Debates of April 4th, 2022

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Finance

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

Madam Speaker, what did we just witness there? We just witnessed a filibuster within a filibuster. They were already filibustering by bringing in this concurrence motion, and then the member stood on a point of order to try to filibuster the filibuster. It is absolutely remarkable what we are seeing, but I will have that member know that I take this as a compliment. I take this as the people in the back room over there saying, “Oh God, there goes Gerretsen again. Somebody get in there and go shut him up. Hey, get in there and read this,” and they handed him something to read so he could filibuster the filibuster. That is what we just witnessed there, but it is perfectly in line with what we see coming from the Conservative Party, day after day, to avoid having to deal with Bill C-8. That is where we are right now, and that is what we are seeing right now.

As I was saying to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, before he interrupted me with the filibuster to the filibuster, he should really take a trip to somewhere like Home Depot and walk around inside for a second and see if he can buy a gas lawnmower. It is not easy to find them anymore. The electrification of everything is literally happening before our eyes. Everything is being converted to battery-operated. It is very difficult nowadays to find products, particularly power tools, that are not battery-operated, especially industrial or larger power tools such as lawnmowers, for example.

The same can be said about the vehicles throughout the country. They are moving in a direction. Whether or not Conservatives want to get on board, it is happening. It is happening right before their eyes and it is not something they can control. It has gone past the tipping point. We have gone past the point of no return, so we are either going to get on board with it or we are going to be caught behind.

Will we need oil? We are going to need oil for a long time. There is no doubt about that, and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan can clap to that, too. We will, but that does not mean that we cannot at the same time look for a way to transition away from oil, and that is what the recommendations in this report that I referenced are doing specifically, by calling on the government to look for those opportunities.

I brought one up that speaks to ensuring that there are charging stations for electric vehicle readiness as part of the efficiency program to help Canadians who live in older houses. This is one of the problems that we have. A lot of older houses will have to be retrofitted to put in the proper infrastructure.

The one I really liked was recommendation 191. This specifically looked at establishing a greater focus on charging infrastructure investment needs by setting up and funding higher one- and five-year targets for electric vehicle charging stations. This is basically calling on the government to move faster than the already prescribed date of 2035 of being all net-zero emitting vehicles. It asks to set a goal to make one million existing apartment and condominium parking stalls electric-ready by 2030, which is incredibly important.

The apartment that I stay in here in Ottawa was only built in 2015, but for some reason the infrastructure was not already put in place for electric vehicles. That is going to have to be retrofitted. To that point, one of the recommendations that I really liked, recommendation 193, was to incorporate zero-emission vehicle requirements into the national building code and energy building code. Why is that so important? It is because most provinces look to the national building code. If we look at the Ontario building code, it is almost a carbon copy of the national building code. It is the same with Quebec's building code. We need national standards because those will then inform the other provincial standards that are out there.

Indeed, there are provinces that just look to the national building code. By encouraging this kind of stuff, which does not cost the government any money, and by putting these into the building code and encouraging that kind of infrastructure to be built now, we are going to be preparing ourselves for the future. That is one of the other recommendations that I really liked seeing in there.

I just want to say how disappointed I am that we got to the point today that we had to have this discussion. It is going to be unanimously approved by the House.

I imagine that will happen when the deferred recorded division takes place, but I find it very troubling that we even had to have this discussion, just as an opportunity for the Conservatives to once again stall the debate and filibuster what was going on so that we cannot deal with Bill C-8. For some reason, they are hung up on the fall economic statement and not letting it pass. At every step of the way, they are literally dragging their feet. They are the only ones still speaking to it. Every other party has given up on it, and 90% of the members from the Conservative Party who stand to talk about it do not even talk about Bill C-8. They talk about every grievance that they might happen to have at that time.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member talked about and actually read the report by the Standing Committee on Finance. Some of the other speakers obviously spoke for 20 minutes without any reference to what was in the report.

