Debates of May 25th, 2021

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for evoking some childhood memories of mine by talking about Steve Austin from The Six Million Dollar Man. To my generation Steve Austin is the Six Million Dollar Man, but to another generation Steve Austin is the real name of the professional wrestler Stone Cold. I have to admit that it was the Six Million Dollar Man's female counterpart who occupied the evenings of my youth. Jaime Sommers, the Bionic Woman, was quite captivating.

To come back to the subject at hand, my question is on what my colleague said at the end of his speech. Every provincial premier and Quebec have been calling for health transfers, but they are once again absent from the government's intentions. I also want to come back to improving life for our seniors and the lack of consideration for those 65 to 74.

These days we keep hearing the Conservatives say that they will win the next election and will do all sorts of things. Could my colleague tell me whether a future Conservative government would increase health transfers and ensure that seniors are treated fairly and that their pension is increased at age 65?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments about Jaime Sommers. I had forgotten about her, so I thank him.

The member brought up some good points about priorities. The government seems to be prioritizing wage subsidies for hedge fund billionaires and companies that are growing exponentially. They do not need the money. At the same time, it is ignoring the provinces. I agree 100% with my colleague that the focus needs to be on health care, not paying off the connected friends of the Liberal Party.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to stay with the $6-million theme in my questioning. Am I understanding correctly that only 43 minutes of the next year in this budget has been dedicated to our carbon capture storage? If $6 million is spent in 13 minutes, that means about $20 million is spent in 43 minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have not got my calculator in front of me, so I will trust my colleague's numbers.

Yes, it shows a hypocrisy. The government talks so much about the environment. The number one job creator in Canada, which led us out of the 2008-09 recession and which will lead us to grow out of this difficult time, is the energy industry. Alberta and the energy industry have done an amazing job reducing carbon already, but another way for us to further help the environment is through carbon capture research. However, the government is more focused on giving millions and millions of dollars to wealthy owners of Tesla cars, rather than the industry and the environment. It is clear that the government has its priorities wrong. We hope it will change that and focus on what is better for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the big challenges I have is comparing this BIA and the budget with the Liberals' dismal record on accountability. We have pointed out the $100-billion, so-called green slush fund. We only need to look back on the pandemic to see some of the challenges associated with WE Charity and other scandals with the contracts given to Liberal insiders.

Does my colleague have more comments on the lack of accountability that exists within this budgetary framework?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great comment from my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. We talked about accountability. It has been in the papers a lot concerning the Canadian emergency wage subsidy. It is the largest support program of the COVID crisis and totals $100 billion. We have heard money has gone to wealthy hedge fund managers and to multinational corporations. We even heard we were giving taxpayers' money to a Chinese state-owned company.

When we asked the president of the Treasury Board what oversight he provided for the $100 billion and if it went through the Treasury Board process as required, his comment was that he did not know. His job is to oversee the spending and he did not even know whether it went through the process. It did not, and the results are showing.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to budget 2021, the first budget from the government in two years.

Canadians have been patient. While they were asked for two weeks to flatten the curve, they have given 14 months. What they have been waiting for is a plan, a plan to safely reopen our economy and get Canadians back to work, a plan to provide future generations with the hope and confidence they so desperately need right now that they do, indeed have a future. However, this budget is a massive letdown.

Unemployed Canadians hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families are going to feel let down. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy are going to feel let down. Families that cannot afford more taxes and are struggling to save money for their children's education or to buy a home are going to feel let down. Saskatchewanians looking for a plan to support important sectors in our province are going to feel let down.

A government focused on economic recovery would support all sectors of the economy, especially sectors that have been reliable sources of economic stability for Canadians in the past. In this budget, the Liberals have decided to throw caution to the wind and ignore these sectors. For instance, the oil and gas industry in Canada has long been a sector that has fostered economic growth and prosperity for thousands of hard-working Canadians, with revenues supporting social programs and infrastructure like schools and hospitals. Yet as we look to return to normalcy, this important sector has been left behind once again. Workers in this sector have been hit hard during this pandemic through lost wages and jobs, yet there are no supports for them.

