House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was firefighters.

Topics

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

Madam Speaker, I believe that Quebec's social safety net is really helping many Quebeckers in the province. However, when we think of the province of Alberta and what is happening there, we see that the protections and powers of jurisdiction the province has enjoyed have actually harmed people. We are seeing public health care wages being cut, so I believe that we should increase the transfer, but it needs strings attached.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion to concur in the report of the finance committee regarding recommendations arising from the pre-budget consultations. As we often hear, budgets are about choices on expenses, services and the investments we are making to create a better Canada, and choices on revenues and who we ask to pay for those investments.

It is therefore good to look at where we are now, or at least where were before the pandemic, when the parliamentary budget office reported that 1% of Canadians shared 25% of the wealth and that 40% of Canadians have only 1% of the wealth shared among them. The pandemic has only accentuated and aggravated these inequalities and differences. Supply chains have been disrupted. We have had labour shortages that are still very critical. We have had climate disasters, droughts, floods and heat domes, a lot of them happening in my riding or adjacent ridings. We have seen the impacts of what climate change is bringing. Now we have an illegal war in the Ukraine that is further exacerbating the situation in the world economy.

How did the inequalities change during the pandemic? Well, billionaires got richer. Billionaires in Canada added more than $70 billion to their own wealth while the rest of those in Canada really struggled. This committee report fails to recommend any solution that would change or reverse this trend. The NDP feels that we need a tax on additional profits that were brought in by many of the big corporations during the pandemic. We need a wealth tax of 1% on superwealthy Canadians who have assets of over $10 million. Instead, we see superwealthy Canadians and big corporations taking money out of Canada year after year. We are losing over $25 billion in tax revenue every year because we are not taxing the people who can afford these investments and are, instead, taxing the people who cannot afford them.

In terms of climate change, there are many recommendations in this report on what we need to do about climate change, and we agree with many of those recommendations. However, we really want to emphasize that a successful transition to a low-carbon future in Canada must be centred on workers. As my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach so eloquently said, he has personal experience with that. We need a federal authority created and funded by the federal government that has a mandate to quickly implement a real plan to guide us to that low-carbon future.

Hundreds of thousands of new jobs could be created by bold work on retrofitting our buildings, as 40% of our emissions come from our buildings. The government came out with a plan a few years ago that would do a small part of that necessary work with a combination of grants and loans. It helps people who can afford to do the work up front. They spend thousands of dollars retrofitting their homes and then apply for a smaller grant, or they take on a loan, of $20,000 perhaps, to do the work. However, who that leaves out is the 20% of Canadians who live in energy poverty and cannot afford to spend that money up front and cannot afford to take on any loan, no matter how low the interest. The government recently came out with a plan for climate action that it said would help people in energy poverty, but it is in the form of loans. That will not work.

One area of expenditure that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives want to eliminate is the billions of dollars the government gives every year in subsidies to oil and gas companies. I could go on and on about this. One of the biggest ones, of course, is this obsession to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, which has now cost over $20 billion. This is $20 billion to build a piece of infrastructure that we cannot afford in light of climate action and that we do not need.

As to health care, it is a huge issue for all Canadians. Again, the pandemic has really emphasized that. Health care workers are at their breaking point. I met with the nurses union recently and it has just had it. We need a significant increase in the Canada health transfer. We need a pan-Canadian health workforce strategy that is led by the provinces and funded by the federal government.

Some of the witnesses who came before the committee asked for an end to for-profit long-term care. Canada has a horrible result, on a global scale, in terms of the deaths we saw in long-term care homes. We desperately need to fix this. It was clear from the analysis that for-profit long-term care homes had a much worse outcome than not-for-profit long-term care homes.

My colleague mentioned pharmacare and dental care. These are things that hopefully we will finally see. If we had a federal publicly funded universal pharmacare plan, we would save a minimum of $4 billion a year according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We could have a dental care program that costs $1 billion. We could have four dental care programs funded by the amount we would save with pharmacare.

I talked to a friend of mine a few days ago who heard about the announcement of the dental care plan. She said that when she was a kid, her family did not have money for dental care and she never went to the dentist. I think when she was 12 years old, she went into the hospital and they pulled out a bunch of her teeth and gave her a bad-looking plate that tried to replace those teeth. She said that caused her irreparable damage in her confidence around people. She has been socially shy and uncomfortable around people ever since she was 12 years old because she could not afford to go to a dentist. This plan would change people's lives in Canada.

Reconciliation is another thing we have heard about again and again over the last couple of years, like just recently regarding the visits with the Pope and the Vatican. This is another area where there has been a shameful lack of political will. I am happy to see the recommendations in this report from the finance committee that deal with the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, as well as the recommendations to support the economic empowerment of indigenous people.

