SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 83

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
  • Jun/7/22 4:36:26 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the member talked about hearing from constituents in the riding. When I look at the text of the motion, I see a series of different principles that the Conservatives have put forward. One relates to the GST on fuel. As a member of Parliament who makes almost $200,000 a year in terms of my work, and the member opposite would probably be somewhere in the same range, why would she think that eliminating GST on all gas is a targeted measure? I agree with the principle that perhaps the government should look at the GST and make this measure specific to individuals who have lower incomes, but the way the Conservatives are proposing it, everyone across the board, including millionaires, would receive this benefit. Would the member not agree that MPs should not be eligible for that type of benefit?
143 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 4:51:08 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. Yesterday, he asked Ukrainian MP Yulia Klymenko if she supported the 35% tariff on fertilizer. She very clearly stated that we should do everything in our power to avoid supporting Russia. For the past few weeks, the Conservatives have been saying we should support Ukraine, so why are they asking for rebates instead of calling for the tariff to be maintained to deter imports from Russia?
81 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 4:56:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, let me start by saying I will share my time this afternoon with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I think questions about affordability are good questions. I think most MPs here understand the reality of this problem in Canada and around the world. I am delighted to have the opportunity to engage in a debate about policies that can help Canadians. I will talk about this problem in general terms while also addressing the specific points in the opposition motion. First, I think it is important to recognize that there are several reasons for the inflation we are seeing in Canada and around the world, because inflation is a global problem. According to Statistics Canada, the country's inflation rate was 6.8% in April. I just want to point out that many other countries are in the same situation as us or even worse off. For example, in Germany, inflation is at 7.9%. In the eurozone in general, it is 8.1%. In the United States, it is 8.3%. In Spain, it is 8.7%. In the United Kingdom, it is 9%. I absolutely understand that inflation is a problem in Canada. My point is not to minimize its impact on Canadians, since all Canadians and all parliamentarians understand that it is a problem for everyone in the world. What is causing this phenomenon? There is no single reason for the situation we are in right now. There are several causes. The primary reason for inflation is of course the supply chain. That is a fact. During the pandemic, there were a lot of problems with the workforce and with the supply chain because of obstacles created by the health restrictions put in place to protect our collective health. Another reason for inflation is the labour shortage. According to Statistics Canada, during the last quarter of 2021, there were roughly one million job vacancies. This is a reality in every western country because of the demographic situation resulting from the current or imminent retirement of baby boomers. A third reason is the war in Ukraine, about which I asked my hon. colleague from Beauce a question just before my speech. The situation on the ground is terrible. The Russians are targeting infrastructure that is crucial for both the Ukrainians and the world. Yesterday we listened to testimony from Yulia Klymenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament, on how Russian soldiers are targeting bridges, factories and grain storage facilities. This is also part of the problem. I objectively recognize that another partial reason for inflation is of course the money spent by governments around the world at the height of the pandemic, along with certain restrictions imposed for the sake of protecting our collective health. I could go on at great length about the initiatives that this government has taken on since 2015 in relation to affordability. I am proud of that record. I am happy to quickly highlight some of them, but I do want to get to the text of the motion so that we can debate what is before us today. The first thing this government did, I was not a part of. My honourable predecessor Scott Brison was in the House when the first thing the government did was lower income taxes for lower- and middle-income Canadians and raise them for higher-income Canadians. On child care, we were the government that has and will continue to deliver national child care. This is something that has been talked about at great length. We have already seen a 25% reduction, on average, of fees in my home province of Nova Scotia. Those are concrete measures that we have taken forward. I am a rural member of Parliament. We know the importance of supporting seniors. That is exactly why our government brought the old age security age for when someone will be eligible down from 67, to which the Conservatives proposed to raise it. We brought it back down to 65. We have also increased old age security by 10% for those who are 75 and older, and we have strengthened the guaranteed income supplement. The results have been telling. Nearly a million seniors were lifted out of poverty. That is under our watch, and they are