Debates of Feb. 1st, 2022

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that so many colleagues remained behind in order to hear my great thoughts on the Speech from the Throne. It is very kind of them. I appreciate that. I do take note that a few are heading for the exits.

The point that I was making prior to question period had to do with interest rates and that the Bank of Canada's governor had indicated that there would be movement on the interest rates. Therefore, the ultralow rates that we have had and enjoyed, indeed, for the last number of months and years are likely to end, with significant consequences.

I also take note that the Government of Canada has locked in a lot of its debt in ultralow extensive securities, so that in and of itself will reduce the cost of interest.

The third point I want to make is that a significant number of the major support programs instituted by the House and by the government over the last year and months were terminated on October 23, and that is a significant reduction in the fiscal stimulus that was in the economy. There is no question. The debt to GDP has gone from 29% to 49% over the course of the pandemic, as the Government of Canada used its fiscal firepower to alleviate the genuine suffering of the people of Canada.

I would just like to point out in passing that eight out of every 10 pandemic dollars were spent by the federal government, in part because the fiscal situation of the federal government is arguably the strongest of any G7 nation. We used that fiscal firepower in order to alleviate the suffering of Canadians, largely supported in the House may I say, but it did contribute to the rise in debt. Provincial governments, on the other hand, had no significant rise in their debt to GDP, so the financial burden of the pandemic thus far has largely rested on the shoulders of the federal government.

The fifth point is the interesting contradiction with the low unemployment rate in Canada. I know this was subject to some discussion during question period. Members will recollect that, as the pandemic began, the rate shot up to, I think, 13%. It is now below 6% and in some jurisdictions even lower than that.

I know, Madam Speaker, that you and I and everyone else in the House are fairly fresh off asking people questions at the door and getting responses, but businesses are desperately looking for workers. Every time we talk to anybody who is an employer, we hear that their biggest problem is just getting qualified workers. In fact, all kinds of incentives and all kinds of training are needed just to get workers. Hence, that has led to a significantly low unemployment rate.

The seventh point has been this discussion about supply chains. There is no question that the supply chains have been disrupted. This is actually a pretty significant problem because the policy of all governments, all western nations, has been that they will go to the cheapest possible supply source. That, in turn, has led to vulnerabilities in our supply chain, and those vulnerabilities in turn have been shown to be very serious during a pandemic crisis. We will hear a lot of conversation about reshoring, shortening the supply chains, etc. I would encourage that.

While we are encouraging that, I would put in a plug for my private member's bill on modern-day slavery, and we will have the opportunity to eliminate slavery from our supply chain.

I see from your body language, Madam Speaker, that you seem to think that I should be finishing this speech. Because you are the Speaker and because I respect the traditions of the House, I will yield and I look forward to the members' questions.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a concern that we have in Guelph as well, with employers having a lot of trouble finding employees, quite often in the lower-skilled or in the factory-type jobs versus the higher-skilled jobs, which we are also focusing on.

Could the hon. member maybe suggest some ways we can, through immigration or other ways, help fill the workforce?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague will take note, as will members of the House, that the Minister of Immigration recently announced a significant increase in financial allocations in order to speed up the processing in the immigration system. I, like many members of the House, have a riding that is multi-ethnic, multireligious and multiracial, and is highly influenced by the speed of processing when it comes to immigration.

I am hoping that the announcement by the Minister of Immigration in the past day or two will really address that issue and that this part of the supply chain, at least, can be dealt with.

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply ask the member if, in the spirit of non-partisanship on a very important issue, he would be interested in sharing more about the private member's bill regarding the elimination of modern-day slavery.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, in 2018 I introduced a bill that said, in effect, that all major companies in Canada, along with governments, had to examine their supply chains on an annual basis and certify to the Minister of Public Safety that those supply chains were free of the scourge of slavery and of child labour.

I am still pursuing that bill. I take some comfort in the fact that the House, through its foreign affairs committee, has told the Government of Canada to do something. I am also encouraged by the fact that four mandate letters have been issued to four separate ministers to initiate legislation. I am also encouraged by the fact the bill is actually being discussed in the Senate as we speak.