I could talk about housing for 10 minutes. This is a huge issue in my riding, where the lack of housing is an important part of the labour shortage. People simply cannot afford to move to my riding and work there. We have companies that are forced to buy accommodations for their employees. We need a real plan to create affordable housing in Canada.

I will also bring up a big part of my riding, the wine industry. It has felt a real blow because we lost the excise tax exemption for many wineries. The federal government has to come up with a long-term plan to replace the supports that the exemption created.

I will finish by reminding members that it is our job to focus on making life better for Canadians. Too often, our governments have made life easier for wealthy Canadians and big corporations. We need to refocus and make budget choices that benefit all Canadians, and create a fairer and more prosperous Canada for all.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for his contributions to today's pre-budget concurrence debate.

There is a very important issue in the Okanagan and, in fact, throughout Similkameen as well. The federal government will be doing a replacement program for the wine industry. Most people would ask what that has to do with anything. Well, on July 1, anyone in the wine industry, whether they have done 100% Canadian content or not, will have to pay excise tax on their existing inventory. This has not been done since 2006. Many small and medium-sized wineries are suddenly going to have bills from the federal government that they have never had before. This could devastate the industry on the small end. I have also spoken to some of the larger operators, who have said that because the government took away the tax exemption, they will have to pay more.

Would the member speak to this issue? I know it will greatly affect both of our ridings and the Canadian wine industry as a whole.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, just to the north and west of me, for that question, because it is a very important question for both of our ridings and for the entire Okanagan area and the Canadian wine industry as a whole.

As he mentioned, and I briefly mentioned at the end of my speech, the wine industry, especially the smaller wineries, are losing the exemption to the excise tax that they have enjoyed for many years. In fact, most of the wineries in our ridings have never paid that. They are relatively new businesses and they have not have a business model to cover that. We need to support them to make that transition. Every wine-producing country around the world has ways of supporting their wine industry, and the federal government has come out with a short-term thing. He mentioned the date and the fact that it is going to be on existing inventories. We have to change that and make sure our wine industry can grow and prosper.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola rose to ask a question and said that the government had taken away the 100% excise. It was actually deemed ineligible, as per the World Trade Organization. I thought—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

That is an issue of debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from beautiful British Columbia, which was formerly my home province and where my parents and the rest of my family reside still, a question with regard to strengthening Canada's social fabric. We came in and from 2015 on we have strengthened Canada's social fabric, whether it is for seniors or for families with the CCB, or whether it is for workers with the Canada workers benefit, which is increasing again. We are increasing the basic personal exemption amount to $15,000.

Does the hon. member not feel that we are on the correct trajectory in continuing to strengthen our social fabric with improvements in dental care and with ongoing improvements with pharmacare?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree with him that we are on the right path by including pharmacare and dental care, which I think would be two programs that will help Canadians the most. This will change people's lives. I mentioned the example of my friend who would have had a very different life, perhaps, had she had dental care when she was a girl.

As for people with pharmacare, 10% of Canadians cannot afford to fill their prescriptions. We have free care in hospitals and we have free doctor visits, but when one gets a prescription, one has to pay for that out of one's own pocket. These are things that will change people's lives more than anything else. However, if we want to make a real big difference for all Canadians, we should bring in a guaranteed basic income that would make sure that all Canadians would not be below the poverty line. People would still work, but people could live in dignity and that would really make a difference.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from British Columbia for his thoughtful and socially conscious speech, which brought up some very important issues.

However, I cannot help but notice that the solution always seems to involve the superwealthy. I would like to know if, for him, the concept of superwealthy is economic, sociological or ideological.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Madam Speaker, I think it is a very practical solution. We do not have to bring up ideology or whatever. These are the people with billions and billions of dollars. As I mentioned, 1% of them share 25% of our wealth. They should be paying more for this. We have had a trickle-down economic theory that has been completely debunked but that the Conservatives still cling to. They would say to cut taxes for the wealthy and the big corporations—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:40 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this concurrence motion regarding a report that was done by the finance committee and then tabled.

For those who might be tuning in today to watch and who are asking themselves what the motion is all about, basically the Conservative Party has decided to table a report that I bet will pass unanimously in this House when we get to the time for voting. People might ask why the Conservatives would do that. In my opinion, it is for no reason other than to just delay the work of this House.

Of course, they will give us their fake outrage about how the democratic process entitles everybody to speak forever and ever, and they are not wrong about that. However, the reality of the situation is that there are things we need to deal with in this House. One of those things is passing the fall economic statement. We are unable to do that because the Conservative Party is putting up speaker after speaker to drag out the process. The Conservatives are probably starting to run out of speakers now, but one of the reasons they had to bring in this concurrence motion is to add a little more time, at least three hours, to this debate.

