Debates of June 6th, 2022

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my most sincere apologies. How rude of me. I got carried away, and I apologize.

I cannot finish without speaking about what is missing from Bill C‑19. This bill provides $2 billion for health, but this is a one-time, non-recurring payment. Has a nurse ever been hired on a non-recurring basis? We cannot say that we need a nurse or medical specialist for the year 2022-23 but will no longer need them in 2024.

The major missing piece in Bill C‑19 is funding for health care. All of the provinces are asking for $28 billion to increase the federal share of funding from 22% to 35% of the total cost of health care. Everyone knows that, year after year, Quebec allocates between 46% and 48% of its total budget to health care.

How much is left for primary, secondary and post-secondary education? How much is left for all the other government responsibilities? Not much. This is work we could do together with the government. A sustainable health care system requires transfers. I am certain that we will manage to discuss this issue with our Liberal colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, there were wonderful references and the attempt in the speech. What the member does demonstrate is that, in the last federal election, there was a very clear indication that Canadians in all regions of our country want a higher sense of co-operation, and we can provide that.

I am going to pick up on the member's last comments on the importance of health care transfers. We all recognize how important that issue is, and I have always thought maybe it is something we should have some ongoing debates on, whether it would be with an opposition motion or in a standing committee. It would be very interesting to get a better sense of exactly where we are and what the future might hold in terms of long-term investments into health care. In order to appreciate that, we also have to appreciate the history of health care transfers. Could I get the members thoughts on that aspect?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to correct my colleague.

It is true that there was an indication from Canadians during the election campaign. That does not stop at the end of the campaign, however. The government needs to listen to what civil society is saying now.

Not too long ago, we showed up with representatives from all health care sector unions. All of these big unions called for health transfers to be increased to 35%. All provincial premiers and the Council of the Federation have said the same thing.

Collaboration requires that the government listen to civil society, but I do not think that is happening. Sometimes, the government appears to be using its new alliance with the NDP as an excuse not to listen. This is not a judgment, but something I have observed.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague noted the tax on luxury goods, which is included in Bill C-19. While this is something we certainly support the direction of, I cannot help but note the theme where the government makes symbolic but largely insignificant moves on things like wealth inequality or housing affordability, yet it refuses to pull the larger levers that would make an actual difference on these important issues.

Does my colleague agree this is a troubling theme we see from the government?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely.

However, my main concern is that all this public money is going to the oil and gas sector, which is making money hand over fist. I cannot understand why any public decision-maker would decide to financially support an industry that is currently reaping eye-watering profits, an industry that also contributes to putting us all at risk, since it is the industry that produces the most greenhouse gases.

When people look back and analyze this situation in 20 or 30 years' time, I can guarantee that no one will believe the kind of rationale the government is using to try to justify supporting the oil and gas industry.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Jonquière for his speech.

To be clear, the budget proposes to invest a total of $7.1 billion, until 2030, in a new subsidy for the oil and gas sector in the form of a carbon capture and storage tax credit, which academics across the country have called a false climate solution.

I know my colleague shares my disappointment in that regard. Can he elaborate on how that money could be provided to workers to support a successful transition?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague, especially given that the Minister of Environment told us that he was going to end the fossil fuel subsidies since they are inefficient. I now have the impression that all this talk of inefficient subsidies is nothing but rhetoric.

What the government is trying to say today is that the oil and gas sector is synonymous with green development, which is a complete contradiction. Far more things, constructive things, could be done by investing in clean energy sectors. However, that is not happening.

I will close by saying that it is a 1:14 ratio. The government is investing $1 billion in clean energy while investing $14 billion in the oil and gas sector.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak this afternoon to the budget implementation bill at report stage. The bill seeks to implement certain measures found in budget 2022.

It was encouraging to see the opposition parties work together to improve this bill at committee. However, I believe that more amendments are needed.

I also want to recognize the hard work of my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, in his role as the shadow minister of finance.

Through these deliberations, parliamentarians will decide the direction of our country for the next year and beyond. These decisions will have long-lasting effects. That is why it is very important for all members in this place to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation. Regrettably, the government, with the support of the NDP, has once again stifled debate on legislation by imposing time allocation.

An issue that remains top of mind for millions of Canadians, and many in my riding, is health care. If the pandemic highlighted anything, it is the importance of having a strong health care system in place, one that can respond effectively and efficiently in a crisis. While health care falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces, I had hoped that, given our system was nearly driven to the breaking point, the government would have supported them in addressing their respective needs.

