Debates of March 28th, 2022

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we are having a discussion about the fiscal update and economic statement. If we are going to talk about the economy, we need to talk about the things that are affecting Canadians very directly, and top of mind is the cost of living, which is exhibiting itself in the cost of groceries and housing in particular.

All of the people whom I have cited, plus many other examples that I could bring forward, want to know what the government is doing to make their life more affordable.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

The Liberals are doubling down on their first-time homebuyer incentive, which is something that was introduced a couple of years ago, but it has helped less than 15% of its stated goal. Now, Conservatives have brought forward Motion No. 54, which would help increase supply.

Could my colleague explain to the Liberals and the NDP why it is so important to let these failed programs die and reinvest that money so we can actually increase the supply for young people and seniors to have a safe place to live?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Oshawa knows that the other end of the GTHA is experiencing some of the same market dynamics as we are here in the Hamilton area. Motion No. 54 is the right initiative because it addresses one of the key problems in the housing market, which is supply. I referenced the fact that here in Hamilton, and I have spoken with the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington, we are short 110,000 homes just to catch up. I know that across the country we are short over a million, half of which are in Ontario, so that is a big gap to make up.

Motion No. 54 looks to address the heart of the issue rather than the failed programs. When 15% over that many years is all that has been achieved, we are moving at a snail's pace. Frankly, what new graduate or young person, who is paying rent and cannot save up, is going to have that amount of money in an RRSP to withdraw from to invest in the first-time homebuyers program? It is just does not work.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour always to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Foothills and, in my role as shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, to speak on behalf of farmers and farm families across Canada.

We are talking about Bill C-8. There is one key element of Bill C-8 that I want to address today and discuss. That is the sharp contrast between what the Liberal government is proposing in its carbon tax rebate for farmers and what Conservatives are proposing in the private member's bill, Bill C-234, brought forward by my colleague from Huron—Bruce. We have seen a very sharp response from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that certainly counters the claims that have been made by the Liberal government.

From the very beginning, when the Liberals have talked about their carbon tax, they have always said it is going to be revenue-neutral and that whatever anyone pays into the carbon tax they are going to be getting it back in a rebate. We know, from the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer that came out last week, that this is completely untrue. In fact, Canadian farmers only get about $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses that they pay on the farm. That is definitely not revenue-neutral. In fact, that is only a fraction of what a farmer or a farm-family producer or agri-food business would spend in a carbon tax.

All of us in this room who have farmers in their constituencies have received carbon tax bills from our constituents. I have had bills that have gone from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars in one month, depending on the size of the operation. Therefore, to say that this carbon tax rebate is going to be revenue-neutral is misleading Canadians and certainly misleading farm families. We know now that the carbon tax is disproportionately more punitive on rural communities and especially on farmers.

If that were not bad enough, we have seen already that the carbon tax has been quite punitive on farmers. We saw the numbers that have been put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The average farmer paid about $14,000 in the first year of the carbon tax. That went up to $45,000 last year, and this is going to go up again on April 1.

What is that going to mean, moving forward? MNP has stated that, in the canola industry alone, the carbon tax of 2022 cost about $71 million. By 2030, that carbon tax as it continues to increase is going to cost the canola industry alone $1.7 billion. Those are funds that are not going back into investments in technology and innovation. They are not funds that are going into the local rural economies. That money is going directly into Liberal government coffers and is not going to be redistributed, as the Liberals have claimed that it would be, to the farm families who are having to pay that.

This is unsustainable, especially with the precarious situation that Canadian agriculture already faces with skyrocketing input costs on things like fertilizer, herbicides, diesel, propane and natural gas. Farmers are also facing very critical supply-chain problems and a crisis in labour supply. All of these things are having a compound negative impact on Canadian agriculture. It is almost nonsensical at this very tenuous time, when there is a global food shortage looming as a result of the conflict in Ukraine, that the government would continue to add to that burden by increasing the carbon tax on Canadian farmers.

One of the other issues with it that was highlighted by stakeholders is that there are no viable alternatives presented in Bill C-8. I would invite some of my colleagues to come to rural Canada and see exactly how things work. A Canadian farmer cannot haul cattle with an electric car. It is physically impossible. A Canadian grain farmer cannot move his grain from the farm to the terminal on the subway. My riding is 25,000 square kilometres. Public transit does not exist. It certainly does not exist for the average citizen, but it definitely does not exist for a farm operation that needs to move product and drive very long distances to deliver its product to market and that needs to drive a tractor to spray and plant and drive a combine to harvest. There are no alternatives for these things. They have no choice.

