Debates of Feb. 9th, 2022

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House once again.

How do we begin to go over the country’s finances under the Liberal government? There is always so much spending and it is impossible to keep track of it all. It can give someone a headache if they try to keep up with it. Many of my fellow Conservatives are doing a great job of going through these spending items, showing how a lot of them do not make any sense and helpfully explaining how to handle Canada’s finances more effectively to get a better deal for the taxpayer.

I think it needs to be said, as a general comment, that in difficult times it is actually more important, not less, to make sure that we are managing our finances carefully and with close attention. The government must not act like it received a blank cheque from Canadians. However, when we are dealing with unusually large amounts of money, and when our minds are easily distracted by the news and events surrounding us here in this country, the temptation is always there to fall into a spending spree and make impulsive decisions without clearly thinking about the future and the ramifications of the decisions we make.

Everybody knows by now that we have entered a time of soaring inflation and supply chain shortages. Maybe it took an extra while for the Liberals to acknowledge it, because the warnings were coming from the official opposition, but they got there eventually and recognized that it was more than “Justinflation”.

To a degree, some challenges were expected during all the uncertainty and real disruptions to do with COVID and two years of lockdowns. That is the sort of thing that has been affecting countries around the world, which has been the government’s favourite talking point for a little while. However, it is not the perfect excuse that the Liberals are trying to make it out to be. Their mandate for truckers crossing the border, for example, at a time when supply chains are fragile with moving goods, is only one of the latest examples of their wrong-headed and unbalanced policies. We are already behind 18,000 truckers, and the mandates are only further exacerbating that issue. The Prime Minister's inflammatory and extreme rhetoric has also not been helping. However, I am not so much speaking on national unity today. It is the economic side of these problems that is the focus of debating the bill in front of us right now.

As far as handling COVID is concerned, the Liberals really have been normalizing lockdowns in practice. They have gone along as if it was a fallback or default position. Sometimes it seems as if they are stuck in the spring of 2020. The Liberals did not listen to feedback inside or outside of the House about supporting the provinces, strengthening their health care funding and providing all kinds of preventive measures as requested. The Conservatives demanded that they maximize all the incentives for businesses to hire and for more people to keep working, but now we find ourselves with ongoing labour shortages across different sectors. We are not out of the woods yet.

Even though we do need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario, it is still concerning to see the government announce a local lockdown program when it has consistently lacked a balanced approach. It would be one thing if the government was caught off guard by a crisis and had trouble finding its way, but with the Liberals and their economic update, it is about so much more than just COVID. Our finances were not in good shape before 2020 because of the same government’s mismanagement. We started off weaker than we needed to be, and it is obvious that the Liberals have not learned anything and are not willing to correct the course.

Over the last couple of years as a member of Parliament, I have had the chance to work on a few committees. In each of them, I have seen the same pattern up close. The government will make announcement after announcement for our future economy yet to come, while it does not hesitate to actively undermine our strongest sectors in the current economy. We cannot go on spending as much as we are if we do not have a strong economy to back it up.

When we ask them practical questions about the most basic details of their dream economy, there is not an answer, because questioning them on it just kills the mood. The Liberals are shooting our country in the foot and asking questions about it later, but it is okay, as there is a buyback program for the proverbial gun anyway. They will happily bring in new restrictions on people’s lives through taxes and new laws, but they do not seem to care as much about making sure that ordinary life can function in their new utopia.

First, they brought in their carbon tax, with no regard for the disproportionate impacts it has on rural areas, like the ones I serve, and the most vulnerable populations, even though their regulatory review admits it. It specifically singles out seniors living on a fixed income, but also single mothers, who are most at risk of experiencing energy poverty. As the carbon tax continues to escalate, The Liberals are looking to pile on the clean fuel standard, which has another carbon pricing mechanism attached to it. These people are only going to feel more and more crushed by the burden of the government's tax-heavy approach.

However, there is no need to worry because they say they are preparing our economy for the future. They promise a boom for industry with electric vehicles and biofuels in Canada. Again, without a plan, it sounds too good to be true.

A couple of days ago in committee, I followed up with the Minister of International Trade on a potential problem under CUSMA. Since coming into force in July of 2020, we have had a window of time to prepare for a requirement to regionally source 75% of lithium for EV batteries with minimal impacts on tariffs. If we are unable to do so there will be a massive increase in tariffs. With or without them, we could easily fall behind in this new industry, which appears to be crucial for the government's direction. What if it does not work out as well as expected?

