Debates of June 8th, 2022

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, a number of measures can affect equal opportunity: strong public services, key social programs and, most importantly, a fair redistribution of wealth.

What is glaringly absent from the most recent budget are efforts to crack down on tax avoidance and tax havens. This is a battle that my colleague from Joliette has been fighting for years, a battle that must one day be settled here. Given that we have the capacity to fight, it comes down to political will. Things cannot go on like this.

I do not subscribe to the dogma that the rich must be made to pay for the poor. I believe that we need to have fair taxation to make sure that people cannot legally run off with bags of money while others are left behind. We need to address this issue. It should be a priority.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the excellent speech by my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville.

I have to say that this has really affected me. When I was young, I remember seeing the signs at election time asking who had stolen money from the unemployed. Movements like the Sans-Chemise coalition spoke out election after election, reminding us that workers were always worse off after EI reforms, especially the poorest and the oldest ones. What is more, the government was going to dip into the EI fund to finance far different priorities.

I do not know if my colleague can give me a little hope today, but what good could new EI reforms do us after everything we have seen over the past 30 years?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. There have been no reforms, just the opposite of reforms really and the gutting of employment insurance.

The government has hollowed out a social safety net program, reducing it to a mere insurance program that is essentially funded by workers and employers. The government even pillaged the fund to erase deficits and make cuts.

Reforming employment insurance means fixing what was done and making sure it will never be done again. Most importantly, it means guaranteeing stronger, more equitable rights for everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like very much if the member could provide some clearer thoughts in regard to something that goes beyond EI. We have some of the lowest unemployment rates in generations. The federal government is providing more opportunities for people to gain employment through educational programs such as apprenticeship and through programs we support in our community colleges and our universities. Does she see that as a good thing?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to training, I did not see anything in the budget about climate change, the environment or the just transition we need for workers. That is a gaping hole.

With respect to employment insurance and existing training programs, I completely agree. However, I would ask the federal government to transfer money to the provinces because this falls under provincial jurisdiction, as I said earlier. I applaud the work being done right now to have employers contribute a portion of their payroll to cover—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.

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

Madam Speaker, let me say up front that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, and today it is to speak on the ways the 2022 federal budget is failing Canadian, as we consider Bill C-19, the budget implementation act.

The number one issue facing Canadians is the cost of living. We have heard that time and time again. As summer approaches, perhaps the first summer without some sort of the COVID restrictions that we have seen the past couple of years, Canadians are looking forward to enjoying the aspects of life that are so great about Canadian summers, whether they are the warm weather; the longer days; our beautiful parks, beaches and trails; bike rides with the family; or the Blue Jays playing at the Rogers Centre.

Instead, Canadians are stressing out about paying their bills. They are worried that they really cannot afford that summer road trip with gas prices over two dollars per litre across the country, and for that picnic in the park, the groceries are going to be at least 9.7% more and probably higher. The price of food, the price of gas, the price of home heating and the cost of life are what I hear about every single day from constituents in Flamborough—Glanbrook.

This is especially true for people in rural parts of my riding. They need to drive to get to work and school, to engage in social activities and to get to medical appointments, and the price at the pumps is leaving them feeling that they are going in reverse, which is why a budget with no plan to address the cost of living is really no plan at all.

The federal government took in $39 billion more in additional revenue because inflation swelled its coffers, but it did not return any of that to Canadians struggling to get by. Instead, it piled on an additional $50 billion in inflationary spending. What is worse is that the NDP-Liberal coalition has rejected any reasonable common sense suggestions we made to bring relief to Canadians.

In March, the government rejected our motion to pause the GST at the pumps on the eve of a carbon tax increase and the excise tax increases that were going to take effect on April 1, which were certainly going to do harm to seniors, families, small businesses and everyone. Just yesterday, our motion to provide relief to Canadians in several practical ways was also rejected by the Liberals and the NDP.