However, we have seen that they have managed and worked hard to improve efficiencies: their carbon footprint has gone down substantially as a result of modern technology and innovations such as zero tillage, precision farming and 4R nutrient stewardship. They have gone to great lengths to ensure that Canadian farmers are doing all they can to protect their environment and their soil, but government policy needs to be based on reality and the realities that Canadian farmers and farm families are having to face every single day.

It is even more frustrating for those farmers who are investing money each and every year to improve their operations, because they are the frontline stewards of our environment. I would say that is known around the world, as Canadian farmers are world leaders when it comes to environmental sustainability. Looking at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the carbon tax, it clearly states that the carbon tax does not even reduce emissions. It does not force people to reduce emissions because there are no viable alternatives when it comes to our ability to reduce emissions on farms.

In fact, I would argue that it is quite the opposite. There was a study done by the Keystone Agricultural Producers two years ago. The report noted that agriculture has about 100 megatonnes of emissions a year, which has remained quite stable despite a massive increase in yield, so we are doing much better with much less because of our commitment to efficiency and sustainability. However, reading further on, what is very important in that study is that not only do farms emit about 60 megatonnes of C02 a year, but they also capture 100 megatonnes of C02 a year in carbon sequestration by taking care of the land. When that product leaves the farm gate and goes into the market, not only is agriculture already net-zero, but it is actually a 30-megatonne carbon sink.

If that is the case, as agriculture stakeholder groups have said in their data, why are they not being celebrated or encouraged to continue on with the work that they are doing? Instead, we are doing exactly the opposite by punishing them with the carbon tax. They now clearly know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that they will not be made whole: This is going to cost them money. That is money that they should be able to keep in their pockets and reinvest into their operations, reinvest into new energy-efficient equipment, and reinvest into more efficiencies in terms of agronomy, drones, precision agriculture and those types of things. When we take tens of millions of dollars out of farmers' pockets, it makes it very difficult for them to do that.

In contrast to what is being offered by the Liberals in Bill C-8, the Conservatives have put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-234, that would exempt farm fuel from the carbon tax, specifically natural gas and propane used for heating and cooling barns and buildings, as well as for drying grain. That would allow those farmers to hold that money in their accounts and reinvest those dollars into their operations, again to make them more efficient and more sustainable.

Unlike the Liberals' carbon tax in Bill C-8, Bill C-234 has almost unanimous support among agriculture stakeholders, including the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, which is a coalition of 14 different national farm organizations that represent 190,000 farm businesses and more than $70 billion in cash receipts. I think that is pretty critical, when all of those groups are supporting our approach to reducing emissions compared with the Liberals' obviously failing option. I will give some examples. Mary Robinson, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is in support. The Agriculture Carbon Alliance is supporting it. Jan VanderHout, president of Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, has given notes of support.

In conclusion, to have these stakeholders and our farm families across Canada supporting one direction in addressing emissions that is in complete contrast to and opposite from what the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-8 is, I think, something we need to listen to. Getting money back into producers' hands as quickly as possible is more beneficial, and it is more effective in reducing emissions, becoming more efficient and continuing to ensure that we can not only feed Canadians but carry that burden of feeding the world as well.

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

Madam Speaker, the member, in his speech today, talked about how “government policy needs to be based on reality”. My question to him would be what about the reality of climate change? What about the reality of the fact that half of the OECD countries have some form of price on pollution? What about the reality that the top economists throughout the world say that carbon pricing is an effective tool at curbing its usage.

What about the fact that the member for Durham, when he was leader of that party, was in support of a price on pollution? What about the fact that Patrick Brown is a fan of carbon pricing? What about the fact that Jean Charest was in partnership with Dalton McGuinty and the premier of California to bring in cap and trade, a form of pricing pollution?

I wonder if the member could speak to those realities.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us talk realities, as my colleague likes to say. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear. The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, as the Liberals claimed it was going to be. This is going to cost farmers. Most importantly, let us talk reality. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said the carbon tax put forward by the Liberals does not reduce emissions. If we are going to base these policy decisions on science and data, the data clearly says it does not reduce emissions. All it does is cost farmers money and increase inflation.