On recommendation 191, the member and I will maybe debate a bit and disagree on that recommendation, which is for infrastructure for electric vehicles. I have spoken with the industry, which has said there is a problem in the Weights and Measures Act that makes it difficult for the market itself to function. Right now, when people plug in their electric vehicles, if it is fast charger that draws more out, they have to charge the same amount that they would for someone who has a regular charger and charges by the minute. The problem is that we cannot see private investment and markets begin to appear, so the government has to continue to pay for this infrastructure. Elon Musk has said publicly that there is enough adoption of electric vehicles that the infrastructure can pay for itself.

Does the member believe that, rather than borrowing those scarce tax dollars to pay for something, because we are borrowing the money right now, why does the government not actually fix it and let the market function and provide that infrastructure, like it does with regular vehicles?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, what a great policy debate. Why did the Conservative Party not put that in its dissenting report? What an incredible point. That is something we could actually debate and discuss. I want to thank the member for bringing that forward, because he might very well be right. Why did the Conservatives not talk about it in the dissenting report? All they did in the dissenting report was whine and complain about everything the government is doing.

We are having this debate and he finally brings up a quite germane point. I would argue that, as the technology develops further and further, we are not really going to need that infrastructure, other than between extremely long commutes. Right now, the average electric vehicle gets about 400 kilometres, maybe about 320 kilometres in the winter in our climate, but as the technology develops further and further, that range is going to increase more and more. I would argue that the infrastructure will not even be needed as greatly as it appears to be needed right now, but I want to thank him for that very good point that he just brought up.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He very eloquently and approvingly mentioned the system of early childhood centres that was created by our leader's mentor, among others.

My colleague's speech made it clear that Quebec was single-handedly able to use its own resources to build a system that is favourable and very helpful to our economy.

By that same logic, Quebec is great at developing programs on its own that are good for its people. Again, let us follow that logic rationally.

Why is the federal government refusing to increase health transfers unconditionally when Quebec is so great at creating programs that are good for its people?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It is because as we evolve, Madam Speaker, and as regional levels adopt these programs, sometimes we get to the point of saying that maybe it is time for the federal government to take on this program now. Is that not one of the great things of being in this country, that we can look at what others are doing and look to those as examples of what we can do nationally?

I will give another great example. Thirty or 40 years ago, the environment was just a provincial issue. There was very little that the federal government got into in terms of environment. It was not until recently, when we started to realize the wider impacts of the environment, that we saw the need for the federal government to take it on. I would suggest that it is the exact same thing with this.

As we see the need for these programs and the need for them to develop over time, we can see the need for various provinces to want to bring in child care. I do not recall Quebec saying it did not want its portion of that money and turn the federal government down. I am pretty sure Quebec is part of the program that the federal government brought in.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spent quite a bit of his speech talking about the Conservatives and the fact that they are still so committed to oil and gas and so committed to the big companies that are making record profits. However, the Liberal government has increased oil and gas subsidies year after year, and Canada has the worst record of any G7 country when it comes to emissions reduction.

I am curious if the member is feeling a little ashamed of his own government in that it is so close to the Conservatives when it comes to support for oil and gas.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is an interesting thing about this question, and I am so glad I was asked it. The problem is that NDP members will say that we have not reduced oil subsidies as much as we have, but the reality is that when they are making those calculations, they are including the money being used to deal with orphaned wells. The government put in a significant amount of money, right at the beginning of the pandemic, to help deal with the orphaned wells out there. The calculation the member is using is including that. If we look at the traditional subsidies in oil and gas, they have been reduced quite significantly and are on track to being eliminated by 2025 or sooner.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, this morning I was reading an article in The Globe and Mail, and it was quoting, extensively, the chief executive of the Bank of Canada, David McKay. He said that he was uneasy about the economy and that there was a frustration and mistrust between the business community and the Government of Canada. He said some of those challenges are ideological, that there needs to be a shift away from a tax-and-spend approach, which does not create sustainable growth. He also said tax and spending like the government is doing is like eating Sugar Pops for breakfast. He said the government is missing a chance for long-term success and that Canada is lagging its peers on key measures of productivity and investment. The article indicated that Canada's five-year average GDP growth is the lowest among the G7 nations.