We proposed two things that would have brought immediate relief at the pumps: a temporary suspension of the GST on gas and diesel, and a suspension of the carbon tax. These would be things that would actually be tangible in combatting high gas prices, which is what Canadians want and what people in Flamborough—Glanbrook are asking me about every day.

They cannot make ends meet, and that is not surprising when the price of gas is, as we said, over two dollars a litre and the price of food is up 10% or more. It is the highest rate of food inflation we have seen since 1981, so obviously making ends meet is getting harder and harder.

I want to share a few stories of conversations I have had with constituents in the past couple of months because I think these are the very real and concerning cost-of-living issues Canadians are facing. Sal is a constituent in the Stoney Creek Mountain community in my riding, and he tells me his single-income family is having a lot of trouble. In his words, they are having “serious financial struggles as the cost of living is exceedingly high”.

Heinz is a senior living on a fixed income in West Flamborough. He shares with me his home heating bill every single month. He is always shocked and dismayed, and he questions the amount of tax, including carbon tax, on that bill. As a senior on a fixed income, he finds it to be a monthly challenge to his budget.

There is also Gerrit, who lives in Mount Hope in my riding. He commutes to work, and he could not believe the increase in the carbon tax on April 1 at a time when gas prices were already going up. He notes that this cost of fuel is really a challenge for him and his household as they commute to work every day.

These are just a few examples of the very real concerns from the lives of ordinary Canadians. That is why it is puzzling to me that the Liberals did not use the windfall in revenue the government received from rising inflation to address the cost-of-living crisis Canadians are facing. Maybe they could use some of the pragmatic suggestions we have proposed.

Instead, the 2022 federal budget includes another $50 billion, as I have said, in uncontrolled spending. If we add that up, that can only be paid by higher taxes in future years.

The size of the federal government, we know, has grown 25% since before the pandemic, yet one cannot get a passport in a timely fashion. As the member for Calgary Forest Lawn articulated earlier this evening, one cannot get other government services or IRCC either, so that really begs the question.

The government’s lack of concern about the cost of living contrasts with our neighbours to the south where U.S. President Biden and treasury secretary Yellen have acknowledged that inflation is a real problem and they are acting. Here we have no plan.

I also want to talk about another issue I am hearing about from my constituents in Flamborough-Glanbrook. I have had a number of conversations about the the tariffs on fertilizer. It is a frustration for farmers in my riding who have done all the right things. They ordered their fertilizer over the fall or winter. They work hard as stewards of the land, yet they were slapped with a punitive tariff on fertilizer just at the time when they are looking to plant their crops for this year's season.

In fact, I met with family farmers who run a grain operation in Glanbrook a month ago. They took time from their very busy planting season to discuss this issue. They had pencilled it all out. On handwritten pages, they showed me their calculations, and I was astonished. Their fertilizer costs grew from $900 per tonne in 2018 to over $2,300 this year. On top of that, they showed me their gas prices, their diesel prices and their propane costs. They are all up, so the economics of their operation are increasingly out of whack.

These are the people who produce our food. They assure the food security of our nation, as well as our world. Yes, I understand and support the need to combat Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We are doing that in many ways, but we cannot do that on the backs of our farmers.

Canada is the only G7 country to apply a tariff directly on imported fertilizer from Russia, and it is a large one at that, at 35%. Conservatives have called on the government to exempt farmer and suppliers who ordered fertilizer before or on March 2. However, the minister of agriculture told the agriculture committee that the government would neither exempt these orders nor offer compensation to farmers to offset the costs of these tariffs. Yesterday, the Liberals and NDP voted down our motion on affordability, which included a provision to eliminate the fertilizer tariffs.

I know my time in winding down, so I want to conclude with a conversation I had a few Fridays ago with Darlene. Darlene is a senior living in the Upper Stoney Creek community in my riding. She was incredibly frustrated and concerned because she could no long make ends meet on her fixed income with the cost of groceries. In fact, other costs that were unforeseen included some medications that she needed to take that were certainly exacerbating the problem, as well as just running her household. She unfortunately had to make the decision to sell her house and move in with her daughter. How sad is it that a senior who worked all her life and contributed to this country, while living in a modest home in a modest neighbourhood, could not make ends meet? She questioned what the government is doing to help her and all Canadians dealing with this affordability crisis.