We know what we have put forward will reduce emissions because farmers are already doing it. We have seen a 60-million megatonne reduction in carbon emissions from farmers. Why have they done that? They have done that because it is the right thing to do. They have done that by reinvesting in their farmers with innovation and technology, not by being forced to do so by bad Liberal policy.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Foothills for his speech. I think he realizes the NDP is supporting Bill C-234. He comes from one of the most beautiful ridings in the country. It is almost as beautiful as mine. What it does have is some of the most fabulous native grasslands in the country.

I used to serve on the board of the Nature Conservancy of Canada. We did a lot of work in that area, working with ranchers to help conserve one of the most endangered ecosystems in the country. It was valuable to have ranchers on side to help us with that cause. Could he expand on that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will not get into arguing with my colleague about which riding is nicer. He brings up a very good point. I always appreciate the opportunity to highlight that yes, in my riding, I am the heart of cattle country and Alberta beef. We also take a lot of pride in the fact that we are protecting one of the most endangered ecosystems on planet earth and that is Canada's grasslands.

I know Canadians find that somewhat surprising at times, but the grassland ecosystem is more endangered than the coral reefs and the rainforests. It is so critical that our ranchers and our livestock producers take care to protect that grassland. Once it is gone, it is irreplaceable. It is so important for carbon sequestration and for carbon sinks that we protect that land so it is not developed for urban sprawl or any other options. It is critical that we protect that diversity.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important, and I agree with my friend from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, that we need to emphasize the carbon sequestration potential of grasslands and the preservation of grasslands. I do not want to get into a full debate on carbon taxes with the hon. member because Bill C-8 does not mention carbon taxes, except for trying to give farmers more of a rebate.

I also support, as does the hon. member who just spoke, the private member's bill to take the carbon tax off grain drying. The carbon tax program that the federal government put forward does exclude farmer's use of fossil fuels in the engines of cars and tractors, but not the grain drying. I think that was an oversight.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank my colleagues from the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party who are supporting our private member's bill in exempting the farm fuels from the carbon tax, because it is so important that farmers are able to keep that money in their pockets to reinvest in ways to be more efficient and more sustainable. I want to thank my colleagues around the House for supporting that bill. I wish the Liberals would find it in their hearts to do the same.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I remember how it felt to buy our first home, to take the keys and walk through our front door. It was a modest and older home, but it had character and all kinds of potential. For young people, owning a home is often seen as a key to the next chapter of their life story, which a lot of times includes starting a family and putting down roots in a community, a community where they contribute to the social and economic fabric while building lifetime friendships and family memories. Quite simply, a home is considered a really important part of realizing the Canadian dream, but that dream is in jeopardy. In fact, it is in crisis. An entire generation of Canadians is being left behind and worse off than their parents’ generation with the government’s constant raising of taxes, printing of money, spending money it does not have, raising inflation and orchestrating a housing crisis.

I am humbled to be able to speak on behalf of Canadians who are being left behind by their federal government while so many others, namely, the rich and well connected, are getting further and further ahead. That is why Conservatives are so concerned about Bill C-8, yet another tax-and-spend bill that adds more inflationary fuel to the fire. Despite elements of the bill that are supposedly meant to address some of the underlying causes of this crisis, they are completely dwarfed and overshadowed by the $70 billion of new inflationary spending this bill proposes, $70 billion on top of $176 billion in new spending brought in over the past two years that has been entirely unrelated to the pandemic. That is also in addition to the $400 billion in new cash that has been printed over the same two years, cash that is chasing fewer goods and driving up inflation.

These choices have only helped to bring our national debt to an astounding $1.2 trillion and counting. For the sake of our country, spending of this kind has to stop, but numbers such as these are unfathomable to average Canadians. What does this inflation crisis really mean to them? Here is what it means. It means that 60% of Canadians are concerned they might not have enough money to feed their families. The government appears to take no concern with the fact that the average person will need to spend $1,000 more in a year to simply feed their families.

While that is insignificant to many who sit in the House of Commons, that is simply outside the margins for most Canadians. That is why many have no choice but to change their buying habits, moving to less healthy choices and discount brands, or cutting back on food significantly. At the same time, one cannot even begin to provide nutritious food for one's family if one cannot get to the grocery store, and that is a real problem, especially in rural Canada.