When the member stands up and starts pointing fingers at me, he asks why we need to have a debate on this concurrence report. It is because it is not the Conservative Party but the Bank of Canada saying that the government and its tax-and-spend approach are ideologically hurting the country of Canada. Therefore, what is it: Sugar Pops or a bowl of Corn Flakes?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I love that the member cherry-picked some data. He talked about the last couple years and the average growth rather than talking about the GDP as it has applied over time. If we look at it over time, we have been successful in outpacing our G7 partners.

To the point about whether we need to look at spending differently from how we have over the last two years, I do not think there is a member in the House who would disagree with that. I suggest that, as we move forward, we are certainly going to see that. We are not going to keep the same level of spending that was required to provide CERB and a lot of the other supports to individuals.

If the federal government maintained the exact same spending level it has for the last two years to support people through the pandemic, I could understand the member's concern, but I really do not think that is going to happen. If that is his concern, I think he is going to be surprised on Thursday.

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

Madam Speaker, on the discussion about fossil fuel subsidies, I am with the member partway. I agree that when we are cleaning up orphaned wells, it violates the polluter pays principle. I was for it because I did not want to see money going to big oil during the pandemic, although they managed to get their hands on it anyway.

There are new subsidies coming up. We have the new pledge to put federal money, as much as $9 billion, into a technology that does not work, carbon capture and storage. It would allow the fossil fuel industry to pocket more profits. If my friends in the NDP really cared about climate, they should have made it an issue before they signed the deal with the Liberals.

Will the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands join us in pushing to stop subsidizing fossil fuels while we have any prayer of holding on to 1.5°C?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Party position or not, my personal position is that we should not be subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, full stop.

Her question is about subsidizing through carbon sequestration. I would like to get into the details of that. I do not think that carbon sequestration is a long-term objective. Could it be used in the short-term? I think the technology is not there yet, and therefore it will never happen.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is time we shifted from opinion back to fact.

As a member of the finance committee, I was part of the pre-budget consultations, although not the whole process, because I was appointed critic about halfway through. However, the member for Kingston and the Islands is not a member of that committee, so much of what he was saying was actually speculation. It is unfortunate, because this chamber should be a chamber in which we discuss facts, evidence and science, and that is what I would like to do. I want to talk about facts.

When the finance committee resolved to embark on a pre-budget consultation process for the 2022 budget, it established a timeline that was completely unreasonable. It ran out of time because, as members may remember, back in 2021 the Prime Minister was so desperate to get a majority government that he called an unnecessary and expensive election, which of course set the work of this House behind by many months. When that election did not deliver the majority that the Prime Minister expected, he then delayed bringing back the House of Commons, so the time that was left to do pre-budget consultations was compressed. The way the Liberals and the NDP, the new NDP-Liberal government, dealt with it was by effectively having hundreds and hundreds of submissions made to the committee. In fact, there were 500 submissions that came in to the committee, and then it adopted 222 recommendations that had come from those submissions.

Now, members have to understand the process. When families across Canada are establishing their own budgets, they first determine how much income they have as a family or how much revenue comes into their family, and then they determine how much they can spend on rent and mortgage payments; how much they can spend on food; and how much they can spend on gas, transportation, vacations for the kids, hockey and music lessons. They determine those expenditures within the context of the revenue that is coming into the household. None of that happened here at committee.

Hundreds of Canadians were coming to committee, and many were simply saying, “Hey, I want you to spend money on this, and that, and that.” Then our NDP friends, our Bloc friends and especially our Liberal friends uncritically accepted these recommendations and incorporated them into the report that is before us today. This report has 222 recommendations, and many of them have big dollars attached to them. In fact, when we added all the dollars up of the recommendations that had dollars attached, it was around the $50-billion mark. Half of the recommendations had no dollars attached, but clearly, had they been costed, they would have resulted in many billions of dollars more in asks. They all found their way into this report, and that is the report we are debating here in the House today.

