House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was support.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for his speech.
In his speech, he highlighted the Bloc Québécois's work on two very important files, seniors and health transfers. He also spoke about the green recovery. We both want to represent the interests of Quebec.
I think that support for the forestry industry is another area that he is very invested in.
I would like him to tell us more about how this sector could be part of the green recovery.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, what a fantastic opportunity. My party commissioned a study on maximizing the potential of the forestry industry in Quebec. We are talking about 16,000 jobs over a 10-year period.
The forestry industry is probably the sector that is best positioned to fight climate change and rising greenhouse gases. As everyone knows, the forest is a carbon sink. Unfortunately, the federal government hardly ever funds the forestry industry.
In Quebec alone, this sector represents $20 billion in economic spinoffs per year, yet the federal government only supports this sector to the tune of 0.03%. That is tragic compared to the oil and gas industry.
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech.
Given the dramatic increase in debt, is the member not concerned that the Liberal government will cut transfers to the provinces, as happened in the 1990s under the Chrétien government?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right to be concerned.
When we return to the House after the next election campaign, we will probably come back to the idea of a balanced budget. That is what usually happens.
I do not want to displease my colleague, but governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, sadly have this unfortunate habit of balancing their budgets on the backs of the provinces.
That is when transfer payments get cut. That is what happened in the 1990s, but the Harper government did the same thing from 2013 onwards when it cut transfer payments. We have to expect this and be very vigilant about it.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, one thing we committed to in the last federal election was to increase OAS by 10% for seniors over 75. That commitment was made during the election, and in this budget we see a fulfillment of it.
Would the member not agree that in supporting our seniors, the government's response in fulfilling the commitment to seniors over 75 is a positive thing, especially when we factor in the other increases and one-time payments that we have given to all seniors aged 65 and over?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, I challenge the parliamentary secretary to say that to the seniors in my riding who saw the $500 for those 75 and up as a direct affront and a vote-grabbing ploy.
If he is interested and would like an answer, I can forward the emails and Facebook messages I received. I am certain that my colleagues would be very pleased to do the same. He would have enough reading material for probably the next two or three weeks.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, there is a special place for Quebec in this budget, but there are not necessarily the same ramifications for Alberta. I am wondering if the member thinks that all provinces should be treated equally.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The member for Jonquière has just enough time for a brief answer.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague said there is a special place for Quebec, but not Alberta.
If you look at the federal funding for the oil and gas industry and the funding for the forestry industry—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I am going to have to encourage the hon. members to have a discussion somewhere else.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise today from the territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation, and to serve the communities of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in the territories of the Snaw-naw-as, Stz'uminus and Lyackson First Nations.
The budget is over 700 pages long and the budget implementation act is over 300 pages long, so there is a lot of ground to cover in a short speech. I have picked some of the key positive and negative aspects to highlight.
A national child care system is a program the Green Party has been calling for for decades. This program is needed more urgently than ever, as we begin to address the heavy impact the pandemic has had on working mothers. The Province of Quebec has been providing low-cost child care for the past two decades, and researchers have studied what has been successful there and what has not. I am encouraged to see the government supporting the not-for-profit model. We must not allow the quality of child care or the quality of—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I am sorry to cut the member off, but we have issues with sound and interpretation.
It is now working. Please proceed.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, the budget makes some positive steps toward addressing the affordable housing and homelessness crisis in Canada. Unfortunately, it is not enough to make up for decades of neglect by the federal government. Housing is a human right, recognized in international law and affirmed in the national housing strategy. Much more needs to be done to ensure that right is respected. Weak regulations have allowed our housing market to be used by the global ultrawealthy for tax evasion and money laundering. These activities have driven up the cost of housing to unsustainable levels and it continues to climb. Where does this end?
We should be looking at regulations to protect Canada's residential real estate market. Many countries have regulations that restrict foreign buyers. I have heard both Conservatives and Liberals talk about how much they love foreign direct investment. When people earning median incomes can no longer afford to own or rent a home without spending 50% or more of their income, is foreign direct investment in housing benefiting Canadians? Housing prices in Canada have gone up an average of 30% in the past year. We have barely begun to see the fallout of that.
The investment in Canada's nature legacy is a very welcome addition, especially the funding directed to indigenous protected and conserved areas, or IPCAs. Reconnecting indigenous people back to their traditional lands is key to reconciliation. A sixth mass extinction is happening right now. Species are disappearing at a rapid rate, and we are losing important and endangered ecosystems around the planet. The endangered big tree old-growth ecosystems on Vancouver Island are a perfect example of where the funding from Canada’s nature legacy should be spent. Indigenous protected and conserved areas would put land under the control and authority of local first nations. This ensures long-term economic development built on harvesting second-growth forests and creating value-added forest products, while preserving old growth for eco-tourism and traditional practices.