That is my opinion on why we happen to be debating this concurrence motion right now. Although the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals all realize that maybe it is time to pass the fall economic statement, and it would be great if we could pass it before we pass the spring budget that will be introduced in a couple of days, the Conservative Party is relentless, quite frankly, because it figures this one motion is going to be its pathway to victory in the next election. I am sure that is what the Conservatives are thinking, and that is how we have ended up here. It is either that or just to tell Canadians later on that the government was unable to conduct its business, all for reasons of its own making, and that of course none of that had to do with the Conservatives.

We are here because our procedural rules permit this to happen. We are talking about a report that I am very confident will pass unanimously in this House when we get to it.

There was a comment earlier, when one of your counterparts, Madam Speaker, was in the chair, by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who got extremely excited when the member for Winnipeg North accused some of the Conservative bench of being far right. I would point out that the member for Winnipeg North did not even say “alt right”; he said “far right”. I would say that the member for Winnipeg North was being extremely generous when he made that comment about being on the far right.

If the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is so concerned about members of his party being labelled “far right”, he might want to, I do not know, talk to the member for Lethbridge or the member for Saskatoon West. He could talk to them about maybe not coming into the House and calling the Prime Minister a dictator. That kind of rhetoric and language certainly leads in the direction of understanding why they might really be considered far right.

I will give another example. How about on February 17 in this House, when the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said, “Canadians want foreign interference”—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, as a point of relevance, the member should be speaking to this motion today. I know he seems to be getting a little—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

As the member well knows, this is definitely a matter of debate.

The hon. member has 20 minutes to get to the relevance of the motion.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting that when the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon raised this issue earlier, the member who just rose on the point of order started heckling this side to give them examples. I am literally just fulfilling his request right now.

This is what the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said on February 17 in this House:

Canadians want foreign interference from the Prime Minister's jet-setting resetters to stop.

This was clearly a reference to the Great Reset conspiracy theory. If the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is worried about being labelled “far right”, he might want to talk to his seatmates about the things that they say in this House.

Hold on; I have another example. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands went out and took a picture with Pat King, who is now in jail and facing 10 charges for the events that took place out in front of this building. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands actually went out and got a picture taken with him.

I have one that is even better. The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon himself said, at a “Truckers for Freedom” rally in his riding, “Right now, you're right to be angry. Everyone has a right to be angry. Our country isn't normal. You need to stand up for what you believe in and you need to do it in the way you're doing it.”

If the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon—

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, he did not make reference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

Those are matters for debate.

The hon. member is quoting something apparently strictly on context.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to talk to the member about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how they were infringed upon as soon as he can bring forward to the House an actual example of how that has been determined to be a fact by the court, which it has not. Nonetheless, if the member is so concerned about being labelled far-right, he might want to talk to his seatmates and indeed personally reflect on the comments that he is making because doing that will certainly give him the ability to control that narrative.

However, we are here talking about this motion and this particular report. I am going to focus my comments on pages 191 to 193 of the report. That is the dissenting report from the Conservative Party, those that decided to dissent on this report.

What I found very interesting about their dissenting report is that it is a quick read with not a lot of complex words. People can get through that pretty quickly. It is only two pages long and a sentence, so I would encourage anybody out there to read it and see for themselves that this is not a report to provide recommendations. There is not a single recommendation in it. It is just whining on with the same talking points that we hear over and over in the House. There is not a single actual recommendation of how to do something different.

They do have four points in here, which I will address specifically. They say in their first point that there is no plan that has been recommended by the committee to balance the budget. I find that very interesting, coming from a party that ran on balancing the budget not after one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight or nine years, but 10 years. The party opposite, which in this report is so incredibly critical of this government's position on running deficits during this pandemic as a way to empower Canadians and our economy to get through this, somehow is able to be so incredibly critical of it. However, their former leader, the member for Durham, was more than willing to tell the Canadian public back in September that he was willing to wait 10 years to balance the budget, yet they have the audacity to be so overly critical about it.

Let us go to point number two. There is no plan to control spending. That is what the Conservatives are saying, but we might recall from that same platform that I just referenced that the party ran on a platform of spending way more money than our party did when we were elected in the fall of 2021. I find it fascinating how they are suddenly so concerned about running deficits and about balancing budgets when they literally ran on the exact opposite six months ago.

Point three is interesting. They said in their report that they have concerns over the fact that there is a lack of attention paid in this report to supporting growth and prosperity. We have the highest GDP in the G7. How can they possibly make that claim, if nothing more than to try to score political points from the hundreds of thousands of people who will read this report, that we do not have a thriving economy when we have the best GDP right now in the G7?

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

We have the lowest investment, Mark.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, the member for Abbotsford is correct. We do have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio. What does that mean? That means it puts us in the position of being able to rebound out of the economic hardships of the last two years better than any of our counterparts. That is what it actually does. They failed to mention that, and they said that we do not have a plan.