I appreciate the question and I look forward to some success with the House moving that initiative forward.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite for his two-part speech. I was present for the first part, and we just heard the follow-up. I commend him for his patience and congratulate him on his speech in general.

Since the subject of slavery and forced labour came up, I would like to hear his thoughts on the Olympic Games set to begin in Beijing this weekend and on the fact that genocide is being committed against the Uighur community. We cannot ignore that; we cannot sweep it under the rug.

There were proposals to relocate, postpone or delay the games, not necessarily cancel them. However, given the forced labour issue and the ongoing genocide in China, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the fact that the Olympic Games are being held in Beijing this year.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is virtually no doubt from any source whatsoever that there is slavery, that the Uighur people are being enslaved, that products are being produced out of that part of China and that the Government of China, directly or indirectly, condones the production of those goods.

The problem for us is that this infects our own supply chains, whether they are food supply chains or high-end technology items. It is very disturbing.

The most significant supply chain that has been in the news lately has been PPE. We had to buy a lot of personal protective equipment early on in the pandemic, and it has been found to be an infected supply chain. To the great credit of the government, that contract was cancelled.

That is going—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it's a great pleasure to speak following the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. The hon. member and I have spent many years together arguing about various issues. I have tremendous respect for him on the issue of modernization and other issues that he has championed for a very long time, and I look forward to working with him until completion on some of the bills he wants to move forward.

Happy new year to all. It seems like we have not been here for forever and a day, yet this is just February 1. It is good to be back.

To begin my comments on the Speech from the Throne, I want to take a moment to acknowledge my former chief of staff, who has left the Hill for private practice. He got married, has a wonderful little boy named Charlie and is enjoying the private sector. I want to acknowledge Teddy Markey for the years he was in my office. I very much appreciated his work, and I wish him well with where he is now.

As we talk about the throne speech, which again seems an eternity ago, we had not yet heard of omicron. Many Canadians were looking forward to the future and a recovery from COVID-19. All of us were, actually. We thought we had turned the corner from what had been a terrible year for so many, with the loss of the lives of so many people in Canada and throughout the world. Fortunately, the government was able to see that and establish some protections, but many others did not. The government saw that we needed to prepare for the possibility that this was not over, so it put forward legislation to continue to protect Canadians in the event that we would face more lockdown situations and need to continue to support Canadians and Canadian businesses.

Those in opposition thought that was never going to be necessary and that we would not need those mechanisms. We did, and most Canadians are very grateful that the government put forward the extra support, which some Canadians are using as a lifeline as we go through this. The government was able to put mechanisms in place to support provincial and municipal health decisions, giving them the support that they very much needed, as we found ourselves in a semi-lockdown position yet again. The Liberal government has proven time and time again that we will support Canadians throughout this pandemic in a responsible manner. The Prime Minister indicated that we have Canadians' backs, and all parliamentarians want him to make sure that we have the backs of the Canadians who are struggling to get through this difficult time.

Our legislation for those supports went beyond just financial support, because we all learned about the kinds of abuse many nurses and doctors were having to endure. The legislation did more than just help Canadians financially. It made a point of putting protections in the legislation for nurses, hospitals, etc., from protests that impede their work and their safety. It also included the procurement of rapid tests and vaccinations. At this point, we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world and the lowest mortality rate of any country in the world. If we look at both of them, Canada has done a very good job of balancing and dealing with difficult things.

All children five years and up can now access vaccinations and any boosters they need for free, and we will make sure that future boosters are available to Canadians as they continue to protect themselves against this pandemic. We are also working to support other countries in receiving doses of the vaccine, because we need to end this worldwide. We need to make sure we reach out and provide vaccines to other poorer countries around the world at a much faster pace, I would say, than we have in the past. We are never going to end this pandemic without those measures. To get through the current situation, we need to reach the point of getting past it and putting this behind us.

