and not have problems that will come back on us.

I believe that we need to help provinces. They are the ones at the front lines of this pandemic. They are begging for vaccines the government failed to deliver in January and February, which resulted in a third wave that is crushing Canada. Meanwhile, not that far south of us, freedoms are returning. Cities are coming back to life. It was the failure of the federal Liberal government to get vaccines—