Low-income seniors in my riding have been asking for additional pandemic relief and for a permanent increase in the old age security. The budget promises that old age security will increase in 2022, a year from now, but only for seniors over the age of 75. This is creating two classes of seniors: those 75 and up and those under 75. This is going to force more seniors to continue working in jobs that young people could be filling.
It is positive that the government is moving toward national standards for long-term care, but bolder action needs to be taken. The pandemic has exposed glaring deficiencies in some provinces that allowed for the warehousing of seniors in for-profit homes. Serious action should be taken against private for-profit long-term care homes that used pandemic relief funding to give executives and shareholders a bonus instead of fixing deficiencies.
The government has made a good start with additional support for students during the pandemic, with interest relief and an increase in student grants, but it is time to take bold action to bring Canada fully into the knowledge-based economy. It is time to follow the lead of northern European countries and make post-secondary education in this country tuition-free.
The Green Party has long been calling for improvements to our health care system, with an increase of health transfers and a system that recognizes provincial demographic differences. There is an incremental move toward universal pharmacare, but we need bolder steps to ensure Canadians have access to the medicine they need. We have been calling for universal pharmacare, universal dental care, universal mental health services, wellness care and a patient-centred focus on health and well-being to keep people out of the sickness care system, because we know that all of these things will save money in the long run and keep Canadians healthier.
Small businesses are going to have a more difficult recovery than large multinational companies that have been able to ride out the storm with big box stores and online sales. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of the economy. They hire the vast majority of private sector workers. Special consideration needs to be given to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses across this country are able to recover. The wage subsidy ends in September. Many businesses in my riding need help well beyond September.
This is Tourism Week. The budget commitments to the tourism industry are not enough. Tourism's contribution to the economy is underestimated. Tourism employs more people than oil and gas in Canada, and $500 million is not adequate to meet the needs of tourism operators across the country, especially for those who will not be in full operation again until at least 2022.
I hear from constituents like Shelley and Dave, who own and operate CruisePlus, a company that books tours in Canada and around the world. When the pandemic hit, they and their team worked hard to get Canadians home and cancel bookings. They have struggled to stay afloat during the pandemic. They have lost well-trained, loyal employees and are concerned about the end of the wage subsidy. They will lose support before they are expecting to be able to restart their business in a serious way.
The plan to lower the Canada recovery benefit from the current $500 a week to $300 a week by July needs to be re-examined. Workers are still struggling and may not be able to find enough work to compensate for that reduction.
The pandemic has demonstrated the need to improve our social safety net with a guaranteed livable income. We are going to see additional shocks to our economy with automation, artificial intelligence and climate change. A guaranteed livable income can help ensure that no one falls through the cracks as we navigate these new realities.
How will we pay for all these things? During the peak of the pandemic, more than 5.5 million Canadian workers lost their jobs or were working half of their normal hours. More than half of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to cover their monthly bills. At the same time, Canada's 48 richest billionaires increased their wealth by $78 billion and now have almost a quarter of a trillion dollars among them. We now know that some large corporations used taxpayer-funded relief programs to pay their shareholders and executives huge bonuses. That is disgusting.
Canada needs an increase in the progressive tax rate at the higher income brackets. We also need a wealth tax and an inheritance tax for the ultrawealthy. It is time to close tax loopholes that allow them to offshore their wealth and avoid paying taxes. It is time to tax the Internet giants that extract billions from our economy. Big banks and credit card companies have been raking in profits through increased user fees and interest rates they charge to consumers and businesses, and payday lenders are trapping low-income people into predatory loans with terms designed to keep them in endless cycles of debt. This is unacceptable. How have we let income inequality reach this point? All of these things could have been dealt with in this budget.
Over and over again during this debate, I have heard the Conservatives call on the government to spend less. They caution about deficits and increasing debt. I agree with them in at least one area: We need to end all taxpayer handouts to the fossil fuel industry. Real climate action requires that we cut all funding to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, cut all subsidies to fracking companies and put them on notice that their climate-destroying practice will be banned within the year, and make the costs of industrial cleanup a non-dischargeable debt so we can stop subsidizing the cleanup of abandoned wells. The fossil fuel industry is a sunset industry. It is time to stop propping it up and invest those billions in a just transition to a renewable energy economy.