The first ministers were clear. They asked for an increase to health transfer payments to deal with the remaining effects of the pandemic. However, once again, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, decided to disregard the requests of the provinces and not provide any additional support to them.

With respect to the cost of living, the pattern set by the government over the years is a complete disregard for the needs of Canadians and an inability to properly manage Canada’s finances. In 2015, the government inherited a balanced budget, which was made possible by the careful management of Canada’s finances through the 2010 financial crisis and the years that followed. While the Liberals continue to claim that the pandemic caused inflation, we know that high deficits pre-2020 were already setting the stage for inflation. The reckless spending in the five years that preceded the pandemic put Canada in a more precarious position than we needed to be. This is having dire consequences on the ability of Canadians to manage their finances.

Record government spending has caused the cost of living to rise dramatically, with inflation at a 31-year high, reflected in rising food and gas prices and astronomically high home prices. This has been devastating to many Canadians across the country. While the NDP-Liberal government brags about the amount of money it has spent, it fails to recognize that its programs inevitably end up costing more with little to no results. Now, with this budget, it is doubling down on many of the same failed policies.

Over the past seven years, the Liberal government has hampered Saskatchewan’s growth by implementing job-killing policies, increasing regulations, increasing taxes and scaring away investment.

Having said that, in budget 2022, the government is finally following the leadership of my home province of Saskatchewan with respect to the development of small modular reactors. In March of this year, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick came to an agreement for the construction of these reactors. This was great news for the respective provincial economies, as well as the environment.

Conservatives have long been proponents of nuclear energy and have pointed out numerous times that the development of nuclear energy would greatly improve our domestic energy sector, as well as assist in the reduction of emissions. Rather than attacking our oil and gas sector, which is among the safest and cleanest in the world, the federal government could have been more proactive in promoting nuclear energy as a way for Canada to reduce carbon emissions.

I am sure the agreement between the provinces went a long way in convincing the federal government to jump on board with the good work being done by the provinces.

Staying on the topic of energy and failed Liberal-NDP policies, the climate action incentive payment resulting from the skyrocketing costs of the carbon tax is desperately hurting my constituents. The PBO has reported that households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will face carbon taxes which exceed the climate action incentive payments.

In a rural riding such as mine, the carbon tax is particularly hard-hitting. During the long, cold winters on the prairies, heating bills increase significantly, which is only further exasperated by the carbon tax. Add to this the large geographic regions and the lack of public transportation in many rural areas, which mean people must drive everywhere they need to go. The rising carbon tax is doing nothing but putting more pressure on my constituents.

That same failed approach is true for the agricultural industry, which is also very important across Saskatchewan and indeed to the whole country. Here was an opportunity for this NDP-Liberal government to demonstrate that it understands and values this industry. However, it let the opportunity slip through its fingers.

With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, world food security has become a major area of concern, and our ability to feed the world is now more critical than ever. It would have been prudent for the government to focus on supporting our agriculture sector and the complimentary infrastructure farmers need to get their products to market.

Listening to our producers, who are being hit hard by the carbon tax, inflation and higher input costs would have been a welcome change of pace for the government. Instead of listening to the pleas of our farmers, ranchers and other workers in the agricultural sector, and getting behind the Conservative initiative to exempt farmers from the carbon tax, the government hiked it once again.

Budget 2022 also includes an increase in defence spending for which there is broad support. Increased NORAD funding is a good start to improve our ability to protect the integrity of our national borders.

With the complete disregard Russia has shown for international law through its invasion of Ukraine, the need to ensure the integrity of our land in the Arctic has been intensified by the territorial claims put forward by it, which encroach on our northern borders. The promise of an additional $8 billion of funding over the next five years looks good on its face, however, the funding plan that has been put forward has been woefully underwhelming.

A PBO report shows that from the 2017-18 fiscal year to the 2020-21 fiscal year, there was $10 billion in lapsed funding. Setting aside the lapsed funding, the additional funding amounts to little more than a top up.

Due to the inflation crisis, which the government has treated with callousness, the impact of increased defence spending will be significantly lessened. Further, the NDP voted against a Conservative motion to increase defence spending to meet our NATO obligations. How can we trust the government to take the funding of our armed forces seriously when it has allied itself with a party that has made clear its lack of support for military spending? Perhaps this is the reason that the announced funding does not bring us up to the requirements of our NATO obligations.

In closing, Saskatchewanians and all Canadians needed a budget that would address the issues facing our energy and agriculture sectors, the cost of living, and our failing health care system. Instead, the Prime Minister chose to buy the NDP’s support so that he can continue to govern rather than earn back the trust of Canadians. This budget is symbolic of broken promises and the Liberal track record of leaving Canadians behind.

