Dan Albas

[Opioid Crisis in Canada, February 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is here to share stories.

My home province of British Columbia put in place a minister for addictions several years ago, and now the Prime Minister has done the same thing with his government in this new cabinet. We have two governments that say they care about this. We have two governments that say they understand the problem. We have two governments that say, “but, but, but”. They have to start answering the question. They cannot just point to words. I know this is an opposition thing to say, but the government, more than any other government ever seen, is good at words and very bad at actions. The Liberals do not explain themselves.

Thousands of families are without a loved one and the government keeps saying, “but, but, but”. It should not be up to individual members to put forward legislation. I feel for the member for Courtenay—Alberni. He is trying his best. However, the government and the provincial government in my home province need to finish the sentence. They need to tell people why they are not. Is it because they need to raise taxes, or is it because the changes they have are too controversial? We need an answer and more action if they really mean it.

[Opioid Crisis in Canada, February 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Victoria is a fellow British Columbian and someone who listens intently to constituents. I promised this family that I would raise their story today. What I am saying is that whatever we do, let us make sure that the other actions we take here in this place do not add fuel to the fire.

As earnest as the member for Courtenay—Alberni is in his private member's bill, two years ago we had a debate and we are back here today. The government has a new minister responsible for addictions, yet it is not the government producing new legislation and doing this; it is other members.

For a comprehensive approach, a transformative approach, ultimately the government has to do something different. Then we can debate it. It should not be up to private members to try to fix everything, because they do not have an army of researchers, experts and lawyers who can help them craft changes. The government needs to start putting in policy or start explaining why it is not working.

[Opioid Crisis in Canada, February 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly sad that I have to rise today, because I rose in this chamber to speak to this same subject in 2019. In the winter of 2019, we had an emergency debate on opioids, and we are here again.

I know we are going to hear a lot of stories, very personal ones like the one we just heard from my Conservative colleague. However, I want to note more than anything that this problem has not been solved. I asked the minister earlier what new improvements she has made, and I did not get a clear picture. Maybe that falls on me, but we are still here. I have some stories, because in my riding we have rural areas that have been forgotten about, and whether it be the flooding or the opioids, they need to be considered.

I bring a story today from my riding that many people may not want to hear and may consider partisan, but these are the stories we hear. I do hope that all members will listen. They can hold me accountable if they do not like the story, but this is something I promised a father I would tell.

Unfortunately, this pandemic has made a bad situation in my riding worse. We here in Ottawa in this place are partly responsible for that, and I would like to explain why.

I will never forget meeting with a father who wanted to share with me the story of his 19-year-old daughter. She was a recovered drug addict who had been clean for over a year. She was finishing up her courses to graduate from high school and she had a part-time job. Her family was happy to have their daughter back. Then COVID came along, and I hate to say this, but then came programs like the Canada emergency response benefit. Now, despite living at home and being fully supported, this 19-year-old was able to apply and receive it. Sadly, receiving $2,000 a month with few expenses proved to be too much to handle. A relapse occurred, and all the progress that family had made and that she had made was lost.

I do not want to share the rest of the story, because the details are too saddening. However, not long after I met with the father, I heard from an RCMP officer who shared with me the frustration of being the first on the scene of a recently deceased individual. Their CERB cheque was freshly cashed and the balance of the funds after buying drugs was still in their pocket. This individual had died of an opioid drug overdose.

This is not particular to the stories shared with me personally. As the Penticton Herald reported in May 2020 in an article called “Relief money refuelling opioid crisis”, operators of supportive housing facilities, places where people go to try to rebuild their lives, saw this too. To quote from the article, “the money has inadvertently refuelled the pre-existing opioid drug crisis, says the operator of the Burdock House and Fairhaven social housing projects in Penticton.” It goes on: “In some buildings, we’ve seen double-overdoses in a day with the same person”. Let me underline one particular quote: “But what we also see is people with such severe addictions that have no ability to emotionally regulate or behaviourally regulate (receiving) what for them is a vast sum of money.”

I will pass on one more quote, because this has to be heard: “We just emerged after a very, very challenging time working with this population with regards to the COVID-19 crisis, and now we're dealing with basically a financial windfall that has beset this population and is further compromising their ability to seek any form of recovery.”

Make no mistake. The CERB played a role in destroying these people's recovery and, in many cases, tragically ended their lives. Obviously, no one in this place ever wants to see that happen. I am confident when I say that all of us who voted in support of some of these measures did so at the time with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, what was not known to many of us was the exact manner the Liberal government would decide to deliver them and what safeguards were put in place to help protect the most vulnerable. Now we know there were none. As the operator of one supportive housing facility stated, “None of the people living at this facility met the criteria for the CERB, but there was nothing preventing them from receiving it.”

I have more to say on this issue, but I want to point out that when we do things in this place, they do affect things back home. I would like to see the government tackle this with new policy. Many New Democrats and many Conservatives want to see the government change its approach. I understand that the government does not have the answers to everything, but let us first promise ourselves to first do no harm.