affordability measures that matter. We have heard a lot about the Canada child benefit. We reformed a program that had previously targeted higher-income earners. I have heard, on the doorsteps, the difference that makes in the lives of vulnerable families and single mothers, and I think it is something that should be celebrated. I want to highlight a couple solutions I think would be important as a member of Parliament. I know the government is seized with the question, as many governments around the world are, on inflation. I want to talk about the GST on gasoline and diesel. I asked the member for Thornhill about this. I do not mind the measure. I just do not think it is targeted enough. When I go to fill up at the pumps, I am noticing it. It is up over $100 right now. That is largely tied to the global market, but I am very privileged and fortunate. Every member of Parliament has a basic indemnity here that is higher than the average Canadian salary. I personally do not think that those types of measures, which could help support affordability, should be targeted to high-income Canadians. I think we also have to be mindful of the fiscal framework. I love to see some of my Conservative colleagues talk about the government having to do something and that it has to be there to support vulnerable Canadians, but we cannot throw the fiscal framework out with the bath water. That is something I believe in and we have to be measured and responsible in terms of how we use public funds in the days ahead, not just give benefits to Canadians who really do not need them, objectively. Looking at considering removing or expanding the programs that exist right now that reduce or eliminate GST on home heating fuels for low-income Canadians is also a really good idea. At the end of the day, as a rural member of Parliament, rural Canadians are more vulnerable to some of the costs around home heating. Many rural Canadians have not been able to make the same transition to the types of home heating systems where fossil fuel is not used. As an example, in Nova Scotia, nearly 50% of residents still use home heating oil. That is going to be a challenge as we head back to the winter of 2023, and I think something targeted in this domain would be beneficial. Last would be the grocery code of conduct. This is something that is extremely beneficial to be looking at for food affordability. I have already touched on (a) of the Conservative motion. On carbon pricing, this is in place to try to help incentivize to reduce emissions. It is inherently a Conservative principle. I have chatted with some of my Conservative colleagues about why they do not like a market-based system that actually allows consumers to be able to make choices. I take notice that in certain provinces, because they have not stepped up with their own program, the federal backstop is sometimes clunky, but I do think this is something that needs to stay. On fertilizer, I asked my hon. colleague from Beauce about this. I think the tariff should stay. The government should be looking at ways to indemnify farmers and certainly that tariff has to stay to dissuade the importation of Russian fertilizer. On the mandates, I think, certainly, in a domestic sense, the government should continue to be looking at making adjustments for domestic travel. I will finish on that and take questions.
1315 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 5:07:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, my understanding is that about 1% of federal civil servants have not been vaccinated. I think this policy was justified at the height of the pandemic. I think that as long as we continue to work ourselves out of the pandemic, from a legal perspective the government will have to look at adjusting the policies. She mentioned hundreds of thousands of people who have not been vaccinated. There are not those same principles in all workplaces, so I reject the premise that individuals cannot find employment in the country on the basis of their vaccination status. As it relates to federal jurisdiction, as I mentioned, the government will have to be mindful of whether there is a legal requirement to accommodate in the days ahead, particularly as we move forward and get beyond the height of the pandemic.
140 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 5:09:20 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I will state a few facts before answering the question. The Conservatives' current position is that the 35% tariff on fertilizer imported from Russia should be eliminated. In the case of farmers who purchased their fertilizer before the start of the war, that is the right thing to do, and I hope that the government will consider giving them a rebate. However, they must change their supply chain and look for other markets. I believe that buying fertilizer that costs less is a fair solution. I am of the opinion that after the war, however, we will have to keep the tariff and find other solutions for affordable imports.
111 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 5:11:11 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, our government, in the budget of 2022, has introduced a higher rate for banking interests. We are looking at the grocery code of conduct. At the end of the day, there are a number of initiatives that the government is trying to take to create a balanced playing field. It may not be exactly what the member opposite is calling for, but the government is looking at a variety of options to try to make sure that those who have the propensity to pay are paying a more equitable share to support the programs that we all consider really important.
