Steven Blaney

[The Environment, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the second wave is upon us, our restaurants are closed, and now we have the Liberals playing Don Quixote.

Alliance Polymères Québec says the Liberals are sweeping the problem under the rug by not focusing on managing end-of-life plastics, which can potentially be recycled using new technologies.

What is going on in the Liberals' minds? Did they get permission from Public Health to launch such a half-baked initiative, even though it is perfectly possible to recycle plastic?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives certainly are champions of maintaining Parliament and having committee debates. Unfortunately, as we know, my colleague's government shut down Parliament. We feel that only four hours of debate for $50 billion of investment in the Canadian economy is not sufficient. We want a full and effective Parliament with all of its procedures, so that we can create effective measures that will sustain and support Canadians through the pandemic.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Obviously we are in favour of reliable, predictable transfers in health. That would allow us to support the provinces, especially during a pandemic.

What I was explaining in my speech is that given the Liberals' irresponsible management of public finances, these same transfers could be compromised in the medium and long term, so say many economists, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and former Liberal finance ministers and advisors. That is why we want a responsible approach that will allow to continue to support health care and the provinces, especially during a pandemic.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The core and main goal of our Conservative approach is to support Canadians now and later. Recently, we saw the Liberal government cutting debate, shutting down the House and preventing us from putting efficient measures in place to support our collectivity.

I will refer my colleague to the specific example of measures that are so ill-conceived, they are having the opposite impact than the one the government aimed for, which was to support businesses. Restaurant workers in my riding are having a hard time finding jobs and pharmacists have a hard time hiring students because the measures did not incentivize or encourage them to stay in the labour market. Conservatives want constructive measures and, in that regard, we also need targets that will—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate virtually today. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to my House of Commons colleagues and everyone following our proceedings. I would like to point out that I am taking part in today's proceedings from the city of Lévis, which is currently in a red zone. I want to commend the resilience of the people of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis who are experiencing the strains of the lockdown.

The purpose of my intervention today is to convey that I cannot support the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General on September 23, 2020.

The role of government and of parliamentarians is to help and support people, to minimize the impacts of the pandemic and to try to make things run smoothly. I simply cannot support the throne speech because there are two fundamental components missing from it, things that would help people in red zones, like the people of Lévis.

Measures need to be put in place immediately to deal with the resurgence of the pandemic. That includes quicker testing and results analysis. For example, the wife of one of my colleagues who works in the education system was tested for COVID-19 and has been waiting for three days now for her results, which means that my colleague also has to wait for the results. That is paralyzing the work of our organizations, despite telework being an option. It slows things down, not to mention the fact that some jobs require staff to be on site.

In our region, there are a lot of manufacturing jobs. These measures are needed immediately to support public health authorities in order to make testing faster, something that is not clearly set out in the throne speech.

Another necessary measure involves providing reasonable and targeted support to businesses and individuals during the pandemic so that the government remains agile and flexible once it is over. Unfortunately, even before the pandemic, the Liberals were already caught in a deficit spiral. Right now we are far from improving our situation.

What is in a throne speech? As my colleague from British Columbia mentioned, we usually expect a throne speech to present a vision.

This vision could have explained how to fight the pandemic and help people right now while presenting a plan for the medium term. However, neither of these elements is in the throne speech. On the contrary, it is chock full of all kinds of promises. Having many priorities means that there are none. It is just a jumble of words. Unfortunately, this does not meet our immediate needs as the pandemic surges and we are experiencing a second wave.

In my view, the best analysis of the throne speech is the one provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. His analysis leads us to conclude that the throne speech is not what Canada needs right now to face the pandemic. We should remember that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is an independent officer and he is in some ways the government watchdog. He is there to remind the government that it must stay on track if it wants to prevent problems from arising further down the road.

We have seen the warning signs. Before the throne speech, my old colleague and former finance minister, Joe Oliver, said that it is time for Canada to pick a fiscal anchor.

Of course we need to support people. In 2008, the Conservatives did that through massive infrastructure investments to stimulate the economy. Many projects got built in my riding, including the Lac-Etchemin arena, the Lévis water treatment plant and the Notre-Dame-Auxiliatrice-de-Buckland infrastructure project. Those were measurable outcomes of targeted investments, and the Conservatives also had a plan at the time to balance the budget.

A former Liberal finance minister, John Manley, said it is important to have a fiscal anchor because that shows the financial markets that Canada is supporting people and knows where it is going in the medium term. Unfortunately, the throne speech proves that this government is going in the opposite direction.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's economic outlook, it is possible to get through the pandemic and stay on track with realistic fiscal anchors, but that will not be possible if the government engages in new spending.

