Debates of Nov. 24th, 2022

National Ribbon Skirt Day Act

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to first recognize the unceded Anishinabe territory that we are gathered on this evening, because for the Anishinabe people everything is interconnected, and it is a good reminder that the work we are doing in the House has a ripple effect outside of these walls on the lives of every Canadian. I am proud today and every day of our collective commitment to making Canada more inclusive and culturally safe.

I want to thank everyone who took part in this debate, shared their thoughts and, most importantly, told Isabella that we are listening, that her advocacy matters and that she has the full support of the members of the House. It is indeed a positive message for all indigenous women from coast to coast to coast.

I also want to recognize the member for London West for seconding the bill. I forgot to recognize that the first time I was able to speak to this legislation, and I am grateful for it.

I want to celebrate the member for Halifax West for her intervention in this debate, and the personal commitment she has made in her own riding.

I thank the member for Manicouagan for her passion and grace, and the members for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for their support and excellent work at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I look forward to further studying this bill there.

I thank the member for Lethbridge, who just gave a very emotional address and asked for better for indigenous people across this country. I want to echo that.

I thank the member for Nunavut for her leadership and collaboration and the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski for speaking about missing and murdered indigenous women and wanting to put forward amendments, which I am certainly open to discussing.

I thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for her meaningful intervention this evening, and the members for Kitchener Centre and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their support and friendship.

This is truly a team effort, and these are the good days when we get to be united on something that is so very important and so meaningful.

I want to thank, once again, Senator McCallum for giving me the honour of being the voice of this bill in the House of Commons. She is an inspiration, and I am forever grateful for the privilege of bringing forward her work. I look forward to studying this bill in committee and seeing if there is any way for it to be improved.

As a final note to Isabella, meegwetch. She is an inspiration. Look what she has done; look what she has accomplished. I think she should be so proud. Again, it is an honour to carry her voice in this amazing place.

January 4 is just around the corner, and I am hoping that this day will be enacted in time to celebrate it for the first time in 2023.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

On division.

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

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Infrastructure

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to ask the government for transparency on one of its signature policies, the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The bank was celebrated with much fanfare by the government in 2016. The Liberals claimed that every dollar invested would yield a return of four private-sector dollars. They even anticipated that with investments from the municipalities and provinces, it would yield a multiplier effect of 11 to one, but that was six years ago and that has not happened. Now what we see is, sadly, a version of corporate welfare, with the taxpayer subsidizing industry projects that they can fund themselves.

The Infrastructure Bank has failed by almost every standard. Not only has it failed to deliver the private-sector investments it promised, but it has never even completed one project. Now we find that a $1.7-billion partnership with Fortis Inc., a North American utilities company that rakes in billions of dollars in revenue every year, has also failed.

The bank promised $655 million to the U.S.-based ITC Holdings, which is a subsidiary of Fortis, for the Lake Eerie connector project. The cancelled project was going to be a 117 kilometre-long underwater power cable under Lake Eerie. It would also have brought in $33 million to the Six Nations reserve. In fact, this line would have run between Pennsylvania and Haldimand County, which is the community I represent.

When the agreement was first announced one and a half years ago, the government gushed about how it would deliver tons of low-carbon energy, billions in GDP and hundreds of Canadian jobs. Now that the project has flatlined, the government needs to answer for the millions it committed.

It is completely unacceptable that at a time when Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, the government cannot account for $655 million that it loaned to a multi-billion dollar corporation. It is a project that, ironically, according to the media reports, failed due to inflation caused by the Liberals.

What is worse is that there has been no transparency. It is a statutory requirement that this bank operates with transparency and reports to the public. We know only from local media reports that the project was cancelled back in July. To this day there is still no information on the bank's website or on government websites about the real status of the project.

Where did the money go? Is the money still in the Infrastructure Bank? Is it with Fortis, the company? Is the money gone? We just do not know. In fact, the bank's corporate plan was tabled in this very House and still lists the deal as an active project. It says that final due diligence is still in progress. This is misinformation.

To have the—

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

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, the Canada Infrastructure Bank was established to ensure Canadians benefit from modern and sustainable infrastructure through partnerships with governments and the private sector. The bank helps public dollars go further by investing in revenue-generating infrastructure projects in the public interest and by developing innovative financial tools.