This is the question that Darlene has for the government: Does it understand? Does it know that cost of living is the number one issue facing Canadians? If so, why is fixing it not the number one priority in the budget and for the government?

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

Madam Speaker, the member referred to the United States and compared it to Canada. He says that he wants the government to deal with inflation and then referred to how the United States is doing something, yet Canada's inflation rate is less than the United States.

We can look at what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has done in managing our economy. Our debt-to-GDP ratio shows we are doing well compared to the United States. We can take a look at job creation. We are at 115% of pre-COVID jobs, those being the jobs we lost because of the coronavirus. We are at 115%, while the United States is still less than 100% in terms of recovery of jobs.

If the member does that comparison, I suggest it would show that we do have a plan and that plan is working. Would he not agree?

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

Madam Speaker, as a new member in the House, I am always impressed with the number of interjections by the member for Winnipeg North and the sense of humour that he often adds to his questions.

The member cited a number of different metrics. Whether the cost of inflation is a couple of points higher in the United States, I do not think that answers Darlene's question. I do not think that answers Sal's question, Gerrit's question or Heinz's question. Despite the debt-to-GDP and the number of jobs, they are still dealing with that daily struggle of the price at the pumps. They are still dealing with that daily struggle of the prices at the grocery store.

If we want to talk about employment, we know the labour shortages are exacerbating the inflation crisis in the country, so I would not agree that we are on the right path.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook is this.

How can he remain so calm when dealing with issues as fundamental as the dignity of our seniors? These individuals are in distress right now because they cannot make ends meet. The government is not doing anything, nor has it done anything over the past year, except one small gesture for a certain category of seniors. It has created two classes of seniors and refuses to give additional income to those aged 65 to 74. It is shocking.

How can my colleague remain so calm when discussing this issue?

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

Madam Speaker, maybe I will be a bit more animated in my response because we should not be calm about this. That is the generation that built our country and made it strong. We are doing a disservice to them when they have to struggle. Some have to sell their houses and move in with their children, and Darlene is not the only example. I have heard this from others. My parents are seniors, and I hear directly from them.

There was your point about the two categories of seniors that have been created. That should not be. It was, in my view, politics to offer $500 on the eve of an election to seniors over the age of 75. I knocked on doors in the last election and seniors who receive that said it is unacceptable. They asked why are they getting it and not others. They donated it, in fact—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member to ensure that he addresses his questions and comments through the Chair.

We have time for a brief question. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook spoke a bit about carbon pricing. This is an interest of mine, particularly because the experts say that there are really two approaches to driving down emissions: either a market-based carbon pricing approach, which is more efficient and less expensive, or a regulatory approach, which is less efficient and more expensive. The Conservative Party, in the last election, supported a carbon pricing approach, albeit a bit of a strange approach, under the leadership of the member for Durham.

I am curious if my colleague can tell me where the Conservative Party currently stands on using market-based carbon pricing approaches to address the climate crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy my work with the hon. member on the transport committee.

Conservatives did support a carbon pricing scheme in the last election. I served on the board of directors for the Royal Botanical Gardens, which is responsible for many sensitive and important ecological lands within the greater Hamilton area. The environment is important to me, and I take that question seriously.

Our point is that at a time of inflation, at a time when Canadians are struggling, why are we increasing the carbon tax?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we debating Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, and I will be coming at this debate from the perspective of somebody who is a member of a young family, a father of a young child and an Albertan.

For the past seven budgets, we have seen a Liberal government that has always blown through its self-imposed fiscal guardrails. It has always spent far more than what its members originally told Canadians they were going to spend. I remember the Prime Minister's 2015 election talk about small $10-billion deficits, but we all know where that ended up. This government has racked up more debt than all the prime ministers in our country's history combined.