I asked the minister about it a year ago. She did not seem to know what it was, and with no clear answer since then I decided to bring it up again this week, one year later. I am still not sure if the minister is actually aware of it and it is hard to get anything done if one does not know what one might have to deal with.

When it comes to new mines or resource projects in this area, industry has clearly said that the Liberal government's own impact assessment process is getting in the way and causing delays. The timelines for approval take way too long and it does not have to be this way. Our Canadian economy depends on resource development, the energy industry, specifically oil and gas, as a major contributor for work and wealth, but it is the same Liberal legislation, with an activist environment minister, that would aggressively shut it down while preventing the projects it will need to replace it.

If the Liberals want to keep spending away, where will the money come from? This is not the only way Liberal policies are working at cross-purposes either. Ever since the Liberals first floated their idea of reducing fertilizer emissions by 30%, producers and industry have been deeply concerned that this would follow the European Union's model of restricting the total amount of fertilizer used. It went with a 20% hard-cap reduction on fertilizer usage. This could cause huge losses for crop production.

Following its efforts, I raised this issue multiple times and the government has not ruled it out here in the House of Commons. Last fall, Meyers Norris Penny released a commissioned report on the estimated impact of such a policy in the coming years. By 2030, according to the report, losses of crop yields for corn, canola and spring wheat could total tens of millions of tonnes, costing up to nearly $48 billion to the Canadian economy. For Canadian agriculture, which is already a leading example of environmental efficiency and sustainability, this would be nothing short of devastating.

Considering the estimated number of losses to crops, this would also create new problems for trade exports and disruptions to domestic or global supply chains. Price pressures with reduced supply can easily combine with inflation to make it worse. What makes it even worse yet is this. Part of the Liberals' plan for their new economy for the new future is going to be biofuels. We all know that both corn and canola are the main crops we are going to be growing for biofuels going forward. According to this report, the number of bushels that are going to be produced is going to massively drop and we are not going to be able to meet this demand to fuel the future set out in the Liberals' plan.

Do members know what the government's response continues to be to all of this? It disagrees with the report, which is fair enough, except it has not even done its own impact studies or clearly laid out to farmers and producers what it is going to do. I was glad to hear it is looking at options besides heavily reducing fertilizer, but the main issue I am trying to raise today, and in the past, is that it continues to refuse to rule out the hard cap for the use of fertilizer. This whole time the government could have reassured us by saying it is not going to happen, but here we are again. It will not do it.

The Liberals need to think twice about ruining their own plan for biofuels where there is going to be even more demand for canola. How will it work for our producers who are having a harder time growing it underneath this new regime it is putting in place? The input costs are already through the roof, both for seed, fertilizer and spray. Machinery costs are also through the roof. Somehow I do not think they understand the practical realities and decisions that our farmers have to consider. The government already is not taking the concerns about land used for food versus fuel seriously, but now it wants to play with the idea of restricting fertilizer.

Despite all the uncertainties right now with inflation and supply chains in our economy, Canadians can be sure of at least one thing. The current Liberal government has been and will continue to be a disaster for our economy. It really could be so much better if it would only listen.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the economy during his remarks. I would remind him that, prepandemic, this government had resided over an economy where unemployment was at a 40-year low and our debt-to-GDP ratio was declining. During this pandemic we have been there to support businesses. Our job numbers are strong, as is our GDP, notwithstanding the challenges there.

What I want to ask the member specifically is this. When I look at the Hansards from 2020 and 2021, he made a lot of mention of blockades and the economic impact they were having in his part of the country, and indeed elsewhere in the country. I have yet to hear the same type of language from him as sometime in 2020, calling for the protesters to go home. I have yet to hear that language.

I will go on record right now to say it is important that the protesters go home, not only those here in Ottawa but also those in Windsor and in Coutts. Will the member take the opportunity to do the same thing on the record right now for his constituents and all Canadians?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, back in 2020, one of the main issues was inaction from the government, and we have inaction again when it comes to this blockade, just like we did back then. It refused to act, let it go on and on, hoped that it would take care of itself and the pandemic basically took care of it, so it did not have to do anything back then. Today we are looking for the government to actually acknowledge the concerns that Canadians have. These hard-working everyday Canadians are bringing it to Ottawa and putting it right in front of the Liberals, so they cannot ignore it. They are not listening.