I appreciate that these stories are hard to hear, but I look forward to hearing more of them. I thank everyone for their kind attention.

[Opioid Crisis in Canada, February 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for starting off tonight's take-note debate. This is a very serious subject in my home province of British Columbia, as was raised by the previous questioner.

In 2016 and 2017, former minister of finance Bill Morneau put in his budget $50 million every year and touted this as a new approach for dealing with opioids. Just to break down the numbers, it was $50 million a year for five successive years, broken down by 10 provinces and three territories.

Places such as Princeton, or even more urban areas such as Kelowna, do not show that the resources from the federal government are being fairly distributed. Neither the new minister nor the new finance minister has put in place a comprehensive plan to deal with this.

I have a question for the minister. What has the minister done differently? I ask because people in my home province of British Columbia, especially during this pandemic, have suffered. Their families have suffered. I have been told time and again there are not the resources, and that no federal or provincial government cares about this problem.

Can the minister start off by addressing that?

[Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, February 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my fellow member from British Columbia and say that she has done more than her fair share to bring up the lack of action on housing, particularly in her riding, and the lack of federal monies, which the government continues to say are coming.

When it comes to financialization, I do have some concerns about how our economy under the government is going. The finance committee has recently been holding hearings on housing. We should be looking to it for what the recommendations are.

However, if an entrepreneur right now has $100,000 and wonders if they should put that in their business, in a new factory, new equipment, hiring new people or purchasing a home, people will say that productive capital should go to a home. That does not hire people. That does not put more people to work. That does not make our economy more innovative.

Unfortunately, until the government actually starts addressing these problems, we are going to see real estate dominating our economy. It may not be good to have all our eggs in one basket.

[Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, February 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question and for the work she does on the environment committee with me and other members. I certainly always appreciate her interventions.

Let me start by saying that anyone who evades their taxes, anyone who tries to work outside the system, should be brought in to pay their fair share. On the flip side, I do believe the Government of Canada, and we have seen this in continual Transparency International reports, which specifically cite the government's inaction on things like money laundering.

The province of British Columbia set up the Cullen Commission and has received a final report. One thing that did happen is that they took action dealing with things like casinos, but those activities moved to other provinces. Whether it is tax evasion or money laundering, the government has been lax, and it is at the expense of so many. Money laundering is a scourge and needs to be stopped.

[Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, February 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member opposite a direct answer. First of all, in British Columbia we do not have access to rapid tests. The province has not decided to use those, and out of respect for provincial jurisdiction, I would like to hear the answer as to why it has not included them. However, we do not have access to those for businesses, schools and whatnot in the capacity seen in other provinces.

The member politicized, I hope inadvertently in his comments, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is a non-partisan officer of Parliament, here to serve everyone, including those who are not of a party status. It is not just me. If the member wants to call me some Conservative, right-wing, Attila the Hun or whatever, he can go ahead and do that, but for gosh sakes, let us bring some decorum and treat the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the respect that is deserved of that office and this place.

[Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, February 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place, particularly after such a great member. What a speech, and I congratulate him on it.

I believe few would dispute that we live in highly unusual times. Indeed, we are charting a path through a pandemic without a playbook. This is not the fault of the government. Every government in the world is in the same situation. We all know different governments have proposed different ways of moving forward. We must recognize this, and I say “we” because we, in large part, unanimously agreed upon most of the fiscal measures to this point. Canadians sent a minority Parliament to Ottawa, and aside from the Prime Minister's shameless attempt to stage a power grab in calling an expensive and unnecessary election, we are back again in a minority situation.

What I believe we must recognize is that, rightly or wrongly, our fiscal cupboards were literally spent dry responding to the pandemic. I am not here to debate the past; I am simply pointing out the obvious. A significant portion of Canada's fiscal capacity has been spent. It is gone. We must recognize that. Why? It is because in the event we run into another type of future emergency situation, we will have less fiscal room to respond.

Again, I do not rise and say this to point fingers of blame. I raise this because we must recognize that going forward we must be very careful on how we proceed fiscally. Let me give an example of this. If we have learned anything during this pandemic, it is that our health care system was ill-equipped to deal with stresses and demands placed on it, and more so now, when we see fully vaccinated Canadians who find themselves in our hospitals and ICUs. Every premier of every political stripe is clear that the current Canada health transfer is not enough to meet the needs of Canadians now or going forward.

Here is something I would like to share with every member of the House: The Canada health care transfer stands at just over $45 billion a year. In this current fiscal update bill, spending is forecast to increase to over $55 billion in the fiscal year 2026-27. In other words, there will be an increase of $10 billion over that time frame. I am hopeful that my friends in the fourth party heard that clearly, as they also have a bad habit of referring to increases in health care spending as cuts.