While there are a number of things that are positive in this budget, it falls short of dealing with the challenges of our time. We are in a climate emergency and we have growing inequality. Canada can and must do better for people and the planet. I will continue to work toward that goal.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, within the budget there is a historic commitment for the development of a national child care program. Whether it is coming from the Prime Minister, the ministers or just different caucuses, the push in recognizing the true value of expanding child care in Canada will assist the economy and assist many others who would have been disengaged or maybe not had the same opportunity to get engaged into our economy. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the true value of extending child care for more people.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, having a universal child care program is well beyond its time. The Liberals have been promising this since their “Red Book” in 1993. I hope that we pull through with this and actually make it happen, because I have heard from constituents that they want this, and Canadians across Canada have been asking for a universal child care program for a long time. We have seen it work in Quebec. We know we can make it work in the rest of the provinces by working with them on this issue.
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Madam Speaker, the private sector has a very important part in bringing us out of this pandemic. It will create jobs and economic opportunities, and corporations will even pay dividends, many to seniors to help them go forward.
However, the member does not seem to think that the private sector has any role. Does the member believe there is any value in the private sector, as I do?
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, it would seem that the hon. member has missed a good piece of my speech where I talked about small and medium-sized businesses across this country employing a vast number of Canadians and how important that is to our economy.
Small and medium-sized businesses are very important to my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. That is why I was asking for extensions to the wage subsidy, to make sure that we protect our small and medium-sized enterprises. During this pandemic, the big box stores and the multinationals have been able to weather the storm by keeping their big box stores open and by doing online sales.
We need to protect our small and medium-sized businesses. I am absolutely onside with that.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He raised several very pertinent elements: support for housing; forestry, an area in which we could have invested; seniors who are being left behind; and the knowledge economy. That is all great. He also rightly pointed out that the wage subsidy was sometimes improperly used to pay bonuses. If that is true, I completely agree with him that the situation needs to be rectified.
I would like his comments on that. In my opinion, the use of the wage subsidy by political parties in the House is a misappropriation of funds. Should these political parties repay this money, which belongs to taxpayers?
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, the wage subsidy was put in place to ensure that employers were able to keep staff on. Companies and political parties need to be able to justify taking the wage subsidy. We have seen it being abused by large corporations, and that is a problem.
At the very beginning of the pandemic, we said that we should have specific rules to ensure that there was no pandemic profiteering and misuse of public funds during this pandemic. Those warnings were not heeded. We have seen the misuse of funds, and that is a serious problem.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, this week we had the International Energy Agency coming out and saying that we do not need any new oil developments. We have had the Canada Energy Regulator saying that we do not need Keystone XL and that we do not need the Trans Mountain pipeline. Could the hon. member comment on the fact that we are still subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $18 billion and only investing $15 billion into climate action?
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, we absolutely need to end subsidies for the oil and gas industry, and that includes provincial subsidies for the fracking industry, which has had $6 billion for LNG Canada to export fracked gas from this country. That is going to be a stranded asset. It is going to be wasted taxpayer dollars, the same way that Trans Mountain—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, I want to begin my speech by addressing some of the things that we heard from the Green Party member just before this. He was talking about stranded assets. The eastern part of Canada could be significantly stranded if Line 5 gets shut down, and that is the reality.
He was talking about oil and gas being a sunset industry. That may be true, but that sunset is not likely to happen until several hundred years from now. We are still seeing an increase in demand for oil production around the world. Even if one believes all the projections, that increase in demand, not a reduction in demand, will continue for the next 30 years at a minimum.
What better place to get those hydrocarbons from than Canada? We have some of the most ethically produced oil on the face of the planet, with some of the lowest-carbon-intensity oil, right here in Canada. Never mind the fact that we are importing hydrocarbons from around the world to continue to supply Canada. That alone seems to be ridiculous, in my opinion. We are an energy-rich country. We have endless amounts of natural resources in this country, yet we rely on other countries to supply our energy.
In the case of Line 5, we are relying on another country to keep the licensing going for that particular pipeline. As far as I know, right now that pipeline is operating illegally. The most recent Line 5 news is that the easement through the State of Michigan has been revoked, but the pipeline continues to operate. We are hanging in limbo as we go forward.
I am speaking to Bill C-30, which is the budget implementation act. It has been fascinating to listen to all of the discussion around this particular budget. We hear repeatedly from folks about the subsidization of the oil and gas industry. I was just discussing with one of the Bloc members how the government subsidizes oil and gas, but does not subsidize the forestry industry. I have not seen any direct subsidies to the oil and gas industry, with the exception of buying a pipeline.
The Trans Mountain pipeline was being built by private industry. Due to the actions of the government, the pipeline was no longer to be built. The government subsequently bought that project. If that is what the Bloc member meant by subsidizing oil and gas, I get it. I do not think we need to be publicly funding pipelines either. Pipelines have been built successfully in this country for generations by private industry, and I would assume that would continue.