Another sector left behind is the agricultural sector, specifically farmers, ranchers and producers. They have worked continuously to support Canada throughout this pandemic, yet these two immensely important sectors, which have consistently offered economic growth and stability, have been shunned in this budget, with workers who are so crucial to getting Canada through the pandemic being ignored by the government, all in favour of partisan spending. This is unacceptable.

What is included in this budget is an expensive Ottawa-knows-best proposal for a national child care system. This Ottawa-centric approach should come as no surprise to Canadians familiar with the Liberals' disregard for provincial jurisdiction. In a Liberal politician's mind, a one-size-fits-all policy makes sense, but this does not work in the real world. For example, the circumstances and needs of parents in urban versus rural Canadians are very different. While parents do need support, they should ultimately be the ones to make the decision on how to care for their children, not bureaucrats in Ottawa. While Conservatives supported and put forward changes to the wage subsidy and the rent relief programs, extensions to these programs would more than likely not be necessary if the federal government had done a better job in managing the pandemic and procuring vaccines for Canadians.

As it is now, we are in the middle of a third wave sweeping across our country, causing provincial governments to impose more restrictions and lockdowns of their respective economies. Conservatives have been supportive of measures that support Canadians and Canadian businesses. We are supportive of spending that will make real change for struggling Canadians who have been heavily affected by the pandemic, but what we are seeing in this budget is an avalanche of spending that increases the size and role of government in the Canadian economy. We are emerging from a pandemic. Small and medium-sized businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals need financial support to recover from the devastation this pandemic has wrought.

When so many are in dire need of assistance, it is unacceptable that the Liberals would set aside $100 billion for what amounts to electioneering expenditures. Unfortunately, unbridled spending on pet projects is par for the course with the government. It has always run deficits, not once trying to control the national debt or rein in spending. Prudent financial planning would have had the federal government running surpluses prior to the pandemic, saving in the good years so that there is a buffer against the bad.

Instead, the failures of the government before the pandemic, and now during it, have caused Canada's debt to shoot to over $1 trillion for the first time in our history. This debt will be paid back by future generations.

This budget does not set up Canadians for future prosperity; instead, it has set up Canada for long-term post-pandemic failure.

The Liberals have made numerous missteps in their spending during the pandemic, like the spectacular over-expenditure on ventilators. Even more egregious was the secretive awarding of billions of dollars of contracts to Chinese firms for PPE supplies without much, if any, regard for our domestic ability to ramp up production here in Canada.

Finally, I want to talk about the infrastructure file, on which the government has completely fallen far short.

The Prime Minister's Canada Infrastructure Bank has woefully underperformed. In the past four years it has spent billions of dollars and completed zero projects. A new report from the PBO revealed that it is losing money and will miss the government's set targets by over 50%. Instead of stimulating the economy, it has been a complete waste of taxpayer money.

The spring 2021 edition of We Build, Saskatchewan's construction magazine, notes:

Almost $900 million in federal spending has been earmarked to be spent in Saskatchewan, and yet 64 per cent of this amount...remains unallocated. Of the 36 per cent that has been “allocated”, more than half of this is still “under review” — meaning that of the $887.26 million in federal money targeted for Saskatchewan, only $152.01 million has actually been invested. This is a travesty, and it is almost entirely because of federal bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Further, the infrastructure gap between indigenous communities and the rest of Canada will not be addressed by the money pledged in this budget. Many first nations communities have already stated that they need more assistance in closing the infrastructure gap, yet the current government continues to fail them both in this budget and through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There are still many communities without clean water. Now it is even clearer how badly the government has failed them. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, which had a specific mandate that included improving infrastructure for indigenous communities, has fallen far short of the mark, just as the government has continuously fallen far short of the mark.

Canadians need thoughtful, focused and effective spending by the government, even more so in times of a crisis. The spending in this budget should have focused on recovering and creating jobs for Canadians, not partisan priorities.

In conclusion, this budget has been a massive letdown. It is a budget that has truly missed the mark. It is a budget that is adding nearly half a trillion dollars in new debt that will only be paid back by raising taxes on hard-working Canadian families, all while placing a massive burden of debt on future generations.