One would think that as we are getting out of the pandemic, the government would be wanting to look for ways to pull the throttle back on its stimulus spending. Some of the stimulus spending was definitely necessary during the pandemic, but as we are seeing high inflation, it is quite clear that there is not a need for further stimulus in our economy and that this government should be looking for ways to pare back some of the spending. As a father, I do not want to see my children and my grandchildren burdened with the debts of today in future generations. This would hinder their ability to chart their own futures.

I am not against government spending, but I always ask if we are getting a high return on investment for Canadians. That is why I have been really watching this Liberal government's much-flaunted, by themselves, early learning child care plan with a great deal of interest. The minister never fails to take an opportunity in the House to tell us about how successful this new program is, but the facts that we are beginning to see on the ground are telling a very different story.

I have reports from numerous day care centres across this country, not just from one province, that are saying that they cannot apply for this one-size-fits-all government program and that the amount of red tape is insurmountable. I have seen statements from day care operators that they will be required to submit expenses for food and craft supplies to a government agent for approval. Some are even being told that they need to cut their expenditures on nutritious food and educational programming in order to meet the government's stringent funding requirements.

Another huge issue is that this government's day care scheme seems to ignore the fundamental basics of economics: supply and demand. We know that when there is an increased demand, which the government is creating by promising affordable $10-a-day child care, there will be an increase in the cost of supply, and those supplies can take the form of, most significantly, the wages of child care workers, the cost to build new facilities and to rent out new facilities, and the cost to provide the programming. We know that as the demand increases, the cost of these supplies is going to increase.

I had a child care centre say to me that the government's proposed program will only subsidize the wages of child care workers up to $18 an hour. The average child care worker in this country is paid over $23 an hour, and in this tight labour economy, people are lucky to even get a child care worker at $23 an hour.

Also, the government is not being flexible with child care centres. It is saying that if they apply for the subsidy, they need to achieve $10-a-day child care on its timeline. If they cannot find a way to cut their spending in other areas, whether it is the cost of the building or the cost of the labour, then they will not be able to get the subsidy for this program. As a result, we are seeing that a lot of day cares are just throwing up their hands and are really sad to tell the families that as much as they would like to apply for the subsidy, the government is simply making it too difficult for them to do it. That is fundamentally because the government is ignoring the laws of supply and demand.

This is going to result in is a two-tiered day care system in this country. We will have a few $10-a-day day care spaces, and if a family is lucky enough to get on a list and get their child in there, it will be wonderful for them. However, many other families are going to be paying upwards of $1,600 to $2,000 a month for child care, and that is not fair. It is not right.

In fact, a Globe and Mail story on December 27 of last year said that a minority of parents are going to reap the benefits from this Liberal child care plan. It said that currently over seven in 10 children under the age of six do not have access to licensed child care and that in the best-case scenario, in five years from now, the government is anticipating that only six in 10 children will have access to care. We are seeing in this country that in the best-case scenario, 40% of children will not be able to access the government's program.

This is not a universal system. This is a two-tiered system.

Conservatives, I believe, had a far better plan. We had a universal plan, because we wanted a refundable tax credit, meaning that regardless of whether someone had taxable income, that person would receive a direct financial benefit for their child care expenses.

I also believe that as Conservatives we should add onto that, because I have talked to a lot of day care operators who want to operate in rural areas, and it is very difficult to find appropriate spaces. We have seen, at the provincial level in some provinces, that funding to help day care entrepreneurs find appropriate child care centres—for example, in an empty classroom in a school—can be very valuable, because we know that we need to create spaces in rural areas, where often people do not have access to child care. The fact is that the government is really missing the mark.