Sixty-eight per cent of Canadians are worried they cannot afford to fill up their cars any longer. The government likes to shrug off the blame to current world events, denying the layers of carbon tax, compounded with GST, that it has been punishing Canadians with several times over and is disproportionately punitive on families, low-income Canadians and seniors. We are just days away from yet another increase in the carbon tax that will add 12¢ to every litre of gasoline.

As the official opposition, we have devoted entire days of debate on this matter alone and have asked the government to give Canadians a GST holiday on gas, but to no avail. In its first act as a coalition government, the NDP-Liberal government voted our motion down. Even the NDP is not interested in giving Canadians support, a break at the pumps, in these extraordinary times. Therefore, what would make anyone believe that this coalition will follow through with relief for first-time homebuyers? Why should Canadians trust them, especially when the relief is not enough in light of the insane prices in the housing market today?

When the Prime Minister took power, the cost of the typical home was $435,000. That has since ballooned by over 85%, up to what I believe is $810,000 now, with inflation of 25% and more in just the last year alone. As politicians, we can cite these numbers all day long, but real empathy and meaningful action only comes from hearing the effects of this affordability crisis on everyday Canadians, so let us shift the focus back squarely on housing.

The average family must spend two-thirds of their gross income on monthly payments for the average home in Toronto or Vancouver, some of the world’s most unaffordable markets, 66% of their take-home income. Meanwhile, any financial adviser worth their salt will tell young buyers that monthly housing costs should not exceed 25% to 30% of take-home pay. Otherwise, owners run the risk of living house poor. On Vancouver Island, I know that rent prices have soared out of reach for low-income and young Canadians. Even with the savings for a down payment on a home, there are no homes that young families can afford. They are being outbid by hundreds of thousands of dollars above the asking price.

British Columbia's Minister of Housing states that the province has been told to prepare for 100,000 new British Columbians every year for the next three years. That is about one-third of Canada's total immigration target. In the last three months, 24,000 new Canadians have arrived in B.C. Compounded by population growth within the existing population, pressure on housing supply is only going to get worse. The minister was clear that a dramatic increase in new builds is needed in short order. Also, the effect of offshore investment in Canadian land and real estate is making affordable housing an impossibility for young families.

Closer to Ottawa, a friend put a bid on a new home right here in the nation's capital. Another buyer offered $10,000 more than the asking price. This individual took a deep breath and matched it, only to learn that in response the other individual offered $90,000 higher.

Another couple I know locally has been diligent at putting away every dollar they can. In fact, they have now saved an amount for a down payment equal to the full purchase price of the husband's childhood home in 1999 prices, but they are still unable to find a home in Ottawa without living house poor. The most affordable options would place them more than an hour out of the city, away from their places of employment and the opportunities and services that the city provides.

It is not surprising, then, that Ontario has seen an exodus from the province in the last year. In 2021 alone, 108,000 individuals left for other provinces. That is the highest level since 1981, and it could be because the average price of a home in the greater Toronto area climbed 31%, to $1.2 million—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to interrupt the member. She will have three and a half minutes the next time that this matter is before the House.

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

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the absence of an agreement with the United States on softwood lumber continues to have disastrous consequences in my home province of British Columbia. We are seven years into the current government’s time in office, yet a softwood lumber agreement has not been a priority of this NDP-Liberal government.

Last year we heard from the Minister of International Trade that she was disappointed when additional American duties were placed on our critical lumber industries. Then last fall, after duties went even higher, the minister said she would raise the issue with the Americans.

Last week, when I questioned the government again on when it expects to have an agreement, the member for Winnipeg North, the most frequent government spokesperson in this chamber on a softwood lumber agreement, informed us that the government would “continue to monitor” this problem.

Canadians do not elect governments to monitor industry-destroying problems; they elect governments to solve them. Working families in my riding in Kelowna—Lake Country whose livelihoods are made in the forestry sector and the over 200 people who lost their jobs when a mill closed are perfectly capable of monitoring the situation themselves, as they are living through it.

The Prime Minister promised a new softwood lumber agreement within 100 days of his first election in 2015. We are now thousands of days past this, three U.S. presidents later, and no closer to that agreement. Does the government expect Canadians to wait another seven years?

The Liberals were not successful in negotiating softwood lumber into CUSMA. They left it up to negotiating a separate agreement, and this has not happened.