My colleague for Kingston and the Islands was upset that we insisted on debating tens of billions of dollars of recommendations. These are expenditures that the government is being asked to make and that the House is supposed to recommend to the government when we are facing a massive debt crisis in this country with no debt management plan, deficits as far as the eye can see, and no date on which the budget will be balanced, unlike households across Canada who have to balance their books if they are going to survive. This government has decided, over the last seven years, that it does not care about balanced budgets. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that based on the current trajectory of the government, this country will not balance its books until the year 2070.

Fifty years from now, we may begin to live within our means. We may begin to live within the revenues that government takes in through taxes. That is no way to manage the finances of this country.

Therefore, we have this process of all these asks coming in to the committee. One would expect that, like most households, they would go through a prioritization process of what are the “must haves”, what are the “like to haves” and what are the recommendations that really are not necessary at this time. Families across this country go through that process.

Do members think this committee went through that process? Did it triage the various requests that came in and establish a set of priorities? Did it look through the revenues the government takes in, the hundreds of billions of dollars that are required to fund those recommendations, and then place them into that context and decide what is best for Canada? Did it then walk through the recommendations and prioritize them, saying at one point in time that some of the recommendations are just not affordable right now? Did the committee go through that process? It absolutely did not.

The process that took place at the finance committee was an absolute farce. In response to the question from the member for Kingston and the Islands, which was why we did not bring forward our own recommendations, it was because the process was a farce. It was not a budgetary review process. It was not a pre-budget consultation process, where we weigh the different requests and then come forward to the government with a set of recommendations that all of us could agree on. The NDP-Liberal government and its Bloc allies came along and said they would uncritically take all of the recommendations and present them to government as recommendations for the next budget, which we will hear about on Thursday of this week. That is farcical.

I think you understand that, Madam Speaker. That is not the way the financial affairs of this country should be run because we are facing a massive debt that future generations are going to have to pay. It is irresponsible to take every recommendation that comes into committee and then say to government that they want it to implement those recommendations. That is grossly irresponsible.

I have grandchildren. The 13th is on its way. I do not want to saddle them with a debt that they cannot manage to pay. Today, we know that interest rates are on their way up, so we have the problem of inflation and rising interest rates. Those are the twin scourges that are going to really impact future generations of Canadians. How are they supposed to pay for all of this? I lament for the future of our children, grandchildren and the many generations to come. Right now, they are not going to have a balanced budget. We will be running deficits for the next 50 years, based on what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has suggested.

By the way, that does not take into account all of the promises the Liberal government had to make to its NDP partners. There is pharmacare to be added on. There is dental care to be added on. There is defence spending. By the way, we as Conservatives strongly support beefing up our defence and our Armed Forces, as a country. They have to take all of that into account. They have to prioritize. We as Conservatives would prioritize defence spending, but for the rest of it there was no prioritization that took place. It was grossly irresponsible. I do not want to leave that kind of a country to my children.

We have the right to expect better from parliamentarians. We have a right to expect better from the Prime Minister and the finance minister. I know the Prime Minister has said that he does not pay attention to monetary policy. That shows in his performance and the poor performance of our economy, where we are now seeing massive inflation setting in. The inflationary pressures facing our country are immense, and they are going to get worse before they get better.

At least, that is what the Governor of the Bank of Canada recently said. Things are going to get worse before they are going to get better when it comes to inflation.

Why do we have inflation? Yes, we have supply chain constraints. Yes, we have problems with skyrocketing commodity prices, but one of the reasons we have this problem in Canada, especially in the housing market, where houses have been basically priced out of reach for millions of Canadians, is excess liquidity. In other words, the government has borrowed and spent so much money over the past two years that it has flooded the market with dollars that are chasing a limited number of goods, including a limited number of houses across Canada. That is when inflation sets in.