With regard to the Lake Erie connector, which was the subject of much of my friend opposite's speech. It is our understanding from the bank that discussions on the Lake Erie connector project led by ITC Holdings were suspended at this time. The project itself was planned to improve the reliability and security of Ontario's energy grid and allow access to the largest electricity market in North America.

The 117-kilometre underwater transmission line was projected to cost $1.7 billion, with the Infrastructure Bank contributing $655 million. No funding has been provided, but regular and minor administrative costs would have been incurred during the due diligence period. I hope that answers my friend opposite's question.

While this project is not proceeding at this time, it is these kinds of ambitious projects that the Infrastructure Bank is pursuing across the country, literally transforming how infrastructure is planned, funded and delivered in Canada. To date, the bank has advanced over 40 signature projects, committing $8.3 billion in capital from the bank, while attracting $7.8 billion in private and institutional investment. The bank is connecting Canadians, creating good jobs and advancing complex and transformative projects.

By focusing on key priority sectors, such as public transit, green infrastructure, broadband, clean power and trade and transportation, the bank is supporting a recovery that is greener, more resilient and more inclusive. It is doing all of this while empowering private partners to envision quality, high-value projects for Canadians, while reducing the financial burden on taxpayers.

Budget 2022 reaffirmed the government's support for this innovative financing model, broadening the bank's vital role by including investment in private sector-led infrastructure projects that will accelerate Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy.

The bank is also helping to close the indigenous infrastructure gap through its indigenous community infrastructure initiative, which provides low-cost and long-term debt financing for indigenous, community-based projects, including the first indigenous-owned and -operated railway in Canada.

The Government of Canada, together with its partners, is building a better future for Canadians. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is playing a key role in that effort, delivering vital infrastructure to Canadians, while creating good-paying jobs and growing our economy.

I look forward to working with my friend opposite so that we can identify and deliver more innovative and transformative infrastructure projects for Canadians.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for that informative answer, and I am glad that we are finally getting some answers, even if we had to extract them from the Liberals.

The bank keeps failing Canadians and it is missing the mark. During these economic times, Canadians cannot afford to be on the hook for bad investments. Conservatives warned from the beginning that the Infrastructure Bank was not capable of completing this project. We asked reasonable questions early on at committee. We asked, “Why does a multi-billion dollar corporation need a government subsidy in order to build this project?” Moreover, we asked simple questions like, “What are the terms of the loan?” These questions were all ignored.

Conservatives will continue to call on the government to respect the only recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and that is to abolish the failed Liberal bank and create a—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Canada Infrastructure Bank is making significant progress in advancing its goals of attracting private and institutional investments to projects, while using innovative financing tools to get more infrastructure built for Canadians.

To date, the bank has advanced over 40 signature projects, committing $8.3 billion in capital, while attracting $7.8 billion in private and institutional investment. The bank is working with all orders of government to deliver more infrastructure for Canadians, while reducing the overall financial burden on taxpayers.

We are helping to expand Canada's economy while meeting our net-zero emission goals through investments in zero-emission buses, energy-efficient building retrofits and clean power transmission, generation and storage. We are doing this alongside our public, private and indigenous partners.

Taxation

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here in the House today to ask a question that I initially asked back in June about inflation.

Members will notice that inflation has not abated as much as the government thought it would. In June we were at 7.7% and the latest number is 6.9%, so if people think we are moving down, we are still sticking around that 7%.

One thing about inflation in Canada is this. When the government trumpets that it is less here than in the rest of the world, it is because of how we measure inflation in Canada versus the rest of the world. If I ask Canadians and my colleagues outside of the House if they believe inflation is lesser here than elsewhere and why they think that would be, the answer is because we measure it differently. We do not count as much for housing in Canada. We use a thing called owners' equivalent rent, which has consistently, over 30 years, underestimated what the inflationary effects of housing are in Canada.

However, in June it was at 7.7% and it continues to go up. It is 6.9% now. The minister wants to increase taxes on fuel. We hope the minister would drop the taxes on fuel. I know a lot of the members in the House say that the issue around petroleum is that the companies that produce petroleum are earning excess profits. They are earning profits for the first time in seven years because the commodity has gone up in price.