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

Madam Speaker, I was going to bring up the Minister of Agriculture coming to Manitoba to meet with cattle producers and talk about providing direct drought relief, which was exceptionally well received in the Prairies, as just one of many examples, and/or the huge increases we have seen in the Department of Agriculture, but my question is in regard to the member's statement on the NATO commitment of 2%.

Does the member not realize that during Stephen Harper's era, it just got to the 1% mark? We have seen dramatic increases under this administration in support of our allied countries. Could the member provide her thoughts on whether she has any regrets that Stephen Harper did not have that same sort of commitment that she seems to have today in terms of supporting NATO?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I will say is that the budget makes it very clear that the NDP-Liberal government has no plan to increase defence spending to reach the target of 2% of GDP, which Canada committed to as a NATO member. Despite promising to invest $6 billion in the Canadian Armed Forces, there is no plan to ensure that the NDP-Liberal government will follow through on any of its commitments.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, but I do need to share some concerns. I might encourage her to dial back some of the things she said.

She said western oil is among the cleanest in the world, but we need to acknowledge that, empirically, tar sands oil is extremely polluting. I would like her to clarify what she meant and tell us what oil she was talking about. Given this problem, does she not think it is about time the west undertook an economic and environmental transition?

The Bloc Québécois has said time and time again that it is prepared to commit whatever money is being spent on fossil fuel every year to supporting the region's energy transition, which would be a huge help to my colleague's constituents.

I would like her to comment on that.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is no, I do not agree with that member. I believe that we should be developing our resources here in Canada to meet the needs of not only our country but the world, when it comes to ethically produced and developed oil.

From the beginning, the Liberal government has been anti-energy. Its policies have been destructive to the energy sector in my home province of Saskatchewan and the west.

I would urge this colleague to reconsider his stance on the ethically produced oil within our own country.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, just weeks ago, the Conservatives were in the House arguing on an opposition day that we need to increase the defence budget in a way that, according to the PBO, would cost more than $30 billion, but then they oppose dental care and they oppose investments in child care.

If the hon. member had a choice, which programs would the Conservatives cut first? They are certainly not standing up for people. Would they cut dental care, child care or the $8-billion increase to military spending?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the important things to note in this debate is that after two years, the Liberal government has still not demonstrated any national leadership. This has caused provincial governments to have to spend more on health care. I truly do believe that, with the dental care program that the Liberals negotiated with their NDP counterparts to put into the budget, they are attempting to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Provinces have been bearing the brunt of dealing with COVID and now the government is repaying them by trying to infringe on their jurisdiction.

I would encourage that member to continue to hold those members to account for the decisions they are making.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to talk about budget 2022, or what the Liberals are calling “A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. I thought I would put that audacious claim to the test against reality on the ground.

Inflation is at a generational high. House prices are out of reach for most first-time buyers. The price of gas is soaring, at $2.36 a litre in my home in the Lower Mainland. Now interest rates are creeping up, with the promise of more to come as the Bank of Canada seeks to fight inflation. This is hardly a formula for making life more affordable.

We are going to hear in a minute about what the current Minister of Finance says, but I want to draw attention to what the former minister of finance has said now that he is no longer tethered to the talking points of the Liberal Party. This is what he said about the government of which he used to be a part: “So much time and energy was spent on finding ways to redistribute Canada's wealth that there was little attention given to the importance of increasing our collective prosperity—let alone developing a disciplined way of thinking and acting on the problem.”

There we go. This is what Bill Morneau said recently to the C.D. Howe Institute. The emphasis is on wealth distribution, not on wealth creation. When we talk about dividing the pie, we are not talking about growing the pie. That thinking has led to reduced economic productivity numbers.

Let us compare ourselves with our biggest trading partner, the United States. There, the average worker earns $67,000 a year. In Canada it is only $50,000, a 25% lower productivity number. The average American worker pumps $66 per hour worked into the national GDP. In Canada, it is only $50, so again, there is a 20% reduction. This lag in productivity is Canada's Achilles heel, and I am so happy that the current Minister of Finance has acknowledged that in her budget report.

I will get to that in a minute, but first I want to talk about housing. We are all happy to hear that the government has finally acknowledged that economic fundamentals are at play, that the free market can help us find solutions and that the federal government can help by leveraging monetary policy in a way that helps private enterprise find solutions. Here is a quote from page vi of the budget report:

Over the next ten years, we will double the number of new homes we build. This must become a great national effort, and it will demand a new spirit of collaboration—provinces and territories; cities and towns; the private sector and non-profits all working together with us to build the homes that Canadians need.