Over a year ago, on February 23, 2021, to much fanfare, the Prime Minister, the U.S. President and their trade counterparts announced the “Roadmap for a Renewed Canada-U.S. Partnership”. This mutual economic potential has not happened. Whether it is buy America policies or softwood lumber production moving to the U.S., Canada has the short stick.

It is not just those whose livelihoods are made in the forestry sector who are affected; Kelowna—Lake Country residents are seeing inflation rise thanks to the absence of government action on this file. Susan Yurkovich, the president of the BC Council of Forest Industries, recently testified at the trade committee that the lack of a softwood lumber deal has an inflationary effect. As those unfair and unwarranted tariffs get priced into the cost of lumber, Canadian construction companies and home renovators are forced to pass on these costs to consumers, leading to even higher costs to housing.

The Association of Interior Realtors recently reported that the benchmark selling price of a typical single-family home in Kelowna has now risen to more than $1 million, up from $761,000 just a year ago. House prices in Lake Country rose similarly, with new figures from BC Assessment showing a one-year increase of 32%. These increases are alarming. The escalation of home values jeopardizes the ability of seniors on fixed incomes to maintain their homes, prevents first-time homebuyers from ever being able to buy a home, forces families to live in homes that no longer suit their family's size and force people to spend far more than 30% of their pre-tax income on rent. House pricing increases are caused by several factors, and increased construction costs are certainly one of them.

The NDP-Liberal government has always acted as if a softwood lumber agreement was out of reach. Canadians know better than to believe in those excuses, because they remember that we had an agreement under the last Conservative government. We did not have to tweet endless photo ops that were disguised as productive meetings but produced no results; we got a deal that worked.

I am hoping today we are going to hear from the NDP–Liberal minister on what steps she is taking to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement. We know the lack of an agreement is adding to inflation. Families in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country and workers in my province and across the country are relying on this. Let us hear about the plan and see some action.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising this important issue in the House.

I just want to emphasize that the federal government is extremely disappointed that the U.S. Department of Commerce continues to apply duties to most exports of Canadian softwood lumber. Those duties are unfair and entirely unwarranted. They harm Canadian communities, of which the member represents in British Columbia, and the workers. They harm Canadian workers and Canadian communities right across the board, particularly the industries in Quebec and British Columbia, but also people who are purchasing homes right around this country.

We understand that the softwood lumber industry is a key component of our highly integrated forest sector, and it is an economic anchor for communities around Canada. We know that Canadian interests in the softwood lumber dispute are best dealt with through a team Canada approach. Let me highlight this. What we are doing is that we are not taking a partisan approach and we are not taking the approach that favours a particular region. We are adopting this as truly a team Canada initiative and have done so continuously through our years in government. We are in close contact with provinces, territories, industry and other partners on how best to respond to the most recent U.S. decisions regarding duties on softwood lumber products.

In January, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development convened a round table with representatives from across the country to exchange views on Canada's approach to the softwood lumber dispute. One thing that is clear is that we stand by our industry and by the workers, and they can rest assured that Canada is actively contesting these unfair measures.

What are we doing in the face of these unwarranted initiatives by the U.S. Department of Commerce? We have launched legal cases against the various U.S. decisions to date that have imposed duties on Canadian softwood lumber products. Under chapter 19 of NAFTA, Canada is challenging the 2017 U.S. subsidy and dumping determinations. These determinations are also the subject of WTO challenges. We are already seeing the results of those efforts at the WTO.

In August 2020, the panel that adjudicated Canada's challenge of the subsidy determination found the U.S. duties to be inconsistent with the United States international trade obligations. Further, we are contesting, under chapter 10 of CUSMA, the first and second administrative reviews. I will pause parenthetically here. That is the very same provision under CUSMA that the official opposition, when CUSMA was renegotiated, urged us to abandon in order to get a deal done. Were it not for our determination in ensuring that the dispute resolution mechanism was entrenched, we would not have a vehicle for which to advocate for my friend opposite's very constituents and the industry she is purporting to advocate for.

We are a reliable trading partner. In the past, all of these independent tribunals have consistently found that the United States allegations regarding softwood lumber are entirely without basis, meaning Canada has won at every turn. We will continue to litigate, because that is the route that is available to us. We believe that will ultimately be the case in this present dispute.