The other aspect is that we hear the government saying that the Conservatives used to send child care cheques to millionaires under the universal child care program. The fact is that under this so-called $10-a-day child care program, it does not matter what someone's income level is. If a millionaire parent can get their child on the list for a $10-a-day day care spot, the government is essentially subsidizing the children of millionaires by thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, a shift worker working for minimum wage, a single parent who cannot get access to this $10-a-day day care because of a huge waiting list, could be stuck paying $1,500 a month for child care. That is a two-tiered child care system that does not reflect the needs of Canadian families.

I also want to talk as an Albertan in moving on to another aspect, which is what is not in the budget implementation act.

In the budget, the government had a much-vaunted carbon capture tax credit. I have been a proponent of a carbon capture tax credit for a long time, because my riding is a critical area for carbon capture. We have the Northwest Redwater Sturgeon Refinery, which sequesters 1.2 megatonnes, 1.2 million tonnes, of carbon dioxide every year. There is a fertilizer plant next door that also contributes to the pipeline. This carbon is taken through a pipeline and is put into the ground for enhanced oil recovery.

There are numerous other enhanced oil recovery projects in Canada, but unfortunately the Liberal government was so blinded by its ideology that it chose to exclude enhanced oil recovery projects from its carbon capture tax credit.

I will say that a carbon capture project that purely captures carbon and puts it into the ground and does not have any enhanced oil recovery should get a better tax credit, because they are not making money by getting oil out of the ground, while a project should not get as good a tax credit if it is making money through enhanced oil recovery.

The government keeps talking about the climate emergency, saying that we need to take action now, and I agree; I love the environment. We need to get carbon out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible, and one of the ways that the government could have done that is that is by removing its ideological aversion to working with our energy industry, which is primarily located in the western provinces, and working with them to develop a carbon capture tax credit that would support enhanced oil recovery. I think companies would be spending billions of dollars today if they knew they could access this program. We would be sequestering many more megatonnes of CO2 today and we would be getting much further toward our carbon capture and our Paris climate change accord goals.

Finally, I want to talk about the first home savings account. It sounded like a great idea during an election when we are trying to buy votes from Canadians, but we know that working families cannot afford to put $40,000 in a savings account, so which families are going to benefit from this? It is going to be the families of the wealthiest 1% in the country. The parents are going to give their children the $40,000, which taxpayers will then subsidize, because when one puts the $40,000 in, one gets a break on taxes. This government policy is going to disproportionately benefit the wealthy and is not going to help young families get affordable housing.

With that, I cannot support Bill C-19.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech and I found it quite concerning that he was disparaging a Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement that the Alberta government signed on to, with $4 billion going to Alberta families. Those in registered child care have actually seen a 50% reduction in fees since January.

He talked about the importance of building new spaces and going into rural areas. In fact, that is exactly what the Alberta government is doing in partnership with the Government of Canada. I wonder if he is actually directing his criticism to the Government of Alberta and its policies.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I have been receiving complaints from day care centres across this country about the red tape in the government's early learning and child care plan. I watched this very closely because I want an early learning and child care program to succeed in this country, but the government is not creating a program that will succeed. Even The Globe and Mail recognized that in a best-case scenario, only six in 10 children will be able to access the licensed care.

The government is creating a two-tiered day care system in this country, and that is unacceptable.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, our colleague is talking about child care. We do actually get a sense that he really cares, that he is truly concerned about people in need.

One of the things that really bothers us about this budget and its implementation act is, first, that health care is being completely ignored. When I say that, I am not talking about an intrusion. We are not talking about dictating standards to the provinces. We understand the division of powers. We are talking about sending money to the provinces, which are struggling because of underfunded health care. We are also talking about seniors who deserve more than just a one-time pre-election cheque, and only for those aged 75 and over.

Does our colleague share our indignation about these two major omissions?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. We know that in the constitutional order of this country, it is not the federal government but the provincial governments that are primarily responsible for the delivery of health care, and I was very disappointed to see yet another broken Liberal promise from the last election. The Liberals promised a special Canada mental health transfer that would be immediately afforded to provinces this fiscal year. That was not put in the budget.