In this budget we find a complete lack of thought regarding the priorities of Canadians, a failure to address their needs and an ignoring of vital sectors in need of stimulus. The government needs to rethink its priorities as we move toward reopening the economy. Canadians need a real plan for the future. They need a budget that puts Canadians first.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday was National Patriots Day in Quebec. I salute all Quebeckers who took the time to commemorate these proud freedom fighters.

The rest of Canada celebrated Queen Victoria. It is interesting to note that one of Queen Victoria's first orders when she assumed the throne was the order to execute these freedom fighters, the patriotes of Lower Canada. While in Quebec we paid tribute to the people who were hanged, the rest of Canada celebrated the hangman. That is another sign of our distinct society.

Now to my question. Two of the groups hardest hit by the crisis are seniors and young people. We have been talking a lot about mental health issues. I have a 17-year-old daughter in CEGEP. I heard about what was going on with university students, and mental health is really a crucial issue. University students are one of the groups hardest hit by the crisis, along with seniors. The two sectors we should be investing in are health and seniors, but there is nothing for them in this budget.

If the Conservatives come to power, and considering the mental health problems we see, can we hope that health transfers will be increased and that seniors under the age of 75 will receive help?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would start off by saying the member should actually direct questions about the level of health transfers that are included in this budget to members of the governing party.

The Liberals' failure to deliver a plan to reopen the economy and their massive deficit spending jeopardize the long-term viability of important social programs, like education and health care. Their unsustainable debt will lead to higher taxes, penalizing those who can afford it the least. Provincial governments only have to look back to the 1990s to remember what the previous Liberal government had to do to deal with its debt and deficits.

Conservatives are committed to improving the well-being and financial security of Canada's seniors. We have also committed to addressing the mental health of Canadians should we form government.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, one in five people in Canada do not take the medication they have been prescribed, because they cannot afford it. However, the Conservatives voted to continue protecting the profits of big pharma.

The Liberals have been promising a pharmacare program for 23 years. Can the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek explain why this bill continues to put pharmaceutical profits ahead of the needs of Canadian families, and why her party continues to vote against a pharmacare program?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct, this budget does not address the topic that the member has raised.

I believe we need to be focusing on ways to help Canadians who do not have or cannot afford drug coverage, rather than upending a system that works for the vast majority of Canadians. No one should have to go without the medications they need. During the pandemic, we have seen many Canadians endure prescription drug shortages.

Conservatives believe that it is key for the federal government to work with the provinces to help strengthen our domestic pharmaceutical drug supply.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech given by my colleague from just across the border in Saskatchewan.

One of the challenges we have seen throughout the last six years of Liberal governments is emphasized in the budget, the growing divide between urban and rural Canadians. Certainly a lot of the promises made in this budget seem to just outright ignore rural and remote Canada, whether that be rural areas like those that the hon. member and I represent or more remote areas like in Canada's north.

I am wondering if the member would comment on some of the ways that this budget fails to address the challenges faced by rural and remote Canada.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, quite simply, I would say to my hon. colleague that over the past six years what we have seen is a government that practises policies of division, whether it is pitting the east against the west or pitting rural Canadians—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, after waiting two long years for the Liberals to table a budget, they have instead presented a massive new debt burden for Canadians rather than a hopeful plan for a path forward post-pandemic—in a word, failure.

Unemployed Canadians wanted to see a plan to create new jobs. Workers who had their wages cut and their hours slashed had hoped to see a plan to reopen the economy. Families that simply cannot afford more taxes were looking for relief. Instead, this costly plan will add over $100 billion in new spending and will increase Canada's debt to a whopping $1.2 trillion. Yes, that is trillion with a “t", for the very first time in Canadian history.

It is a staggering amount that most Canadians cannot even begin to comprehend: $1.2 trillion. It is equivalent to every single Canadian being responsible for $33,000 of federal debt. Canadians and their children, their children's children and their children's children's children and on and on will be forced to pay off this massive debt of the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released a report saying that this budget even underestimates the size of the federal deficits by about $5.6 billion per year. To quote the PBO, it “puts Ottawa on a long-term path of higher debt”.