I will move on to some of the issues that were raised in the Speech from the Throne that I think are very important for the residents of Humber River—Black Creek and all Canadians. One of those issues we are currently dealing with is the issue of housing. We hear about it in the House all the time. We hear about it in committee, and we hear about it from Canadians.

As our population grows in size and our immigration levels grow, more homes are needed. It just makes sense. We have our communities and our country is growing. People want to come to Canada, and they have a lot of skills to bring to our country, but they need to have a place to live when they get here, and that cannot be just in large urban centres. People want housing, and that means that even in small rural communities, there is a great need for affordable housing where people can have a different quality of life than what they could possibly have in an urban centre.

Whether it be via renting or buying, Canadians are feeling the pressure as costs rise, and these things feel more and more out of reach for those who have not been able to get a foothold in the market. This is why the government is taking measures to help those who want to own and who want to get their foot in the door of ownership.

As the cost of living continues to rise around the world, saving a 20% down payment while renting seems impossible to many. However, programs such as rent to own are exactly how my husband and I got our first house, and those are the kinds of programs that are going to help many Canadians get their foot in the door. Then there is the first-time home buyer incentive, which would make the dream a reality, and Canadians would literally use their rent to put toward the down payment of their home.

However, it is not just future homebuyers who are feeling the pressure. We have come to realize that the renters are in a similar situation. This pandemic has highlighted just how difficult renting is for Canadians. I would like to share a story about a family who is currently struggling along those lines.

This family was living in a house that went up for sale when the homeowner decided to take advantage of the high prices and the high value of his home. It took them three months, 14 applications and applying everywhere while they were looking for a rental home. There were many bidding wars and, yes, I said “bidding wars” over rental properties. I never would have believed that would happen, but it has clearly become a really big problem for people who are trying to keep a roof over their heads. Finally, this family got a plea from the realtor to the owners of their new home to help them find a place to live.

Now, the cost of rent is so high that it takes four adult low-income earners to pay the rent and the bills. Four adults and two children in a three bedroom home with an unfinished basement is the best this family could do with a rent between $2,500 and $3,000 a month. It is very difficult, and it takes all of the money of the four adults to be able to pay the rent and put food on the table.

Sadly, there are far too many Canadians who find themselves in the exact same predicament, some even becoming temporarily homeless. It is situations like this that need to be stopped. This is why our government intends to help with creating more homes, specifically more affordable homes, so that families do not have to worry about which bill they are going to pay and whether or not they will have a roof over their heads next month.

Many are women who find themselves in these situations of low-income, marginalized groups. Women are more often than not the ones who end up having to be the main caregiver, whether single or not, and it is women who often take care of the children. This is why our Canada child care benefit is so important, along with our $10-a-day child care, which is going to open the door for thousands of women to be able to go back to school, improve their education and, more importantly, have the opportunity to have a better life and a better future for themselves and their families.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her speech. I appreciate the emphasis on taking care of one another and on health care.

Unfortunately, for decades, the underfunding of health care by Liberals and Conservatives has been felt by the constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. This is health care that people so desperately need and deserve. We have seen that COVID has amplified the impacts of our underfunded health care system, with health care workers burning out and family doctors' caseloads overflowing. Our health care needs to be funded appropriately now.

I am wondering if the member opposite can share when this government will fund the Canada health transfers so Canadians can have access to the health care they so desperately need and deserve.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the whole issue of health care, and how we have managed to get through the pandemic, millions or probably billions of dollars has been spent protecting and improving health care through this pandemic. The Minister of Health has clearly indicated, as has the Prime Minister, that there will be many discussions in the future about how we can strengthen our health care system and our long-term care homes and bring in legislation that will better protect. This is to ensure there are certain levels of care in an area that is very much shared and the responsibility of the provinces. They are all areas that need additional time and energy put into them, and hopefully we will solve them at the end of the day.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate everything that my colleague said, but I still have doubts about the issue of housing. Health is very important, but once a person is healthy, where are they going to live?