Canadians want to be heard, and that is what this is about. They want to hear what the government has to say, so I would ask that it listen, just like we were asking it to do back in 2020.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his speech.

He began his speech talking about lockdowns and vaccination. I totally agree with him. However, I would like to point out that if the provinces had received the health transfers, the situation might not be as serious as it is today, and perhaps the country would be less divided.

In Senneterre, in my riding, the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de l'Abitibi‑Témiscamingue had to cut overnight ER services and the obstetrics department. What people have gone through is simply unbelievable. Long-term care homes have been devastated.

The Conservative Party seemed to have lots of plans during the election campaign. From the member's perspective, what is the best plan for ensuring that health transfers are made to the provinces as planned, including an increase to cover 35% of costs?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we had a campaign that called for the increases in transfers to provinces. Prior to the pandemic, we heard many health experts say that capacity was one of the biggest issues that we faced. We were consistently operating between 95% and 110%, and there was no real plan back then to address that. We still do not have a plan from the government on how to address that going forward.

That is what Canadians are looking for. Throughout this debate, and with what has been happening with COVID, they wanted to see a plan from the government going forward. With this budget update, there is no clear plan to address the shortcomings that have been identified over the last two years.

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

Madam Speaker, during the member's speech, he made a reference to the fertilizer reduction strategy. It is something I have taken a great interest in during my time as the NDP's agriculture critic over the last four years. I want to get his comments on the National Farmers Union. It says that Fertilizer Canada has produced a simplistic self-serving model that does nothing to illuminate the actual path that farmers must follow to reduce emissions in line with the requirements of our international commitments. The union also said that its report provided no useful insights on how farmers can contribute to our low-emissions future.

Reducing fertilizer is, of course, going to help farmers' bottom line. Does the member agree that there are other paradigms farmers can follow to achieve the same yields, but with less fertilizer usage? It just requires a collective effort and more research on how to do so.

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

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has 15 seconds for his response.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, further research is always going to be a big part of it going forward. We have a great agricultural program at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. Innovation is going to be a big part of it, but again, at the end of the day, the government has laid out a biofuels strategy, and farmers need canola and corn to be able to meet that. The number one way they are going to meet that is through increasing the yield potential of those crops. Fertilizer is how to do it.

In particular, nitrogen is one of the elements these crops use and it is one of the things they are going to try to target. That is what the European Union targeted with its reductions, but those crops need it the most. The two—

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

The time has expired.

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 to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Thursday, February 10, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if you canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to call it 6:44 p.m. so we can get to the take-note debate.

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

It is now the late show, to adjourn.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Housing

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say that he is prepared to take notes on this very important adjournment proceeding.

We have heard a lot about the housing affordability crisis in Canada. The cost of everything is ballooning. The cost for Canadians to afford a house is slipping out of their hands. That dream of home ownership is getting further and further away for young Canadians. Thirty-year-olds are living at home or stuck in the cycle of renting and are not able to save up for a down payment, as the price of a home has doubled while the Liberals have been in government.

However, it is not just the price of homes that has gone up. We know that the price of feeding our families will go up by an average of $1,000 per family this year. The list of individual items and how much they will cost with this increase is too great to go into, but it includes chicken, beef, dairy, fruits, vegetables, heating our homes and putting fuel in our cars so we can get to work and medical appointments. In rural ridings like mine, people do not have the option of taking public transit, for the most part.

We need a government that is committed to making life more affordable for Canadians, one that does not say inflation is a global problem while pointing to how our inflation stacks up against that of other places without doing anything to address the issue here. Telling Canadians that inflation is a global problem does not do anything to address the rising cost of everything for folks across this country. Folks are stuck in that cycle, stuck living in their parents' basement because they are trying to save up money to afford a down payment.

The price of the average home went from $435,000 when the Liberals took office to more than $800,000 today. That is over a six-year period. With $400 billion of printed cash pumped into our economy just last year, we know we are in a situation where too many dollars are chasing too few goods, and it is raising the price of everything.

I hear the Liberals on the other side heckling, “Why stop now?” Well, I will tell them why. It is because this out-of-control, undisciplined spending is putting us in a situation where the only people who will be able to afford a home are folks from overseas who are parking their cash in our housing market, waiting for homes to inflate in value and then flipping them to the next investor. There are empty homes owned by non-residents sitting vacant as an investment vehicle and Canadians cannot afford to get into our housing market.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is very simple. What is the government prepared to do right now to make housing more affordable for Canadians?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, our government's main objective is to help Canadians deal with the challenges they are currently facing.