What about fiscal anchors? No, there are none of those in there. There is only a vague mention on page 53, which says, “The government is committed to unwinding COVID-related deficits and reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium-term.” That sure sounds reassuring, does it not?

Canadians are right to be concerned about this Liberal spending. They will be footing the bill of $40 billion in taxes every year to pay the interest expenses on that debt alone. This is all predicated on a very risky assumption that interest rates and inflation will continue to remain low.

With all this spending and fiscal risk, one would expect some actual substance, but many Canadians are being simply left behind or ignored in this budget. How about a plan to unleash the prosperity-producing, economy-boosting Alberta energy? No, that one is definitely not in the budget. The government has been abundantly clear on its plan to landlock Canadian oil with Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 in the previous Parliament and the Prime Minister's comment that the oil sands need to be phased out.

The Liberal government already stood by idly while the U.S. administration cancelled Keystone XL, and of course it itself caused the cancellation of things like northern gateway and energy east. With Enbridge's Line 5, of course we know about the jeopardy it is in, and it is responsible for supplying half of the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec. The closure of that pipeline would literally create an energy crisis here in Canada, and then of course we would see more of Alberta's oil stranded, when Alberta's economy is already suffering. Instead, that biases it toward oil from places with far less environmentally friendly records elsewhere in the world.

All of that is due to the Liberals strangling Alberta oil in favour of that less environmentally friendly oil from other countries, which certainly do not share our commitment to environmental protection or to human rights. Again, the budget is completely silent on Alberta energy.

Despite this deafening silence by the Liberals, Conservatives will always continue to advocate for pipelines and projects that end our dependence on foreign oil and that will unleash our energy sector. Energy- and job-killing legislation from the Liberals has only decreased Canada's ability to produce and trade environmentally sustainable energy resources and to create more jobs.

Alberta's energy sector could be the key to economic growth and to success post-pandemic in Canada, but the Liberals have chosen instead to denigrate and ignore it. Its absence is glaringly obvious and Albertans will not forget it. Instead, this budget proposes a reimagined Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas that will leave the Canadian economy in a very precarious position.

However, so much more is also missed in the budget. For start-up businesses that are in desperate positions and do not meet the government's narrow rules of assistance programs, there is nothing either. For small businesses, there are major gaps and issues with federal programming that the Liberals continue to ignore. The CFIB said of the budget that “the government did not deliver on many of the major program gaps affecting thousands of small businesses facing restrictions, closures and huge amounts of COVID-related debt.”

Many of those small businesses are tourism businesses, and tourism businesses are desperate to have the government table a safe plan with metrics and targets to be able to open their businesses for the key summer season. I am sorry; there is nothing for them in the budget, either.

In my beautiful riding of Banff—Airdrie, tourism is a key economic driver that has been devastated by the pandemic. Lockdowns and border restrictions have stifled businesses. Many have been forced to lay off employees and in some cases, unfortunately, have closed down altogether.

This is happening everywhere, right across Canada. Tourism and travel-related businesses lost approximately $19.4 billion in revenue last year from the absence of international visitors. However, the government just extended, once again, the U.S.-Canada border closure well into the key summer tourist season without any kind of plan or any metrics on how or when it might be willing to safely reopen that border. Now, tourism businesses are looking at losing another key summer, and the budget is completely silent on a safe plan for reopening and for a safe way forward.

The government has unfortunately chosen winners and losers in this budget and unfortunately left many people out to dry. The Liberal government loves to tout the saying “We are all in this together,” but recently I heard another metaphor about the pandemic, which I thought was very apt to the chosen winners and losers in this debt-heavy Canadian Liberal budget. It is this: We are all in the same storm, but some are in yachts and others are in leaky rowboats. The Liberal government should not be waving to Canadians struggling in the pandemic storm in leaky rowboats while the Liberals are drinking champagne from the deck of their taxpayer debt-paid yacht. Spending without a proper plan is failure.

To the government, I say this: Fix this budget and give Canadians a hopeful path forward for economic recovery post-pandemic, not a lifetime of taxes and debt. That is what we see with this budget. We see a lot of money being spent, but a lot of people still being left behind, and what we then see is people being burdened. Canadians, their children, their grandchildren and their great-great-great-grandchildren will be seeing that burden of debt to pay for all of this spending.