I have talked to so many constituents. We are facing a mental health tsunami in this country, and the federal government is not being proactive in putting the funding forward to the provinces to address our mental health needs.

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

Madam Speaker, I am really intrigued by the carbon capture topic that the member brought up and I look forward to learning about the facility in his riding.

The concern I have about this approach, though, is that we are heavily subsidizing a very profitable industry. Our general approach to subsidies is that the government should be stepping in and helping those companies and those Canadians who are struggling the most, the ones who do not have the funds available to make the changes that need to be made.

The polluter pays principle seems like an inherently Conservative principle. Would my colleague not agree that we should not be giving billions of dollars to the most profitable companies, which very clearly have the funds available to invest in the kind of research and development that is required in this area?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that even before the government brought forward this tax credit, oil and gas companies in this country were already investing in carbon capture. Companies in Saskatchewan and Alberta have been sequestering carbon for enhanced oil recovery purposes and non-enhanced oil recovery purposes. We have Whitecap Resources' Weyburn project, the Shell Quest project, the Redwater Sturgeon Refinery in my riding and the Nutrien fertilizer plant. They did receive some government support under the previous Conservative government, but I think the difference is that we want to see much more. We want to unlock the potential for carbon capture in this country, and if it means putting up a billion dollars to leverage $10 billion of private investment and it achieves real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, I do not see why the NDP would not support it.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the investments mentioned in the budget that we are making in the defence and security of our country.

Before I get into specific issues, I would like to mention two things: first, the importance of defence and security industries from the economic point of view; and, second, how Ottawa, as a city, is very well placed to be the hub of companies involved in the ISR, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, segments of the defence and security industries.

The Canadian defence and security industries are an essential service and a critical sector in Canada’s economy. These companies are highly innovative, export intensive and provide high-wage employment. These companies export 54% of their total sales. These companies provide employment to 64,000 people whose salaries are about 60% above the average Canadian manufacturing salaries.

During the last couple of decades, we have seen most of our manufacturing jobs outsourced to low-cost manufacturing countries across the world, but the jobs and manufacturing facilities of Canadian defence and security industries will never be outsourced. Also, for the U.S. defence purchases, which run into hundreds of billions of dollars every year, Canadian companies are considered to be U.S. domestic companies, offering a huge advantage to the Canadian defence and security industries.

Ottawa, as a hub, can be home to ISR companies, similar to hundreds of small companies around Washington, D.C. and the Annapolis beltway. Also, we are just few hours away from the centre of defence establishment in the U.S. We already have several companies in defence and security industries in Ottawa today. We also have Defence Research and Development Canada. Decision-makers on technology and procurements are also located here. All of these make Ottawa an ideal location for promoting it as the hub for ISR industries.

Canada is geographically well placed, with the powerful and friendly United States as our neighbour, who also is our major economic partner. The physical security threats to the country from outside our borders are minimal, and Canada was never worried much about physically protecting our land.

National defence is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government. In addition to protecting Canada from international threats and defending our sovereignty, the Canadian Armed Forces play an important role in making the world a safer place.

Budget 2022 recognized those challenges and proposed new action to respond to them. It invested in Canada’s defence capabilities, and in the alliances that will ensure a strong and coordinated global response to the ongoing challenges that the world faces today. Based on recent events and the changing global environment, the government acknowledged the requirement to reassess Canada’s role, priorities and needs in the face of a changing world.

Budget 2022 announced a defence policy review to allow Canada to update its existing 2017 defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. In my view, merely updating the current policy is not enough. There has been a paradigm shift in the kinds of threats facing our country.

First, we have cybersecurity threats, including those that come from foreign actors, that target Canadians, Canadian businesses and our critical infrastructure. As Canadians grow more dependent on digital systems, the potential consequences of cyber-incidents continue to increase, and Canada needs to be ready.