This means that we are working on putting an end to the pandemic once and for all and doing everything we can to keep life affordable. One way to do that is to make housing more affordable.

Every year we have been in office, we have made historic, long-term investments in affordable housing. Our recent throne speech was no exception. Whether it is building more housing every year, increasing the number of affordable housing units, or ending chronic homelessness, the government is committed to working with its partners to deliver concrete results.

For example, the housing accelerator fund will help municipalities build more and better housing more quickly. Cities can use the funds to attract more investors and planners, offset land purchases and build the infrastructure required for new housing. This will do much to make housing more affordable for everyone across the country.

We recognize that buying a home is especially hard for young people in this country and that the housing market is also creating wealth inequality between the older and younger generations.

We want to help. We are bringing in a more flexible first-time homebuyer incentive program, as well as new rent-to-own programs. We are also reducing closing costs for first-time homebuyers.

Today, I only had time to talk about the programs we announced recently. However, in the past year alone, we have participated in hundreds of announcements welcoming families to their new homes. This was made possible thanks to the national housing strategy, a $72‑billion, 10-year plan that will give more Canadians a place to call home.

I will close by saying that our government is making substantive and long-term investments in housing because we believe that everyone deserves a chance to succeed and thrive, and we are working hard to make that a reality. Everyone deserves a roof over their head.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, in hearing the name of the great riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I have to take a moment to recognize the tremendous work of my provincial counterpart, the Hon. Steve Clark, who has served ably as Ontario's minister for municipal affairs and housing.

Minister Clark has been a champion for affordable housing in our community of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and across Ontario. Minister Clark has been part of the call for the Liberal government to come good on the $490 million that is owed to the Province of Ontario for housing and homelessness supports in this province.

Strong Conservatives like Minister Steve Clark, and like this Conservative team in this place, will continue to fight to make sure housing is affordable and that Canadians and Ontarians can recognize that dream of home ownership, and they are going to make sure they streamline the process to do that.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, our government is aware that the cost of living is going up for Canadians. The cost of housing in particular is a major concern.

We are committed to building a stronger, healthier housing system that benefits everyone in Canada, especially the most vulnerable. We are already seeing significant progress thanks to the national housing strategy, and we made even more commitments in our throne speech. We are bringing strong leadership, a solid plan and unprecedented investments to the table.

I now call on my colleague and all members of the House to do their part. I urge them to go back to their ridings and work with people in their communities to ensure that they take full advantage of all the new programs available under the national housing strategy.

Pensions

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, recently I asked the Deputy Prime Minister when the Liberal government would reverse its CPP tax hike. Instead of assuring people that the government is doing something about this, she said that we were all mistaken and that Canada's economy is robustly recovering from the COVID recession. The government is tone deaf.

The reality is Canadians are paying an extra $1,000 in grocery expenses and $700 for a CPP tax hike and face a 30-year high inflation rate and record-high gas prices. It is a fact that nearly 200,000 Canadians lost their jobs this past January. That is 200,000 more families now questioning how to pay their bills while the Liberal government continues to praise itself.

The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues are repeating the same talking points that are designed to frustrate rather than assist hard-working Canadians. I asked my constituents to share their thoughts about the finance minister's response, and here is what a few thought.

Cody wrote that he is a single dad who makes $28 an hour. He lives in my riding and has to live with a friend because he cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment at $1,200 a month. He calls on the government to end “Justinflation”.

Wayne wants the Minister of Finance to try living as a senior who has to cover the bills and buy groceries at the same time. He says that seniors planned for their old age, but not with all these extra taxes.

After watching many repetitive answers from the finance minister and her Liberal colleagues, Patty commented that she thinks she speaks for many taxpayers and voters when she says these Q and A periods are nothing more than poorly done theatre. Most of the time the Liberals respond with off-topic babble.

Marie's thoughts are similar. She says that she would actually be surprised if the finance minister answered a question, and if she did, she would buy a lottery ticket.

Another constituent, Mike, suggests that the system is broken, as there is never an answer. He asks why we would waste our time asking or even bringing up a question when the Liberals never answer a straightforward question and nothing ever gets done. He also suggests that if ministers tried to live on CPP and old age wages like our Canadian seniors, they would start paying more attention to the problems that people are facing.