There is a dire need for social and affordable housing. The need was dire during the pandemic, and the situation has only gotten worse. Would your government be willing to convert certain unused federal buildings to social and affordable housing?

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

I would like to remind the hon. member that he must address the Chair and not the member for Humber River—Black Creek, whom I recognize again.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has made it very clear in the time he has been in the House that these are issues that he cares very much about.

I think together we will move forward to ensure there is housing that is affordable. Whatever name we want to put on it, we have to ensure that rental housing is being built that is affordable for all Canadians. As well, we need an avenue to give people the opportunity to get a foot in the door, as I like to refer to it, so they have a chance to start building some equity in their own home. Those are certainly the intentions of the programs we have through the national housing strategy. We have a Minister of Housing, so we have a lot of people in our government who are focusing on how we are going to make sure that housing is available and readily available.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question has to do with what the member ended her speech on: the benefits of affordable child care. I have family members in Toronto who are paying $2,600 a month for child care, just normal child care, and I think of what getting to $10-a-day child care would mean as far as immediate assistance, so we could help people to be able to afford homes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the most exciting things in the many years I have been in the House as a parliamentarian, and something I have wanted to see, is the issue of affordable child care for everyone. I cannot tell members the number of families, and single women in particular, I have met who did not want to stay home.

They want to be out in the workforce, but the child care costs more than the money they would end up netting, so I think that $10-a-day child care will make a huge difference for all Canadians because everybody benefits. If the children are in a proper child care environment, they are getting the kind of exposure they need, and their moms can go to work knowing they are in a safe and caring environment.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

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

The government's foreign policy is not serving the country's interests nor its values, and the Speech from the Throne we are debating today does little to address this shortcoming. It does little to address Canada's decline on the world stage. The Speech from the Throne makes no mention of a foreign policy review.

We have not had a significant foreign policy review in this country for almost 20 years. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia have regular foreign policy reviews. These are anchored around white papers that set out the government's foreign policy, its defence policy and its foreign aid policy. They guide the whole of government in implementing the government's policies in those spheres of foreign affairs.

The United States goes through a similar process through the state department in order to anchor American foreign policy to ensure consistency and clarity. It also provides the capacity to respond to changing circumstances, but we have not done this. In fact, the last time I can recall a significant foreign policy review was in 2004, under the previous government of then prime minister Paul Martin, when Jennifer Welsh was tasked with taking a look at the government's foreign policy. Since then we have had no significant policy review, and the results are showing.

We have had five foreign ministers in less than six years in the position of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have had ministers propose a foreign policy based on responsible conviction, a policy that lasted for a mere year or so before it was replaced with the policy of Canada as an essential country, outlined in a speech given to this House, which was supposedly the government's anchor for its foreign policy, its white paper, which guided the whole government's foreign policy. As a result, Canada's position on the world stage has diminished. That is an incontrovertible fact.

In 2015, the Prime Minister came to office, telling the world that Canada is back. After the government made an attempt to secure a UN Security Council seat, the results came in, in June of 2020. Canada lost that bid for the UN Security Council seat, as it had done a decade earlier, and it lost with six fewer votes than it had won a decade earlier. That is six fewer countries that see Canada as a world leader on the international stage.

In foreign aid, the government came to office promising to do better to help the world's poorest, but in the first five years of being in office, foreign aid was cut by 10% based on the internationally accepted measure of overseas development assistance as a percentage of gross national income, the target number being 0.7% of GNI. Under the government, foreign aid was cut from 0.3% of GNI during the 10 years of the previous government, to 0.27% of GNI in the first five years that this government was in office.

On climate change, the government has failed to meet its climate change commitments. In fact, we have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world. Even south of the border emissions have declined over the last number of years, but in Canada, for each and every year the government has been in office, emissions have risen. In fact, in 2016, the first full year that the government was in office, emissions in Canada stood at 708 megatonnes. They have risen each and every year from that point.