Second, we have the spread of misinformation and disinformation that is directly challenging the stability of even the most long-standing democracies. Foreign threats to democracy, including state-sponsored disinformation, which is misinformation that is deliberately targeted to deceive people, have continued to grow amidst rising geopolitical tensions, a global pandemic and the rapid evolution of technology.

Third is biological threats that know no boundaries. The nature and severity of biological threats has grown in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potentially catastrophic impacts of a deliberate biological event. Concerns are growing that the pandemic's unprecedented scale and reach could inspire terrorists to turn to biological weapons. United Nations Secretary-General Guterres has understood this threat. He warned:

The weaknesses and lack of preparedness exposed by this pandemic provide a window onto how a bioterrorist attack might unfold – and may increase its risks. Non-state groups could gain access to virulent strains that could pose similar devastation to societies around the globe.

The threat due to domestic terrorism is on the rise due to increasing hate and due to the spread of misinformation and disinformation. During the latest occupy movement, the cross-border connections between the extremist groups were alarming. Based on these threats, in my view, merely updating the current policy is not enough. We need a change in our approach to national security. We need a unified approach to defence. We need a unified approach between all government departments to seamlessly share the information for a unified response. We need a unified command to address the modern needs of security.

The existing policy document, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, stated:

This policy is deliberately ambitious and focuses, first and foremost, on the heart of the Canadian Armed Forces – the brave women and men who wear the uniform.

We know how this worked out.

The document was geared more toward the big-ticket items like ships and fighter aircraft, which, while important, do not address the major threat that Canada and Canadians are facing.

In the current policy document, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, which is 113 pages long, the word “misinformation” is mentioned only once. Similarly, the word “disinformation” is also mentioned only once. Also in this policy, the investment in cybersecurity was under “Joint Capabilities”. It was grouped with IT and communications, signal intelligence, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive detection and response capabilities. All of these had just a $4.6-billion investment over 20 years out of about $164 billion in proposed spending.

We should stop saying threats involving guns and bullets or ships and fighter planes from foreigners invading our land and sea are the only responsibility of the Canadian Armed Forces; or that cybersecurity threats are the responsibility of the Communications Security Establishment alone; or that biological threats should be handled by the Public health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces role is limited to providing a few medics; or that threats posed by misinformation and disinformation are the responsibility of maybe Canadian Heritage or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; or that the threat from domestic terrorism is the responsibility of the RCMP, CSIS and local law enforcement agencies.

We should stop compartmentalizing the threats and divide the responsibility. We need to act cohesively.

We need generals who have a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence and other leading technologies. We need generals with a Ph.D. in biology. We need to completely start afresh and come up with a comprehensive strategy and policy. The existing policy document “Strong, Secure, Engaged” focused on a $164-billion investment in procurement of traditional assets and tools, including ships, fighter aircraft, etc.

When we review this policy, it may be a good idea where the new high-technology companies are going. As an example, a Silicon Valley company called Anduril is succeeding commercially in transforming the U.S. and allied military capabilities with advanced technology. It says that the next generation of military technology will depend less on advances in shipbuilding and aircraft design than on advances in software engineering and computing. Unlike traditional defence contractors who focus primarily on hardware, its core system is an autonomous sense-making and command and control platform that serves as the core platform for its suite of capabilities.

Ideas are turned into deployed capabilities in months, not years, saving the government and taxpayers money along the way. The company combines military veterans with engineers who are experts in artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced sensors, secure networking, aerospace, virtual reality technology, aircraft modelling and simulation. We should look at companies like this to see what is happening elsewhere and where the defence systems are going.

I would like to quote extensively from the report, “A National Security Strategy for the 2020s”, prepared by the Task Force on National Security and the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

It said:

We are living in a time of intense global instability when the security of Canada and other liberal democracies is under growing threat. An increasingly aggressive Russia is only one of a series of threats, both old and new, that endanger national security in Canada. It exemplifies the worrying re-emergence of great-power rivalry. It also interacts with or amplifies other threats, such as the use of new technologies to wage cyber-warfare, an increase in ideological extremism at home and abroad, attacks on democratic institutions, and transnational threats such as climate change and pandemics. We witnessed a different constellation of such threats in the protests that blocked border crossings and disrupted Canada's capital in early 2022. Where once the state was the focus of these threats, individuals and societies have also become targets.