Amelia shared her concerns and would like to know why the Minister of Finance cannot ever answer a good question from the Conservative Party, and why she diverts to answering with all the wonderful things the Liberals have done or are in the process of doing that have us in the concerning situation we are in now. She continues, saying that high inflation, the housing crisis and buying fossil fuels from corrupt countries that have human rights issues are the top three issues in her opinion. Next would be $10-a-day child care. If our health care and senior citizen care is not in check properly, what makes the Liberals think they can make sure other vulnerable groups, such as children, would be properly cared for? She sees a big mess there as well.

I would like to thank Amelia for her thoughtful comments. These are indeed important questions that are constantly ignored by the government.

Another great comment I received was from Kevin, who is in favour of dropping the CPP hike. He emphasized that the carbon tax is killing us, adding thousands of dollars per year to every family from the pump to the supply chain, and is raising prices everywhere.

I would like to thank all of my constituents who shared their thoughts, concerns and questions with me. Their phone calls, emails and comments help me better advocate for them in the House.

Will the government ever listen to Canadians, end the sugarcoating and start answering the tough questions on point?

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

Madam Speaker, we know the pandemic continues to affect the daily lives of Canadians, and I am hoping to give some real answers for that member opposite so he can get back to his constituents.

Canada's economy has made significant progress since the worst part of the pandemic. We all know that challenges remain. Elevated inflation is one of those challenges. This particular challenge is a global phenomenon driven by the pandemic and the logistical difficulty of reopening the world's economy. Although Canada is not immune to these challenges, inflation in Canada is below the G7, the G20 and the OECD averages.

That said, we understand that rising prices have a real impact on Canadian families. This is why our government is helping Canadians afford the cost of living with sizable, structural investments in early learning and child care, as well as in housing. This is part of our plan to grow a more resilient economy, a stronger middle class and to ensure pathways to success for everyone. In fact, our government has been focused on the issue of affordability since forming government in 2015. Our policies have lifted 1.3 million Canadians out of poverty, which lowered Canada's poverty rate to historical all-time lows.

I am thrilled that, over the past few months, Conservatives have opened up to talking about affordability for Canadians, but unfortunately, their actions tell a different story. When we lowered taxes for the middle class, twice, and raised them for the wealthiest 1%, Conservatives voted against it. When we created the Canada child benefit, which is indexed to inflation, Conservatives voted against it. When we legislated the climate action incentive, which gives the average family in Alberta $981, Conservatives voted against it. When we provided seniors over 75 a one-time payment of $500 this summer, Conservatives voted against it. The hon. member should let Wayne know about that. When we put forward a plan and the funds to create a national early learning and child care plan for Canadians, Conservatives voted against that too.

When we strengthened the Canada pension plan to ensure Canadians can count on a safe, secure and dignified retirement, the Conservatives opposed that plan too. The Canadian pension plan, or CPP, is one of the three pillars of the retirement income system in Canada. It covers virtually all workers in Canada except Quebec, which administers its own plan called the Quebec pension plan, or QPP. The CPP replaces a basic level of of earnings for contributors upon retirement, disability or death. In 2016, Canada's federal and provincial ministers of finance, as joint stewards of the CPP, reached a historic agreement to enhance the pension plan.

The deal will boost how much working Canadians will get from the CPP when they reach retirement. Ultimately, the enhancement will increase the maximum retirement pension by about 50%. It will also increase the survivor and disability pensions. This represents a major step forward in improving retirement outcomes for Canadian workers and reducing the uncertainty that many Canadians feel about being able to save for their retirements.

Quebec subsequently adopted the exact same changes for its provincial pension plan. To fund these enhanced benefits, annual CPP contributions, and QPP contributions for that matter, are being increased modestly over seven years, which has been happening since 2019. A stronger Canadian pension plan means a more secure retirement for all Canadians, and I am sure the member for Brantford—Brant can appreciate that.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the cost of living crisis affects all Canadians. Everyone has experienced it when filling up their gas tanks, paying utilities or buying food. A recent Angus Reid Institute poll reported that nearly 60% of Canadians are having a difficult time feeding their families. As I indicated earlier, there is an extra $1,000 more in groceries in 2022 alone, as food prices surge.

This is another failure of the Liberal government. Their economic negligence is now clearer than ever.

When will the Liberal government stop making statements that favour their ideological agenda and start listening to and providing targeted and timely financial relief to everyday Canadians?