However, the last time the commodity cost this much on the world market, gas in my province was worth $1.40 a litre. Now it is worth $2.10 a litre, so there is a disconnect here. Where is that extra 70¢ per litre, that extra 50% uptick, in gas? I will tell members right now that it is in the extra taxes and the extra regulatory costs that the current government has imposed upon Canadians to get the fuel they need to get to work, fuel their homes and get things done, because energy is essential to getting everything done in Canada, especially with respect to our food.

Seven years ago was a long time, but Canadians need to ask why things are getting so much more expensive when the actual cost on the world market is the same as it was seven years ago. Again, it is taxes. These are inflationary effects. I know the current government has a number of taxation measures that are built into gasoline now, which includes the clean fuel standard. The new clean electricity standard is going to add more costs for Canadians. However, the big one here of course is the carbon tax.

Seven years ago there was no carbon tax. It was zero. Then it went to $20 a tonne. In the election in 2019, the Prime Minister said that it would remain at $20 a tonne and then immediately moved it to $50 a tonne. Now it is going to move up to $170 a tonne, but this will not be inflationary of course. Let me give members a quick education here. Inflationary taxes are designed to be inflationary. They raise the cost of everything. That means that things are going to go up in price and consumers are going to feel it, no matter what the current government says.

I know the Liberals will say that they give a whole bunch of it back to Canadians anyway. They give a bit of it back. Yes, there are some Canadians who get some of the money they spent back. Let us think about that, the churn and burn the government goes through with respect to this. Let me ask it to actually think about it.

I am going to pre-empt my respondent here to get past the doublethink that will be part of his notes when he says that we can have our cake and eat it too, because I heard the minister say again in the House the other day that the government is going to raise taxes on all the things Canadians consume and that it will not make it financially punitive to Canadians. That is absolute hogwash. When the government increases taxes on Canadians, it is going to make things inflationary. Things are going to go up in price and, therefore, it is causing a problem where we are going to pay more for everything we have to buy in Canada. That is a fact. We cannot get over it.

I have a lot more to say on inflation, but I know my time is up. I also know that my colleague across the way has some kind of response for me on this.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I take a lot of time writing my notes, but to get off that for a second, at the request of my colleague, there was in fact a carbon price seven years ago, just not in his home province of Alberta. In my home province of B.C., there absolutely was a price on carbon, and guess what. During that period, British Columbia had the fastest-growing economy in the country at the same time as we had a carbon price. That is just some food for thought before I get into my extensive notes.

Our government understands that many Canadians are worried about our country's economy and that we are facing a global slowdown due to global challenges of high inflation and higher interest rates. However, it is important to remember that inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. Indeed, it is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic, Putin's illegal war on Ukraine and the snarled supply chains that are affecting so many people and businesses right around the world. The good news, though, is that no country is better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead.

Canada's inflation rate is less severe, at 6.9%, than those of our peers, like the United States, at 7.7%, the United Kingdom, at 11.1% and Germany, at 10.4%. We rely on Stats Canada to do those calculations. Also, our country has a AAA credit rating and has had the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year. That is alongside the lowest deficit- and net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. In fact, we have strengthened that advantage over the course of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is also near its record low, and 500,000 more Canadians are working today than before the pandemic.

We do appreciate, though, that this is a difficult time for families, friends and of course our neighbours. That is why we are now moving forward with targeted measures, including new ones introduced in the fall economic statement. For example, Bill C-32 would make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans permanently interest-free, including those currently being repaid.

We are also continuing to implement our government's affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. For example, with Bill C-31 having recently received royal assent, we are moving forward with the creation of the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 in families with annual incomes of less than $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. Also, individuals and families receiving the GST credit started receiving an additional $2.5 billion in support earlier this month, and I thank my friend opposite for supporting that measure.

These are targeted measures that help make life more affordable for Canadians who need it the most, while being careful not to add fuel to the inflationary fire.

When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while putting more money back into the pockets of most Canadians. Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate; it is an economic necessity.

Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. The Conservatives regularly conflate the increased cost in global commodity prices with a price on pollution, but this is a fundamental error in practice. In B.C., for example, the carbon price has increased by only two cents per litre over the last three years while the price of gas has increased by over a dollar. That means the Conservatives are regularly ignoring 98% of the real problem. They also ignore the fact that the federal carbon price is revenue-neutral and that it actually makes life more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families through the climate action rebate.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I asked for in this debate was for my colleague across the way to pull his head out of his Liberal notes and actually do some thinking on this, but a bunch of what he said is malarky. In any event, let us go through the actual numbers.

He talked about the G7. He talked about how Canada performs on a net debt basis. His numbers, his government's numbers and his speaking point narratives are far different than those of any other body in the world that measures where we are economically in the world, including the IMF, which has recently ranked Canada far lower than his vaunted expectation of where this country is. That is because some people know how to count. I do not think anybody on that side of the House knows how to do the math on this.

On the G7 countries he talks about, Canada is the only G7 country that has not either reduced its carbon taxes because of inflation or done away with them completely. How does he respond to that?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, he did not hear this, because I said it while he was speaking, but I take a lot of time writing these speeches. I hope he likes all the effort that goes into them.

Our government has continued to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio and has created over 500,000 new jobs since the pandemic began. Our fiscally responsible plan has maintained our AAA credit rating and allows us to invest in Canadians while we fight global inflation. Those are independent ratings done by independent experts, and I will rely on those independent experts as opposed to some of the opinions by the member opposite, although I do respect his opinion.

We are going to continue to focus on making life more affordable and growing an economy that works for everyone. It is not just the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. It will ensure that Canadians remain in the best place in the world to live, to work and to thrive. We are going to make sure that we make life better for future generations while we grow the economy and fight climate change at the same time. In fact, it is crucial that we do both.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Seniors a few weeks ago. I note that I represent one of the demographically oldest ridings in Ontario. Here is the question I asked the Minister of Seniors, and I am looking forward to her response tonight.

Massive Liberal deficits have caused 40-year high inflation, resulting in major increases in the cost of living. I have many seniors in my riding, such as Cathy, who at 68 years of age, has had to go back to work to pay for her utilities and food and make her mortgage payments.

As well, a disabled constituent emailed me a few weeks ago indicating she is down to one meal per day due to inflation and gas prices. In her words, she is contemplating applying for assisted death instead of starving to death. What is the government doing for seniors 65 to 74? Will the Liberals stop punishing them and cancel all tax increases on gas, groceries and home heating?

Unfortunately, when the minister replied to me a few weeks ago, she focused more on attacking the previous government. She seemed to have forgotten that the Liberals have been in power for seven years, going on the better part of a decade, and that my question was specifically about what actions the Liberals are taking now and moving into the future. It is simple.

First, I want to understand what the Liberal government is doing for those seniors aged 65 to 74, and I want them to give me a list of concrete measures that support the people in that demographic. Second, will the government stop punishing seniors, especially those living with disabilities, by committing to no new tax increases on gas, groceries and home heating?

Let me use not my words, but the words of my constituents. Here are some of the emails that I have received over the last six months or so.

Back in June, I received one that said, “Once again, [the finance minister] has forgotten about seniors 65 to 74. Do they want us to go back to work?”

Another email from June, which was also sent to the Prime Minister and a number of cabinet ministers, said, “it appears now that I am a member of the second-class seniors club as I am in the age group of 65 to 74, not 75. Age 75 and older are going to get a 10% increase in their OAS, and I am not!

“Why are we in the 65 to 74 age group being discriminated based on age and not getting this 10% increase?”

Here is another email from September. This is part of an official reply to a senior from the Minister of Seniors department. It said, “In July 2022, the maximum OAS pension increased by $18.16.” It was a whole $18.16. My constituent replied to the official saying, “It does however provide little solace to the many Canadian seniors who are struggling with high rates of inflation!

“I was hoping for some concrete new measures to be brought forward to assist the seniors who I know, who continually struggle with their finances in light of the recent increases in inflation.”

Another email in October said, “Ages 75 plus received an increase...while us, age 65 and older, received zero. Why are we neglected? We face high costs of living and expenses also. We appear to have been forgotten about, neglected and are treated as unimportant by the [Liberal] government. This is unfair!”

Finally, just in November, an email stated, “we as seniors on fixed income are feeling the pinch with extra costs for pretty much everything.”

Food bank use across the country is up for seniors. We have seniors who are having to refinance or remortgage their houses and their property in order to pay and live in this country. It is unacceptable.