The Bloc member was commenting about the forestry industry in Quebec. In Northern Alberta, the forestry industry is a big contributor to jobs and the economy. Oil and gas are a shiny spot in our economy, but Alberta's economy is diversified. Where I come from, we do the three Fs: forestry, farming and fracking. Those are the big job creators in my area, and they are basically what support all of the population in the area. I am always interested in the challenges we see.
One aspect of this budget implementation act is the removal of interest on the apprenticeship loans that have been given out. I think that is a noble cause. I am the product of one of the apprenticeship programs in Alberta. I was one of the first to go through the rapid apprenticeship program when it was introduced back in 2003. I got my automotive ticket from Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.
The apprenticeship programs we have developed in Alberta are world-renowned and recognized. There is also the good work of NAIT, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. I went through there in classes full of apprentices.
Many of my friends have been apprentices. I got my journeyman's ticket back in 2007, so I know about the life of an apprentice. The beauty of apprenticeship programs is that people typically get to work while they are getting their training. Believe me, all of the apprentices I know are tradesmen. They are proud of what they do. They work with their hands. They would all very much appreciate having jobs right now, rather than having the interest on their loans waived. While I appreciate that in this particular bill, I do not see a lot in this bill that will get these people back to work.
I call Line 5 the magic pipeline because it has changed the Liberal rhetoric on pipelines dramatically. The Liberals are now starting to sound like Conservatives: Pipelines are the safest way to move petroleum products. If we did not have this pipeline there would be 8,000 rail cars and 15,000 tanker trucks on the road.
There is one way to get all of these apprentices back to work, and that is to start building some of the pipeline projects that had been proposed and were ready to be built back in 2015. One, in particular, runs parallel to Line 5 and is called energy east. That pipeline was ready to be built back in 2015 when I was first elected. The Liberals kiboshed that project, but we do not see anything. We do not see a repeal of Bill C-69: the “no more pipelines” bill. That would have been something they could have put in the budget to promote the development of our natural resources, promote jobs and promote private industry spending its own capital to get folks back to work and get us back to the lifestyle we were used to before COVID.
This seems like a prime opportunity to get us all back to work. It would ensure that we would have apprentices across the country making paycheques and being able to pay the interest on their student loans by going back to work. They could be raising their families, making money and doing all of the things that they do. I do not see a lot of those kinds of initiatives in this particular bill.
One thing that I saw in the budget was around the home renovation tax credit. I was hopeful we would get some details on it in this bill, but they are not evident. It was an initiative that the Conservatives undertook during the last great recession. We rapidly passed the home renovation tax credit, which allowed people to update their windows, insulation and other kinds of things. It could also be thought of as a green initiative. It was in the budget. We were talking about a particular $5,000 tax credit on a $40,000 loan. We do not see details of that in this particular bill, so I am disappointed about that.
Lastly, I want to talk a little about equalization. This bill touches on equalization, and on what is called the federal-provincial transfer act. One of the things that Albertans have been requesting for a number of years is the removal of the cap on that financial stabilization program. It is currently capped at $60. The Liberals have moved that cap to $166. That is a movement in the right direction, but there still is no logic as to why there is a cap on the equalization stabilization program.
Why is there a cap? If a province is suffering under duress and having less revenue than it had in the past, the stabilization program is there to maintain funding for programs while we go through a dip in revenue. Nobody can explain the logic for why there is a cap on that. We see that the government has acknowledged that maybe the cap is too low and it is going to raise the cap to $166, but the Liberals do not provide us with any logic whatsoever as to why there needs to be a cap on that program. If government revenues in a particular province are suffering in a major depression, the stabilization program is supposed to balance that out and ease the pain of that. Why would it have a cap on it? There has been no logic whatsoever provided for that. I am also quite frustrated by that.
I see that my time is up. I am always grateful to represent the people of Peace River—Westlock.
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I believe I heard my colleague say that there have been no investments in the oil sector, or none that he was aware of. I would like to remind him that $27.3 billion will be invested in that sector in 2021, which represents an increase of nearly $3 billion over last year.
These investments cover a decline in indirect fees such as municipal taxes in Alberta or electricity costs in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Again, $27.3 billion is being invested in 2021 in this energy source that we firmly want to divest from as soon as possible.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned that we all want to shed this. I am not that particular about trying to end the oil patch at this point. It provides jobs for thousands of people in my area, it has brought prosperity to this country and it has contributed over $600 billion to the national coffers over the last decade. Why would we kneecap ourselves? While the rest of the world is looking for hydrocarbons, why would we not be the country to produce them?