In 2019, the last year for which Environment Canada has data, emissions rose to 730 megatonnes, an increase of 22 megatonnes. No doubt this year we will once again go to record high emission levels because the data that is coming in on oil and gas, and other fossil fuel consumption in this country is indicating that Canada is trending to record high levels of fossil fuel consumption. Again, on climate change, the government has failed to deliver.

The Liberal government came to office somewhat naively, promising to reopen Canada's embassy and re-establish diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it quickly realized once in office that it was not going to be able to do so.

On the major issue facing the world today, of the rise of authoritarian governments in places such as Russia and the People's Republic of China, the Liberal government has been either incoherent or naive. On China, the government's policies have been utterly and completely incomprehensible. Here are a couple of examples of what I am talking about. David Vigneault, the head of CSIS has been saying since December, 2018, that China presents a threat to Canada in national security and in intellectual property in five sensitive areas, such as 5G telecommunications, quantum computing and biotechnology.

It has identified Huawei as a threat to our national security and intellectual property, but the government has yet to act. It has yet to take action to restrict or ban Huawei from our telecommunications networks. In fact, it is unilaterally alone and isolated on the world stage in this regard. Four of our closest intelligence and security partners, New Zealand, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, have already taken measures to restrict or ban Huawei from their telecommunications networks.

The Huawei issue highlights the incoherence of the government. In May, 2019, then public safety minister Ralph Goodale indicated that the government would make a decision on Huawei before the 2019 election. Several months later, in the summer of 2019, he reversed course and said that the government would not be making a decision before October 2019, and then that the decision would be after 2019.

Over two years have passed since that time, and still there is no decision on Huawei. In fact, last fall the Prime Minister was asked by Global News if a decision on Huawei was coming. The Prime Minister indicated at that time, in late September or early October, that a decision would be forthcoming in “several weeks.” It is now several months since the Prime Minister indicated that, yet we have no decision on Huawei.

On a new framework on China, the government promised to come forward with something during the year 2020. Apparently that was kiboshed before it got to the federal cabinet for approval. Under the direction of the minister, two foreign ministers ago, we got the three Cs on China: to challenge, co-operate and compete. That then morphed into the four Cs, with the fourth C being co-exist.

That was replaced in the Speech from the Throne with an allusion to a new policy coming forward on the Indo-Pacific Region that would include China. This is apparently forthcoming. I am skeptical about the government delivering on a new policy and a new framework on China.

On Ukraine, the Liberal government has been naive. Ukraine has asked for lethal defensive weapons. The government has failed to deliver. Diplomacy not backed up by the threat of force, and in very limited and in very controlled circumstances, is simply empty talk and rhetoric that weakens our ability to stand up for our interests and values.

Russia has two tools of hard power: its military force, and its ability to cut off natural gas to western Europe. Russia supplies 40% of the gas to the European Union, and is using this as a weapon in order to get its way in Eastern Europe and to threaten Ukraine. This government is part of the discussions about how to ensure that global natural gas supplies are there for Europeans if the Russians decide to cut off natural gas.

For all of these reasons, the Liberal government's Speech from the Throne does nothing to address Canada's decline on the world stage and the need to come forward with a coherent foreign policy.

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

Madam Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear my colleague speak about the Liberals' greenhouse gas emissions. He sounded like he was complaining, even though we know that our Conservative friends are seen as an oil lobby across Canada. I was pleased to hear his comments.

The Liberals' efforts to fight climate change have been pathetic. Since coming to power, they have invested an average of $14 billion a year in direct and indirect aid to the oil sector, they have built a pipeline, and greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.

I am curious to know if my colleague could speak about the Conservative plan to fight greenhouse gas emissions.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the last election campaign, we presented a climate change plan that was supported by experts. Our plan adopted the government's plan for putting a price on carbon for industry, and we presented a plan for the consumer sector. We truly believe in the challenge of climate change. We understand that it is a global challenge and that Canada has to do its part.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and I truly believe that he believes in climate change and that we need to do something about it. However, I would suggest to him to be careful about using the term “we” when he refers to the belief in climate change, because a lot of Conservatives unfortunately do not believe that the climate is changing.