In conclusion, what is the Liberal government doing to help seniors, especially those 65 to 74 and those living with disabilities, to eat, heat and live so that they are not turning to medical assistance in dying as a solution?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be addressing a large variety of topics this evening.

Our government understands that the elevated global inflation we are experiencing is a major issue for all Canadians, including seniors, and that many are struggling to make ends meet. There are higher food and energy costs due to the Russian invasion in Ukraine, as well as longer lasting impacts from supply chain disruptions due to the pandemic.

That said, I am sure the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has noted that inflation is decelerating in Canada. It was 8.1% in June. It is now at 6.9%. This is lower than the United States at 7.7%, the United Kingdom at 11.1% and the euro area at 10.6%. Still, at 6.9%, inflation in Canada is high and we know that Canadians are experiencing higher costs of living when they go to the grocery store, when they fill their tanks and when they pay their rent.

This is why our government is supporting Canadians who are affected the most by inflation. For example, we doubled the GST credit for six months. I thank my friend opposite. He gave a speech supporting that particular measure.

This will deliver $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to roughly 11 million households and, interestingly enough, over 50% of our seniors in Canada, those who need it the most, will benefit from this particular measure.

I am certain that my friend opposite will agree with me when I say that Canada owes our seniors a great deal, which is why our government takes retirement security so seriously. It is also why I get nervous when the Conservative Party of Canada repeatedly asks for us to reduce the cost of government by shrinking the future pension benefits of seniors. This is simply not a responsible policy.

On the other hand, we think it is very important that the Canada pension plan, the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement continue to be indexed to the consumer price index. This means that seniors do not have to worry about the value of their benefits keeping pace with inflation because, as costs increase, so will their benefits. This is very helpful for seniors, especially if they are on a fixed income.

Small changes in income can make a big difference. That is why the Conservative plan to increase the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67 was so harmful. It literally took thousands and thousands of dollars away from seniors right when they needed it the most. Fortunately, our government reversed these measures that were introduced by the Conservatives and Canadians can count on receiving their benefits at 65, as previously promised.

We also increased the maximum GIS benefit for single seniors aged 65 and up who needed extra help, and we permanently increased the old age security pensions by 10% for seniors aged 75 and older. That will be waiting there for all of us when we get to that age. This means increased benefits for more than three million seniors and more than $800 in new support for full pensioners over the first year. This is in addition to numerous programs that support seniors and our health care system right across the country.

While there is still more work to do, Canadians should know that there are 25% fewer seniors living in poverty today than when we took office in 2015. I think that is a trend that we can all support in the House and that every party can support.

I look forward to working with the member opposite to do even more to support our seniors and to further strengthen retirement security for future generations of Canadians.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did not really answer any of my questions. He talked about a GST rebate, which we did support on this side of the House, that is going to all Canadians who are in that low-income tax bracket. They will receive it, but it is not specific to those 65 to 74. That is really the focus and crux of my question. What is the government doing for that specific demographic, including those with disabilities?

As well, I would appreciate it if the member did not mislead the House and mislead Canadians by talking about Conservatives calling for the gutting of the CPP program. That is not the case at all. We have asked to freeze the premium increases.

If the member could answer another question, does that money for those CPP increases go into the CPP fund or into the general coffers? It is one thing if it is being protected, but the fact of the matter is that it is going into the general coffers and being spent on a bunch of other things.

He talked about the OAS increases for those 75 and older. It is $18.16. Again, what is the government doing?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to address those particular questions.

We are focused on making life more affordable, especially for our seniors. The point of talking about the GST benefit was pointing out the specific point that, while it is going to 11 million households, disproportionately, the seniors who need that benefit are getting it. In fact, over 50% of seniors in Canada are getting it.

I also talked about how OAS and GIS and other important benefits are all indexed to inflation. One gets that at whatever age one is when one is collecting that. As people are dealing with the price of gas going up and the price of food going up at the grocery store, they can trust that those benefits are, in fact, going up as well.

When it comes to CPP, if one is putting forward a policy that is reducing the benefits that are going into CPP, then one is putting at risk the future benefits that we worked so hard with premiers all across the country to put in place so that we can increase future pensions by up to almost 15%.

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

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.)