That is the thing I think the Prime Minister and the Liberal government fail to understand. Money does not grow on trees. The government does not just manufacture the ability to spend money. That money comes from hard-working Canadian taxpayers who have earned that money, and it takes away from their ability to meet the needs of their families, to meet their own needs, to keep their businesses running and to keep their employees with jobs. That is not just now, but it is well into the future, to pay for the kind of debt burden that we have seen put on by the government.

It is just staggering to imagine the amount of money being spent and how there are still so many people being left behind. I talked about our oil and gas industry in Alberta. I talked about our important tourism industry across this country, about the small business owners, about the many people who have started new businesses and are left out of many of the government programs. The Liberals have been able to spend a lot of money, but they have not been able to help so many of the people who actually need it, and those are the same people who are going to have to pay for the burden being left by the government and all of its massive spending.

I say to the government that it has to try to do things to make sure it is not leaving people behind and that it is creating a hopeful and optimistic future, instead of burdening people with massive amounts of debt that will do the exact opposite.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about debt and debt-related concerns. However, beyond debt and the economy, I am also concerned about something else, namely social issues.

I am thinking about future generations, workers, the environment and investment. What does my colleague think about investing in a better environment and in a transition to forms of energy other than oil, as well as enabling workers to succeed and be part of that transition?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say that we have a multitude of different energy means to serve the energy needs of this country and the world. We are fortunate in Canada to have the opportunity to provide for that in a variety of ways. Frankly, we have a very strong environmental plan that does include moving forward with things like new types of energy, but it also has to include our very environmentally friendly oil and gas in this country, which takes away the ability from other countries to fill that need in a way that is far less environmentally friendly, far less human rights-conscious and far less good for our Canadian economy. Our oil and gas need to be a big part of that picture going forward, because it is good for the environment and for the future of our country economically.

That is how I would respond to the member. We can have new forms of energy, but oil and gas are a key part of that going forward and will be for many years to come yet.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the previous question that was asked of my colleague.

Last week, we saw the news that Ford has introduced the F-150 Lightning, which is very significant, because the F-150 is hands-down the best-selling pickup truck for the last number of decades. Ford sells 900,000 F-150s every single year, so that is a game-changer of an announcement.

When Ford is making such a huge leap into electric vehicles and when, indeed, the rest of the world and corporations around the world are making an active attempt to reduce their use of fossil fuels, how can my colleague say that an increased investment in more pipelines is a smart way to go, when the rest of the world is actively trying to head in the opposite direction?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I think that the idea of seeing other forms of energy being used is a wonderful thing. It is great, but I have to make it very clear that oil and gas are going to be a big part of the future for many years to come. If we are going to have oil and gas be a part of that future, why does the member think that it should come from places like Saudi Arabia or other countries with far less environmentally friendly records and human rights records? I would much rather see that oil and gas come from Canada, where we can create Canadian jobs, ensure that we have the highest environmental standards of just about anywhere in the entire world, and ensure that human rights abuses are not occurring.

The oil and gas here in Canada stand up to anything else in the world in terms of our environmental record. The member should encourage that the oil and gas being used here is from Canada rather than places with far less environmentally—

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

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, a question to my hon. colleague. You mentioned interest rates in your speech, and we are hearing a lot of talk—

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

I would remind the member to speak to her colleague through the Speaker. When the member was asking her question, she was saying “you”. I did not mention anything about those things, but the hon. member did.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I actually addressed you and then I said “a question to my hon. colleague”. I am sorry if you did not like my phrasing. I will try again.

My colleague mentioned the interest rates, and we are hearing a lot of talk now about potential raises in interest rates, which makes debt servicing a real problem. I am interested in what the hon. member might have to say about how an increase in debt servicing will affect services generally for Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, even if interest rates were not to rise, by 2025, we would be looking at about a $40-billion per year cost to the taxpayer just to cover the interest on all this new debt. Imagine what would happen if those interest rates—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kenora will have about three minutes to start his speech.