I take issue with his suggestion that the Conservatives came up with a credible plan to address climate change. Basically, they created an Air Miles version of carbon credits in which someone can purchase certain products, if they are wealthy enough to spend a lot of money, to build up a bank of points and buy stuff with those points.

The member must be able to provide some context as to how we can credibly do our part to drive down global emissions. I would encourage him to share some other thoughts perhaps outside of the jurisdiction of that Air Miles plan the Conservatives developed.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, that plan was not for all consumers in all 10 provinces. It was restricted to provinces that had refused to allow the federal government to put in place its own plan. Obviously with the Supreme Court's ruling, it is clear that the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, where this was the case, will certainly be putting in their own plans at some future date to comply with the federal government's price on carbon.

In brief, the central point of the matter is this: The government came to office promising to do better on climate change. The fact is that emissions have risen every year that the government has been in office, and despite that the government's lofty promises keep getting more grandiose. The Liberals came to office promising to reduce emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. Just in the last year, they promised to reduce emissions by 45% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is an even more ambitious promise that flies in the face of the facts.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and for bringing up the need for real climate action. Despite the government's promises, it has failed to take meaningful action on the climate crisis.

The government promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but they actually increase those subsidies each year. The environment commissioner, in a scathing report, described the government's policy incoherence. An example of this is the emissions reduction fund, which handed out money to oil and gas companies that admitted they were expanding production and increasing emissions.

Does the member agree that we need to stop handing out money to profitable oil and gas companies and invest that money in climate solutions instead?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the best way to achieve climate emission reductions is to ensure that there is a price on carbon that is equitable across all regions of the country, and equitable across all economic sectors of our economy. Reductions should be achieved through that mechanism. I also believe that an essential part of getting the job done is being honest with ourselves about our record on climate change, which is one of the worst in the industrialized world.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the member of Parliament for Yellowhead to speak at report stage on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Before I comment, I want to remind everyone of what transpired leading up to the throne speech.

On August 18, 2020, the Prime Minister asked then Governor General Julie Payette to prorogue Parliament until September 23, amid the WE Charity scandal. She agreed. The previous federal election was on October 21, 2019, and the 43rd Parliament lasted from December 5 to August 15, 2021. Is it not the intent of prorogation to signal the completion of the government's agenda, or was Parliament prorogued to cover up the Liberal scandal that was being brought to light?

On September 20, 2021, during the pandemic, Canadians were asked to go back to the polls. On November 23, Governor General Mary Simon presented the throne speech laying out the government's new priorities, but in my view, the speech did not do that. Instead, it repeated the Liberals' electoral promises. It was more of the same, with more deficits leading to higher taxes at a time when Canadians were, and still are, barely making ends meet.

In fact, inflation is now impacting families across Canada. Food is getting more expensive. Gas and home heating are costing more. The housing crisis continues to reach record high levels, yet there was no plan to fight inflation in the throne speech except to say the Liberals' solution to inflation was housing and child care.

In the throne speech it says:

Inflation is a challenge that countries around the world are facing.... [While] Canada's economic performance is better than many of our partners, we must keep tackling the rising cost of living.

If our economy is better than our partners', why are other countries launching ambitious plans focused on innovation, lowering taxes and cutting red tape to get their economies rolling again? We know that to build a better economic future we have to have objectives, such as removing interprovincial trade barriers, revamping the tax system, creating more jobs and much more.

There was no mention of what measures would be taken to address the cost of living, especially in my riding of Yellowhead, where people are struggling to make ends meet. Our seniors and those on fixed incomes are worried. Further, the speech touched on warning that the earth is in danger, but it did not come up with any major adjustments to make the climate plan functional. In fact, the Liberals made it worse by ignoring the plight of workers in the energy, auto and skilled industries.

There was no mention about helping Alberta. Instead, the document continued the Liberals' assault on energy workers. The only reference to energy workers was a promise to limit Canada's oil and gas emissions. As we all know, businesses are suffering, impacting our economy and our country. The throne speech did not mention the potential to create a plan for workers so that they could return to work.