As my colleague from British Columbia said, the Liberals are interfering in programs that are provincial responsibilities. As the saying goes, they are throwing money out the window. That is not the sound management we expect. Moreover, financial markets are worried. Firms such as Fitch Ratings have downgraded Canada, and credit rating agencies such as Bloomberg and Moody's have warned Canada that if it does not stop spending shamelessly and keeps introducing poorly targeted measures, it is going to crash and burn.

We want to support Canadians, but we want to be able to do that now and in the long term. The measures proposed by the Liberals combined with the government's extravagant spending would threaten the social safety net in the medium term. That is troubling. We are not even close to achieving sustainable development.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there is a risk that the sustainable debt-to-GDP trajectory could be reversed. In other words, if we continue to spend excessively on extravagant and poorly targeted measures, we will be temporarily “doped” by a significant cash injection, but we will have to pay for the damage in the medium and long term, since this is borrowed money.

There is another aspect that concerns me. The Speech from the Throne says that interest rates are going to stay low for decades to come. Of course that is unrealistic. The Bank of Canada's key interest rate is currently 0.25%. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assumption, that rate could remain stable for the next three years, but it is expected to increase by 1% within five years' time. That is five times higher than the current key rate. The rate would remain fixed at 1.25%, but that would still increase the debt by $8 billion. The government seems to be deluding itself regarding easy credit.

The third thing that worries me is the government's poorly targeted measures. People received more money than they lost from their savings. This is borrowed money, though. It belongs to the government.

Canadians' household income went up by 5.4%. That is nice to see, but since this is borrowed money, it will have to be paid back. The problem is that the Liberal government makes poor spending choices and implements measures that hurt the economy. For example, it did not encourage people to stay connected to their jobs or to return to work.

I will not support the throne speech because it contains extravagant expenses, is devoid of any fiscal anchors and does not present short-term measures to combat the pandemic.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chair for coordinating the hybrid sitting. This is the first time I have participated.

I will now yield the floor to my colleagues and I would be happy to take questions.

[2020 Pléiades Awards of Excellence, September 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the pandemic will not stop the dynamic Lévis chamber of commerce from celebrating the outstanding achievements of its local businesses. Over 1,000 people participated in the 2020 Pléiades virtual awards gala, which was broadcast by Groupe Satir studios.

I want to commend the entire team at Sinox Concept on being awarded the Grande Distinction Desjardins. I also want to congratulate MTI Canada and Groupe d'Anjou. I tip my hat to École Marcelle-Mallet, Enviro Confort, Clean International, Newtec Électricité, Village Aventuria, Métal Bernard, Teknion Roy & Breton, Parikart, St-Joseph Design d'espaces, Sport Expert/Atmosphère Lévis and Mr. Bubble, winner of the Coup de coeur award, which is chosen by the public.

Finally, I want to say bravo to our talented dancer, choreographer and entrepreneur Nicolas Bégin, who was awarded the 2020 business personality of the year award thanks to the worldwide phenomenon Hit the Floor.

I would like to remind the House that our leaders and their businesses are at the heart of our collective wealth. We thank them for that.

[Access to Information, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, who said that there was no human-to-human transmission of COVID-19, that people did not need to wear masks and that we did not need to close our borders? The government. Was any of that true? Sadly, no, and now we are paying the price.

Now the Liberals want to make it an offence to spread misinformation. Are they going to throw themselves in jail?

What is going on with our democracy? Are the Liberals in charge of telling Canadians what they can and cannot read, what is true and what is false? Why is the government attacking freedom of expression right in the middle of a pandemic?

[Foreign Affairs, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are so deeply concerned, why are they opposed to a group of Canadian parliamentarians looking into human rights in Hong Kong at the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations?

Freedom of expression is important, especially during a pandemic. In 2019, the Liberals boasted that they would defend freedom of expression. They are manoeuvring for a seat on the UN Security Council. Parliament can study this issue to defend freedom of expression.

Why are the Liberals not standing up to China to defend Canadians' rights and democracy?

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from La Prairie a question.

Does the hon. member support the Conservative Party motion that is specifically designed to improve the Liberal programs?

The hon. member mentioned in his speech that the Liberal measures are too weak, too inaccessible, and poorly focused. Parliament can help the government, so that the measures help Quebeckers and Canadians.

Does he support the Conservative Party motion that we return to Parliament in order to have better legislation to serve the people of this country during this pandemic?

[Public Safety, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we should make our communities safer. That was our slogan in 2006.

I agree with him that firearms owners, whether they are sport shooters or hunters, are law-abiding citizens.

Why go after and harass them with costly and ineffective measures instead of examining the real problem of street gangs?

When will the government put in place measures to deal with street gangs and illegal firearms?

We will support the government. We even have proposals, such as strengthening the capacity of the CBSA at the border, putting in place a better information exchange system for police services and establishing harsher sentences for the possession of illegal firearms. We have proposals, but the Liberals' actions are designed to pander to the ill-informed for purely electoral and partisan reasons. They are intent on making hunters second-class citizens.

We will be there to represent and defend them.