I would argue with them, as the member for Winnipeg North and other people have mentioned, that growing the economy is not strictly done by reducing taxes, in particular for the wealthy, which is what the Conservatives would like to do. There are other ways of doing that. One of the ways is to empower and put more people into the workforce. There are two ways they can do that. One, we can get more parents who are sitting at home with kids into the workforce. How are we doing that? I do not know. Maybe we will do it the way that every single premier of Canada agreed to, including all the Conservative ones, and bring in $10-a-day child care. We do not have to look that far to see it is a successful program. Just look at Quebec.

Quebec, for quite a while, has had a low per-day child care rate. It is $7-a-day child care, and look at the success. More women, in particular, are in the workforce in Quebec, and so that is one way we put more people into the economy and grow our economy.

What is another way we can do it? It is by having robust, meaningful immigration programs that can bring more people into our country, just like the programs that attracted my parents in the 1950s after World War II. These programs can bring more people into our country so we can help to stimulate and grow our economy even faster.

Therefore, when the Conservatives say that there is a lack of attention being put on prosperity and growth, they are absolutely out to lunch. The actual data does not support their claim. It is very well known that we have one of the strongest economies in the world. Indeed, we have programs in place, or that are coming online, that will even further enhance that.

The fourth and final point, which I find to be very interesting in the Conservatives' report, is that they talk about significant proposals to attack the immediate threat to Canadians, specifically in respect to housing. They seem to be suggesting that there is nothing in the committee report's recommendations to support that. I know that there are 220 recommendations in the report, and maybe they did not get to read all of them before filing their dissenting report, but there is actually a recommendation in there, recommendation 203, that calls for the creation of half a million, quality, affordable homes. There is a plan in there, despite the fact that the Conservatives are suggesting in their dissenting report that there is not.

In conclusion, as it relates to the dissenting report, I would suggest that the next time the Conservatives put together a report to try to be critical of the work the committee has done, they should do two things: One, put some thought into what they are putting down on paper and see if it reflects the actual report; and two, perhaps more importantly, put some suggestions in there as to what they are recommending we do.

It is very easy to be critical. We hear it all the time from across the way. They are always critical about this person and that person, or that something is happening in this part of the economy or in this sector, but there is never an actual suggestion, unless it is to unlock more oil. There is never an actual suggestion to do anything that would have an impact. It is all just a rambling on of complaints about this government, which we could get just by sitting here in QP.

In my remaining time, I would like to talk about a couple of the initiatives that are in the report that I really appreciate and really like. I will start off with those that specifically have to do with the electrification of our environment, of our vehicles and of just about anything.

The world is changing. I know that the Conservatives, whenever the word “energy” comes out of their mouths, are only ever talking about oil.

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:50 p.m.

An hon. member

Hear, hear!

FinanceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, they even just said “Hear, hear!” However, believe it or not, energy comes in other forms than just oil. I do not know if the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who just heckled me, would know this, but I encourage him to walk into—

Government Response to Question No. 351Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings

April 4th, 2022 / 5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules do require me to raise issues of order as soon as they come up. Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the House and raise a point of order with respect to the response that was tabled on Question No. 351. This was a question on the Order Paper that I had tabled earlier.

Question No. 351 was with respect to vaccination policies for the federal public service. I asked a detailed series of questions, asking for various points of data including things like whether replacement workers had to be brought in to cover for workers who were put on unpaid leave as a result of their vaccination status. It included questions about, for instance, whether the government had conducted an assessment of the impact on services of work that was not done as a result of employees being put on leave.

The question I had put forward had parts (a) through (v) and the response that the government tabled provided responses to some of the sub-items that were listed in Question No. 351. It did not provide any comments whatsoever on many of the items.

The government has an obligation to respond to questions that are put forward. I understand that it is not in the responsibility of the Chair to evaluate the quality of the responses. In this case, the government is lucky that is not required. However, I would submit that the obligation of response does not just deal with the question overall. It should include an obligation to respond to the specific elements in each of the questions. In particular, there should be some response to all of the elements (a) through (v) in the question, including some of the specific points that were not responded to, such as what was required of replacement workers to cover for those who were put on administrative leave and whether workers were required to perform additional tasks for those who were put on unpaid leave, etc.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that you review the matter and advise with respect to the government's obligation here because we are seeing in general, I think it is fair to say, a decline in the quality of any kind of responses. As much as it is not for the Chair to get into the detail of the response and to say that it was a pretty good response or not a good response, the government should not be able to, in response to questions, just put up any text that is wholly irrelevant to the question asked or respond to one part while ignoring whole swaths of the question. The House should reasonably find that this does not satisfy the government's obligation with respect to responding to questions.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to look at Question No. 351, this particularly egregious case of the government's putting forward text that totally ignores whole parts of the question, and advise whether this is the kind of approach we want to see from the government going forward.

Government Response to Question No. 351Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

The question will be taken under advisement by the Chair, and we will return to the hon. member.