Tourism is a very important industry in my riding, as are oil, gas and forestry. There was no mention of tourism and how it has been affected by the pandemic. Towns in my riding like Drayton Valley, Edson, Hinton and Rocky Mountain House are challenged to fill positions in local and small businesses. These small businesses are major contributors to our local employment, and they are hurting. Some businesses have even closed.

Millions of Canadians will continue to be left behind by the Liberal government. The throne speech only recycled many of the lofty promises we heard six years ago. The document only outlined the initiatives that began in the last Parliament, saying the Liberals would continue to enact what they promised in their election platform. It was the same old, same old.

Again I ask, why did the Liberals prorogue Parliament and call for an election only to reiterate the same initiatives and promises in their throne speech? After all, the purpose of a throne speech is to introduce the government's direction and goals and to outline how it will work to achieve them. It should not repeat previous promises.

It is ironic that even though the throne speech is entitled “Building a resilient economy” and the word “economy” was repeated 11 times, nowhere in the document were the words “productivity”, “investment” and “growth”. Was the word “economy” only a reminder for the Liberals not to forget to add it to their to-do list? If that was the reason, then the word “economy” was only meant to mean unfinished business, not a new economic idea.

British Columbia and Alberta are two of the largest exporting provinces of softwood lumber and northern bleached softwood. Softwood lumber tariffs only damage our economy by affecting many Canadians looking for employment. Our partnership with the United States is also not helping. There was no mention of a plan to deal with lumber tariffs to protect Canadian jobs. The softwood lumber industry is a significant contributor to the Canadian economy, especially in my riding, where a number of mills are located. The lumber industry provides thousands of jobs in communities across the country, and generates numerous positive overflows to industry and services in every community. The price of softwood lumber skyrocketed following the start of the pandemic, and the pandemic-induced lumber shortage is driving up the cost of homes, making it difficult for Canadians to buy and build their homes. The price of housing under the Liberal government has been skyrocketing, and Canadians need a government that can help them afford their first home.

There was also no mention in this throne speech of making our communities safe. Rural crime continues to be at crisis levels in many parts of the country. The government has failed to take any meaningful action to help. Instead, it has actually made matters worse by reducing penalties for crime, making the revolving door of the justice system spin even more quickly.

There was no mention of how the government will deal with threats from China, nor as to why Canada designated lithium as a critical mineral and then allowed China to buy one of our lithium mines. The Liberals even went one step further and chose not to conduct a national security review following the announced takeover of Canadian lithium mining company Neo Lithium. Under the provisions of the Investment Canada Act, the foreign takeover was not immediately subject to a review and proper due diligence. Critical minerals such as lithium are essential to the future prosperity of Canada's economy and our strategic interests. These minerals are used in the production of products like electric vehicles and could play a major role in meeting our climate challenges. It is imperative that Canada takes seriously the issue of critical minerals and the domestic supply chains of these minerals.

Priorities announced by the Liberal government do nothing for Canadians who are worried about the economy, the cost of living, the increasing cost of everyday essentials, crippling businesses from supply-chain constraints, labour shortages, investment, national unity, tourism, oil and gas, forestry, housing, safety in rural communities, workers whose wages are stagnating, the inflation that is steadily increasing and much more. What the government should have done was outline a game plan and a glimmer of hope for how the government would kick-start and strengthen our recovery from the pandemic. Unfortunately, that was obviously too much to ask.

I look forward to questions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, we definitely hear a lot from the Conservatives about the problem that the world is facing with inflation right now. However, what we do not tend to hear a lot about are solutions. The member brought up the fact that housing prices are going up and there is a housing shortage, but he has not suggested any solutions. Time and again, we never hear from the Conservatives what those solutions might be.

What does the member propose as a solution? Even in the last electoral campaign, there were no ideas coming forward from the Conservatives, so I would like to hear from the member what one of those solutions might be.