Getting back to the increase in health spending, there will be $10 billion in increased Canada health transfer spending between now and fiscal year 2026-27. However, here is the problem: Today, the interest we pay on servicing our debt is just over $20 billion. Over that same time, it too will increase. The same budget bill forecasts that these debt-servicing costs will increase to almost $41 billion by fiscal year end 2026-27.

I can already hear members of the governing party. “Debt-to-GDP ratio”, they will say. “A AAA credit rating”, they will say. However, here is the thing. Between now and fiscal year 2026-27, we know two things: that the Canada health transfer will increase by $10 billion and servicing our debt will increase by over $20 billion. There will be $10 billion on health and $20 billion on debt servicing. To be clear, our interest costs for servicing our debt are climbing at twice the rate of our increases in the Canada health transfer. Does anyone else in this chamber not see such a serious problem with this, aside from the finance minister? She made it very clear yesterday that she does not.

Let us keep in mind that the doubling of interest we are paying on our debt is based on today's interests rates, and we all know those interest rates will not stay low. If there is one thing I believe all Canadians are united on, it is how much we value our health care system, particularly now more than ever.

Everyone in this room knows health care spending is on the minds of all Canadians. Let us not forget that we have an aging population and there will be fewer working Canadians supporting an increasing number of retired Canadians. The demographics on this are clear. I raise this, aside from the reason I have already stated, because we know this bill proposes once again even more stimulus spending.

Before people start dismissing questions as a typical Conservative question, let us remember it is our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer who scrutinized these numbers. The PBO, as we know, has also come out saying that stimulus spending is not needed. Let us recognize why the Parliamentary Budget Office has said this. Unfortunately with today's job numbers, these are probably a little out of date, but previously, as of last week, the PBO pointed out that Canada had recovered 106% of the jobs that were lost at the onset of the pandemic. This is a statistic I have heard often crowed by members of the government. Earlier this week, our finance minister, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, stated:

Today, Statistics Canada published new data showing that our GDP increased by 0.6% in November. That means that by the time omicron emerged, our economy had completely recovered from the COVID-19 recession.

To recap, by the government's own acknowledgement, both our employment rate and our GDP are fully recovered. Therefore, why borrow more money for more spending when the objective of the spending has largely been met? Again, this is not me pointing this out. The Parliamentary Budget Office has noted the same things. This is literally spending for the sake of spending. It is a government that claims it is all about science, data and facts. Well, the data and facts are clear here. In fact, we have heard the finance minister confirm them.

Let us change gears for a moment. We know inflation is at a 30-year high. We know that Canadian paycheques are getting smaller because Canada pension plan rates and EI deductions, which are planned to be unfrozen, are going to be getting bigger. No matter how they cut it, these two factors leave less money in Canadian households at the time when carbon taxes are going up, online streaming services are now taxed, wireless cellphone bills did not get magically cut by 25%, taxes on alcohol are increasing federally yet again, and back at the local level, property taxes are up and home insurance rates are going through the roof, especially for those in strata situations in condominiums. No matter how we look at it, Canadians are being hit hard and, it seems, from almost every angle.

Affordability is the single greatest concern now of many Canadian households. There is an elephant in the room that few want to discuss, and that is household debt. Household debt is at a record high. That matters because Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque as it is. The cost of living is basically out of control right now, and no matter how much we debate in this place who is responsible for that, that debate does not help those Canadians struggling to pay the bills.

Let me ask a question for everyone in this chamber. What happens when the interest rate increases? What happens when those rates start coming up again? That, in turn, means that payments on record household debt are also going to increase. What happens when Canadians can no longer make ends meet? What happens when their variable rate mortgage increases by $500, $400 or more a month, and they just cannot afford that?

When their fixed mortgage rate expires and they cannot afford the payments at a higher interest rate at renewal, what happens? There is certainly a growing number of citizens in my riding asking these questions, and I am sure all of the members have heard similar concerns and realities in their own ridings.

We cannot ignore that, but Bill C-8 completely does. If anything, it would only make that situation worse, and that is why I cannot and will not support this bill. Canadians need a solid economic plan for affordability in the path of increasing inflation and interest rates. Bill C-8, unfortunately, is not it. I thank all members for listening to my speech today.

[Disaster Assistance, February 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a commitment in this place. This is also a Prime Minister whose government gave Loblaws, a billion-dollar grocery chain, $12 million to buy new refrigerators. The people of Princeton just want to receive today the $2 million they were promised by the Prime Minister to rebuild their community.

Can the Prime Minister answer why they are waiting when others are receiving supports for things that are nice to have, but not necessary?

[Disaster Assistance, February 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was crystal clear in this place when he told the people of Princeton, British Columbia, that he had their backs and would be there for them as they rebuilt from flooding. The community needs $2 million as soon as possible to rebuild, or their property taxes will have to go up by 70%.

Can the Prime Minister tell the people of Princeton when they will receive the federal support that he has committed to them?