In parallel, what are we doing? I reject categorically the categorization that was presented by the member opposite that we are somehow abandoning this issue or not making it a priority. To the contrary, we continue to engage on this issue with the U.S. government at every level. The Prime Minister has raised it with President Biden. The Minister of International Trade has raised it with her U.S. counterparts, that is U.S. Trade Representative Tai and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo.

An agreement is in the best interests of both parties involved, and we will only accept a deal that is beneficial to Canadian industry, Canadian workers and Canadian communities.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been seven years. What I was asking the NDP-Liberal minister for was an outline of actions the government will be taking on negotiating a softwood lumber agreement, not just raising the issue.

The last softwood lumber deal was negotiated by the previous Conservative government, including achieving an extension, which expired in 2015. The Liberals did not negotiate softwood lumber into CUSMA, nor through three U.S. presidents, and they did not sit down and negotiate a new deal.

Lumber production is up in the United States, yet down in Canada. Mills have closed in Canada, thousands have lost their jobs and lumber prices have skyrocketed in large part due to U.S. tariffs affecting construction costs. We now have testimony at the trade committee that increases in lumber costs have increased inflation.

Residents in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country cannot afford these cost increases affecting construction and housing prices. Could the NDP-Liberal minister tell us how long the government expects the forestry industry and my constituents dealing with inflationary costs to wait for a softwood lumber agreement?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I would say in response is that we are working on this at all levels, as I have indicated.

We are taking a team Canada approach. In the most recent trade trip by the minister in the fall, she brought with her representatives of the official opposition, as well as the NDP, to participate in that team Canada approach. What we are doing is emphasizing that these tariffs do not just hurt Canadian communities, but they also devastate American communities, because by virtue of the duties placed on Canadian lumber coming in to build American homes, it is escalating the price of homes in the United States. The result of this advocacy has been that recently we have seen 100 different congressional representatives from both sides of the American House petition the Biden administration to reduce these unwarranted tariffs for the benefit of American homeowners.

That is the kind of advocacy we need more of. That is the kind of advocacy we will continue. We will not cease to make this a priority in terms of all of our relations with the American administration.

Infrastructure

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here this evening to talk about the recent flooding in the Fraser Valley, in particular in the Sumas Prairie area.

The Minister of Emergency Preparedness or his parliamentary secretary will be well aware of the extent and dimensions of the damage and the estimated cost for repairs. It is somewhere between $339 million and $580 million to seismically upgrade the Sumas Prairie diking system and the Matsqui Prairie diking system, and probably about that much money again to pay for repairs that need to be done because of the damage caused by the recent flooding.

Tonight, I want to talk in particular about another aspect, which is the American impact on the flooding on the Canadian side. The Nooksack River runs in the U.S. Just like the Sumas River, it breached its dikes during the floods in November. By way of reference, north is downhill, and that water ran into Canada.

Canadians have said, “Good neighbours don't flood their neighbour's property”, and Americans have said, “Well, good neighbours don't actually block the natural flow of the water”, and that is the natural flow. One American official is quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying, “You're not going to argue against the lay of the land. Sumas Prairie is a lot lower than Everson” on the American side, and that is absolutely true. Sumas Prairie on the Canadian side used to be Sumas Lake until about 100 years ago. Pioneers decided to build a dike around it. They cut in canals, put in pumping stations and pumped Sumas Lake dry. It has become very productive farmland now.

Fixing the Canadian side is going to be the easy part. That is roughly $1 billion. Fixing the American side is going to be much harder from an engineering perspective, but also from an international relations perspective. Canadians are hoping that the Americans will improve the dikes and the levies on the Nooksack River, but there is, of course, a downstream risk for the Americans with that. The Americans prefer a natural floodway northwards across the Canadian side of Sumas Prairie to the Fraser River. They are already buying up farmland for that. If that happens, it will have a devastating impact on the Canadian side. There is a lot of very densely populated and very productive farmland at risk here.

My question to the government is this. What is the government doing in negotiating with the U.S. to come up with a sensible solution to what looks to be a very serious international impasse?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, I will start by saying that our thoughts remain with the families of those who have lost loved ones and all those affected by the floods, landslides and extreme weather conditions in British Columbia last November. Our government recognizes that this was a flooding event of extraordinary scale and scope. While the full causes of the event have yet to be determined, the Insurance Bureau of Canada has estimated the insured damages to be at least $550 million, and we know that climate change is making these kinds of events more frequent and more severe than ever before.