This sounds very optimistic, but again I want to test this against reality on the ground.

My riding of Langley—Aldergrove has been ground zero for Canada's housing affordability crisis, but there is also a housing construction boom going on thanks to the many hard-working men and women in the housing industry who are answering the call to meet the demand for new housing. I want to highlight the work of one company and one man in particular, Mr. Shawn Bouchard, who heads Quadra Homes, one of the bigger builders in the Lower Mainland. He and his business partners stepped up to the Prime Minister's challenge for private enterprise to come up with big ideas to solve the housing affordability crisis.

This is what he and his partners have done. They have taken one of their upcoming for-profit market condo projects and want to convert it into an affordable rental housing project. They put in an application with the Township of Langley and the township agreed with them. It has contributed $27 million to the project in the form of forgone fees and charges. Now Mr. Bouchard and his partners are looking to the federal government to come to the table too, in the spirit of collaboration that the Minister of Finance likes to talk about. All they are looking for is a guaranteed long-term, low-interest mortgage commitment from CMHC through the rental construction financing initiative. However, they put in a presentation to the Minister of Housing and are being ignored.

I advocated for it. I contacted the minister's office and we are being ignored. I met with Mr. Bouchard on the weekend, and he and his partners have had to make a final investment decision. They are going back to a market condo project. So much for creative thinking; so much for collaboration. Once again, the government gets an A for announcements and an F on delivery.

I want to talk about what the minister has been saying about investing in the green transition. She said that climate change is “an existential challenge. That means it is also an economic [reality].” Well, being from the Fraser Valley, I probably know that better than any member of Parliament, with all the flooding that we had recently.

I, together with some of my colleagues, all Conservative MPs from the area, met with Mayor Braun six or eight weeks before the flooding happened. He pointed out that what was required to beef up the dike systems protecting his area would be about $1 billion. It sounds like a lot of money, but now that the flooding has happened, and nobody knew it was going to happen or how bad it would be, it is now $5 billion just to do the repairs. That is what is in the budget, but if the Minister of Emergency Preparedness had been paying attention, he would have known that for $1 billion, the problem could have been solved. Now we are just going to repair the damage that has been done, but the dikes still need to be seismically upgraded. Again, it is an A for announcement and an F on delivery. That seems to be the practice of this government.

With the couple of minutes I have left, I want to talk about what the Minister of Finance calls Canada's Achilles heel, which is our lagging productivity numbers. Now, we have heard from witnesses in committee that Canada indeed does have a highly educated workforce. We have the best research universities in the country. We have lots of potential to compete with Silicon Valley. However, here is the problem: While we are very good at technology start-up, we are not very good at technology ramping up and scaling up into productive corporations. Investment dollars follow great ideas, and great ideas follow investment dollars. That, unfortunately, is happening in the United States, in the European Union and, sadly, also in China. In an exchange I had with one of the witnesses at committee, I said, “Are you saying that a company like Huawei gives research grants to universities and then walks out the back door with the intellectual property assets?” He said, “Well, there is just one small correction: It walks out the front door with them.”

I am very encouraged that the Minister of Finance is now recognizing this as a problem. She said, “This is a well-known Canadian problem—and an insidious one. It is time for Canada to tackle it.... We will encourage small Canadian companies to get bigger. We will help Canadians and Canadian companies to develop new IP—and to turn their new ideas into new businesses and new jobs.” Notably, she does not say “in Canada for Canadians”. I am assuming that was just an oversight, but perhaps not.

I want to end on a positive note, because I am a positive kind of person. I am hopeful that, with the Minister of Finance now putting in writing her acknowledgement that Canada has a productivity problem, the government is now going to get serious about solving the problem. Then again, given the well-known emphasis on dividing the pie rather than growing it, I am not holding my breath.

I am sorry, but that is as positive as I can be about this budget.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about housing prices and get the member's reflections on this. The free market has allowed people to use homes as investments. Like his riding, my riding has seen a huge boom in construction. However, the people who need housing are not the ones buying it; it is the people who are sinking money into it to make money back.

Would the member and the Conservative Party think about restricting the amount of property that investors can actually own and speculate on?

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

Madam Speaker, we also need rental properties. A lot of these investors are renting properties out, which is satisfying a market demand, so I am not that worried about it, to be honest.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

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.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 2.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion applies to Motions Nos. 6 to 43. A negative vote on Motion No. 3 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 4.

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.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 6 to 43.

The next question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 45 to 63.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the chair.

The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

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

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 45 to 63.

At this time the House should proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it seven o'clock, so we could adjourn and go into Adjournment Proceedings.