When these and other threats reach the scale and potential to endanger what matters most to us as a country - our people, our democratic values and institutions, our economy, our society and our sovereignty - Canadians expect their government to protect them. Yet Canadians and their governments rarely take national security seriously. Taking shelter under the American umbrella has worked well for us.... We have not experienced a direct violent attack against our citizens in recent memory on the same scale as some of our allies, with the last major one being the Air India attack of 1985. This has made us complacent and paved the way for our neglect of national security....

Our peers, including our partners in the Five Eyes partnership (Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are reacting to this rapidly changing situation by revamping policies, identifying new tools and authorities, reforming institutions, devoting new resources to security and seeking new partnerships. They possess not only a deeper appreciation of the threats facing the West but also a more sophisticated national security culture writ large.

The report makes the case that Canada is not ready to face this new world. As a country, it says we urgently need to rethink national security.

The best part of the report is that the core recommendations do not require massive amounts of new spending, but, rather, focus on making better use of the tools we already have and improving co-operation among key partners.

The report makes recommendations in four broad categories.

Number one is to develop new strategies. Canada needs a national security strategy that reflects today’s realities. We can no longer count on some of the traditional pillars that have guaranteed our security and prosperity for decades. The essential first step is to hold a public review of national security. A thorough and transparent review would help inform the public, highlight priorities, identify the policies and tools required to address them, and point to the required changes to governance. In reviewing its national security strategy, the government should also take a hard look at whether its foreign, defence and development policies are adequate. This does not mean an isolated update in each case, but a holistic approach that examines all our national security assets in a coordinated fashion.

Number two is to strengthen existing tools and create new ones. Canada must build new tools and make better use of existing ones to deal with this diversifying and intensifying range of threats. More specifically, Canada should invest more in the following areas: sharing information within government, sharing information with other levels of government, reviewing outdated legislation, enhancing the use of open-source intelligence, strengthening cybersecurity, protecting economic security, guarding against foreign interference, and deterring organized crime and money laundering.

Number three is to enhance governance. Canada needs to rethink its national security governance framework: how decisions are made, policies developed and information shared.

Number four is to increase transparency and engagement. Many Canadians today mistrust government. This has major implications for national security. This erosion of trust opens space for misinformation and disinformation to spread, which weakens democratic institutions and contributes to a vacuum that hostile actors do not hesitate to fill. In this context, the national security community’s tradition of secrecy is outdated and counterproductive. As such, the report strongly recommends that the national security community’s recent engagement efforts be significantly ramped up, both with the public, including civil society, the private sector, the media and academia, and with Parliament. The community, moreover, must continue and intensify its efforts to increase diversity within its ranks.

It has been over 15 years since we produced a national security or foreign policy statement. We have not seriously reviewed the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act since CSIS was established in 1984. We need to have an integrated approach involving the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Public Health Agency of Canada and other agencies dealing with defence and security.

I will conclude with a quote from Alex Deep. In his article “Hybrid War: Old Concept, New Techniques”, in the Small Wars Journal, he mentions that we need “an adaptable and versatile military” to overcome the complex threats posed by the modern hybrid war, which combines all the conventional and irregular components.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, section 48 of the Constitution Act, 1867, requires the presence of 20 members in this House, including the Speaker, in order for business to be conducted.

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

I would remind the hon. member that there are no quorum calls following Motion No. 11.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not making a quorum call. I am just making the point that the Constitution Act, 1867, section 48, requires the presence of 20 members. I count the presence, including yourself, of 17 members. Surely, the government would want to ensure that if the process by which this bill were to be adopted in this House were ever to be challenged in court, it would be upheld. That is the simple point that I would like to make.