This is the environment that faces coming generations. I do not want my children and grandchildren to have this hanging around their necks, yet the government has had no plan to manage that massive debt load. There is no plan to ever return to balance. There is no plan. We have asked, month after month and day after day, in the House in question period, where the finance minister's plan was to fight inflation. How is she going to address the skyrocketing cost of living, or the cost of groceries, with families going hungry, or the cost of gasoline? Parents want to drop off their kids at school or take them to hockey or music lessons, and they are realizing that a tank of gas costs double what it did just a year ago. That is not the kind of world we want to live in. That is not the kind of world we want to leave to our children.

Again, I know this is a sobering thought on the debate we are having today. There are 222 recommendations to spend without a critical eye being placed on each one of those recommendations. There is no critical eye on how future generations are going to pay for all of this. We, as a country, can do better. The government should do better, and some day a Conservative government will do better.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the comments from the hon. member for Abbotsford. They tend to be measured and are sometimes on point, but most often are off point, I would say.

In three days' time, or thereabouts, we will see the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who I have a great amount of faith in, deliver a budget in the House that moves Canada forward as we have been doing since 2015.

When we talk about leadership, I always say that we have responsible leadership. That is what we have provided Canadians, day in and day out.

Regarding inflation, we see every country in the world battling inflation these days. We are, too. We know supply chains are returning to normal, but when the member talks about a plan, we have presented a plan. We had a management plan in last year's budget: in the fall economic statement. That was there. Many of the questions that the member opposite raised were things that we have done or we are doing, and we have fiscal guardrails in place in terms of where we move forward. I have young kids, and we are going to leave a brighter economy for them.

I ask the hon. member this. Are the investments that are ongoing today not the right investments, including our social fabric and today a $2-billion announcement by General Motors, with the Conservative government in Ontario and the Liberal government—

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

I have to give the hon. member a chance to answer.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that Canada has the worst record of the 30 OECD countries when it comes to attracting investment, and he knows that. When we are at a place where the world says that Canada is no longer a good place to invest in, we should be concerned.

My friend referred to this debt management plan that was incorporated into last year's budget. Do members know what that debt management plan was? It was a trajectory. There was no firm target. We asked the Liberals, time and again, here in question period when the budget would be balanced. The finance minister never, ever gave us an answer.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I request that the motion be adopted on division.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

(Motion agreed to)

Air Transportation

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, thousands of my constituents, and other Canadians from across the country, signed a petition I put forward on improving the number of flights from Canada to India. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to renegotiate the air transportation agreement with the Government of India to allow for direct flights to Amritsar Airport.

My constituents understand that this will not take place until the war in Ukraine, the invasion by Russia, has ended. That said, they are still hopeful that the Government of Canada will move forward in good faith with our good friends in India to improve this agreement to allow for those direct flights. It is good for the economy, and it is good for the cultural ties, especially between my riding and the Punjab region of India.

Ukraine

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to table two petitions.

The first petition is signed by my constituents in my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster. It calls on the Government of Canada to take several steps to further support Ukraine. This includes the establishment of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, the provision of additional lethal weapons and to increase humanitarian aid.

The second petition also calls on the Government of Canada to work with our allies to close the airspace over Ukraine and to provide direct military assistance.

In the face of Putin's indiscriminate attacks and unjustified aggression in Ukraine, the petitioners are urging Canada to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, for the cost of not standing up to Putin's aggression is far too great.

Corporate Social Responsibility

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the opportunity today to present a petition on behalf of the hard-working, passionate students of Notre Dame College School in the city of Welland. This petition calls upon the House of Commons to adopt human rights and environmental due diligence legislation.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions I want to present to the House today. I am thankful for the opportunity.

The first petition is in support of Bill S-223. This is a bill that would make it a criminal offence for people to go abroad and receive an organ without consent from the donor. The goal of this bill is to combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The petitioners note that this legislation has been before various Parliaments in the same form. It has passed the Senate unanimously three times and has passed in this House once unanimously in a previous Parliament. In light of the scourge that organ harvesting and trafficking is, the petitioners are hopeful that this Parliament will be the one to finally get it done.