The President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister for Emergency Preparedness travelled to the province earlier this month to survey the rebuilding progress in some of the most severely affected regions, including Merritt and Abbotsford, and spoke directly to those whose homes have been impacted. The minister saw that the people of British Columbia are working hard to rebuild their lives. However, we agree with our hon. colleague that there is much more work to be done, not only to build back from this event, but to create more resiliency in our infrastructure and communities to mitigate the impacts of future disasters. We have made a commitment to British Columbia and those impacted by these floods that our government will be there for them during the rebuild.

That is why our government has formed a joint committee with British Columbia to work alongside indigenous leadership on immediate and ongoing support. Through this committee, we also discuss how we can enhance climate adaptation and response measures to better prepare communities for future events. Improving infrastructure resiliency was one of the top priorities the committee set out during its first meeting in December.

The disaster financial assistance arrangements program, also known as DFAA, remains a key component of how the federal offers financial support to the provinces in the aftermath of these kinds of events. To speak to the effectiveness of the program, through the DFAA the federal government has paid out over $6 billion in postdisaster assistance to provincial and territorial governments since 1970. As I have previously confirmed to the House, the Government of British Columbia has submitted an initial request for support under the DFAA for November's flooding, and our officials are working together with their provincial counterparts to move this request forward.

As we continue to work with the province on rebuilding from this disaster, we also continue to work on a number of measures to better prepare for and respond to weather-related events of all kinds. In 2019, we collaborated with federal, provincial and territorial partners, indigenous communities and municipalities to develop the emergency management strategy for Canada. This strategy sets out common priorities and areas for action when it comes to helping Canadians and their communities better predict, prepare for and respond to natural disasters.

Through budget 2021, our government has allocated funding to complete flood maps for high-risk areas in collaboration with the provinces and territories. Budget 2021 also provided an additional $1.4 billion in funding to expand Infrastructure Canada's disaster mitigation and adaptation fund and to support projects such as wildlife mitigation activities, rehabilitation of stormwater systems and restoration of wetlands and shorelines. Finally, several ministers have been mandated to collaborate to develop a national climate change adaptation strategy and invest in reducing the impact of climate-related disasters, including flooding.

I thank the member for his advocacy on this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I look forward to working with him as we develop solutions to better protect his communities and the rest of British Columbia.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course, we in the Fraser Valley are grateful for support from the federal government in funding repairs and enhancing infrastructure to adapt to climate change. However, my real question today is this: What is the state of negotiations with our American counterparts regarding the Nooksack River specifically, which drains Mount Baker and the North Cascade Mountains? I ask because we cannot solve the problem on our own. Fixing the Canadian side is the easy part; we know exactly what needs to be done. It is just going to require money and a lot of energy. I want to know what our relationship is with the United States on that matter.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member opposite knows, we of course work very closely with our American partners. In this instance, it is important that we also work very closely with the Province of British Columbia. As I mentioned, we have formed a joint committee with the province to work alongside indigenous leadership on immediate and ongoing support and to better understand the future steps that need to be taken in terms of adaptation, from a climate change perspective, and in terms of infrastructure resiliency. That would also involve talking about cross-border issues, and I am sure, with the help of the member opposite and working with our colleagues in British Columbia, we will be able to come up with solutions that work best for all our communities.

COVID-19 Economic Measures

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising this evening to follow up on a question that I asked at the end of last year about the government's treatment of some of the most financially vulnerable during the pandemic, including many seniors. Since then, we have gone through the omicron wave of COVID-19, and a couple of things stand out about that wave in particular.

The first is that I think it was a wave where people were, relatively speaking, less concerned about the effects on their personal health. That is not true for everyone, but it is true for many who noted that omicron, we are told, had less severe symptoms for many people who got it than those who got one of the preceding variants of COVID-19. Also, frankly, there was very widespread uptake of the vaccine by the time omicron got here, which had not been true for previous iterations of COVID-19.

Overall, for many people, it was a wave that felt less threatening from a personal health point of view, although there were still many people who found themselves in hospital, many people who were seriously ill in hospital and many people who were concerned about access to medical services for things other than COVID. They may not have been as worried about COVID getting them very sick, but they were still concerned about access to medical resources in the event that they were sick or injured from something else.

It was a very disruptive wave, and there was a lot of fear and anxiety on the financial side that we had not quite experienced with the other wave. This was largely because it was the first big wave of COVID since the government had chosen to first drastically reduce the amount of CRB payments by 40%, from $2,000 a month to $1,200 a month, and because the Liberals ultimately did away with the CRB program altogether post-election and replaced it with programs that were much more difficult to access. It was the first time that a lot of Canadians really did not have robust financial support to fall back on when the economic disruption of omicron struck.

I raise that because many Canadians are still contending with those very difficult economic circumstances. There are seniors experiencing that. New Democrats fought very hard in the fall alongside people in civil society and many seniors' advocacy groups to make sure that those seniors who were being punished by having the CRB, which they rightly received according to the rules, clawed back through their GIS. They were being evicted from their homes and released into destitution.

We finally succeeded in getting the government to try and correct that. That was a good thing. We are hoping that the assistance is going to arrive in the weeks to come, very shortly in April, but we are thinking about seniors who are still facing a lot of cost challenges, particularly those seniors between the ages of 65 and 75 who are not going to see the increase in the old age supplement that other seniors are seeing. We in the NDP feel that there is a fundamental unfairness there to be creating two tiers of seniors, and I want to ask the government if it will finally decide to get rid of the two-tier senior model and have a uniform increase for the old age supplement that would apply to all seniors.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I think all of us agree that, during the pandemic, so many of our most vulnerable Canadians and constituents were severely impacted and, of course, seniors are at the top of that list in terms of the challenges that they faced. However, contrary to what my colleague is suggesting, the financial support needed by more vulnerable Canadians remains available and has been there from the start of the pandemic. From the onset of the pandemic, the Government of Canada has been implementing measures to help those who need it most.

Today I am going to focus on an additional program available to provide temporary income support for the most vulnerable in Canada. This additional support came through Bill C-2, which we tabled in December 2021 and was promptly passed, thanks in large measure to the NDP. This bill enabled us to provide benefits to Canadian workers whose employment was impacted by COVID-19 in designated lockdown regions. In light of the omicron surge, Bill C-2 proved to be very forward-looking. Among other things, the bill introduced the new Canada worker lockdown benefit. It also extended the weeks available for the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

I am not going to go into too much detail, but I will briefly explain what the new Canada worker lockdown benefit is. The benefit provides income support of $300 per week through to May 7, 2022, to eligible workers who are directly affected by a public health lockdown order related to COVID-19 in their respective region. Eligible workers can apply within 60 days of the lockdown in their designated region to receive the benefit retroactive to October 24, 2021. In December 2021, in response to public health restrictions brought about by the omicron variant, we temporarily expanded the Canada worker lockdown benefit definitions so that more workers would be eligible. This temporary definition ended on March 12, 2022.

My colleague's question implies that the government is using financially vulnerable people as the basis for economic recovery and that assertion is false. The truth is that some beneficiaries received overpayments because of, for example, the Canada emergency response benefit advance payment. We are in the process of identifying those overpayments, and we will proceed with recovering them. By the way, flexible repayment options are available to prevent undue hardship for recipients.

Canadians are at the very heart of every decision this government makes and, yes, financial support is there for more vulnerable Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a few things to correct. New Democrats actually opposed Bill C-2, and we did it because we did not feel that the financial support was going to be adequate. We felt we should heed the advice of many public health officials that new waves of COVID were going to come, and that turned out to be true. In fact, the government had to modify the conditions of the program just days after Bill C-2 passed because it was already clearly inadequate to the task of addressing the omicron wave.

What is also going to be inadequate is having no meaningful increase in the OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74, which is why I will ask again if the government will change its tune and apply the OAS increase to all seniors, rather than only those aged 75 and above.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are proud of our track record in terms of supporting seniors. One of the first things that we did for seniors was to restore the age of eligibility of OAS back to 65 from 67. We enhanced CPP. We raised the GIS for single seniors. We introduced the special tax repayment for those who receive OAS and GIS. We invested half a billion dollars for seniors' essential services and supplies during the pandemic, and we provided a one-time $500 payment to seniors 75 and older. Of course, this year we are increasing OAS by 10%.

We have been there for seniors before the pandemic. We were there for seniors during the pandemic, and we continue to be there for seniors. We recognize that they are some of the most vulnerable Canadians in our society.