102 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 5:51:22 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am the proud chair of the agriculture committee, and yesterday we had the member for Beauce ask a question of Yulia Klymenko, who is a member of parliament from Ukraine. The question was asked of whether she was in support of the 35% tariff that has been placed on Russian and Belarusian products. She was absolutely clear this is an important policy because we do not want to support Russia at all. In fact, many of the Conservatives have called for that policy, and they have said that the government should be working to try to help support Ukraine. I asked the member for Beauce earlier what his position was. He said that the government should be indemnifying farmers who made the purchase before March 2. I actually agree with that, and I will continue to work with the government to see if there is something that can be done, but why would the policy be changing? The motion says right here that the Conservatives want to get rid the tariff altogether. What is the Conservative position?
180 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 6:08:31 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, like me, the member represents a rural riding, and she described the reality of her constituents and the citizens of Quebec by talking about the distances they travel for recreation, leisure and work. I agree with the principle of the proposed measure in paragraph (a) of the motion, “temporarily suspending the Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected on gasoline and diesel”, but my concern is that it is not targeted. For example, members of the House would benefit from this measure, but it would be a better idea if it targeted low-income Canadians. What does my hon. colleague think?
104 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 8:51:29 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House to discuss the main estimates this evening and share my constituents' perspectives. There are several important initiatives worth highlighting, but my focus this evening will be on three specific areas. I believe these ideas are important for our country. I want to talk about the agricultural sector first. One in eight jobs in this country is related to our agricultural sector, from Newfoundland to British Columbia and all points in between, particularly in rural areas, but also in urban settings. The importance of this sector cannot be underestimated. I am delighted to see investments to support and help develop our wine sector. My riding is home to several vineyards producing world-class vines. In fact, our Tidal Bay vineyards are attracting attention for their quality. I encourage my colleagues to try some of our wines. Perhaps I can even bring some to Ottawa. Of course, I am also speaking to all Canadians who may be watching what is going on in the House tonight. Supply management is extremely important. Our government has signalled its intent to fairly compensate supply-managed farmers in the fall economic update. In my riding, Kings—Hants, there are roughly 200 or 300 supply-managed farms. Kings—Hants currently has the largest concentration of that type of farm east of Quebec and among the Atlantic provinces. I am concerned by the fact that some members of the Conservative Party are openly suggesting that we dismantle the system. In light of the global crisis and the concerns about the importance of protecting the sustainability and capacity to produce food, I think that supply management is very important for domestic production capacity. It is important to distinguish between the position of some parliamentarians and that of the government, which is very supportive of supply management. I am also very proud of the work of our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for several reasons, but especially for two reasons. I am proud of the significant improvements to our business risk management programs. The Harper government made cuts to those programs, which are very important to our farmers and producers. In November 2020, the minister announced federal funding to remove the reference margin limit. The provinces and the territories will also contribute to ensuring that the programs are improved. We also now have federal funding to increase the compensation rate from 70% to 80%. I am not certain about the current status of that initiative, but I think some provinces, like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, are opposed to it. Nevertheless, I am very proud of the work that the minister and our government have done to make sure that the federal leadership fund is being showcased. I also think the new Canadian agricultural partnership is important. Every five years, the provinces and territories, in collaboration with the Government of Canada, create programs within a certain framework and funds to support our farmers. It is very important to increase the funds available for this partnership and these programs. I understand that there is a possibility that the government will set aside these funds in the 2023 budget. This is a very important point for all members of the House, especially members representing rural ridings. I think it is also important, when we talk about agriculture, to talk about the war in Ukraine, and I have talked at great length about this and about global food insecurity. Indeed, we are studying it right now at the agriculture committee, but I think that, although there might not be any explicit mention in the estimates about this, it is something all parliamentarians should be seized with. We have a responsibility and a way that we can lead. This issue is not going to be just a 2022 issue. This will be a two-, three- or five-year period, in terms of the critical infrastructure. We heard from Yulia Klymenko, one of the members of parliament in Ukraine, about how Russia is systematically targeting crucial infrastructure that relates to agriculture. We do not build that overnight. Yes, of course we need to be there to support Ukraine, but the consequences of Russia's illegal invasion are going to be felt for quite some time. I think Canada has a role and a responsibility to continue to be there to support Ukraine, as we have, and to consider ways in which we can do even more in the days ahead and how our industry can respond. That is point number one. Let us go to point number two: regulatory reform, modernization and reducing internal trade barriers. I do not think this is a very sexy topic, per se. It is not always discussed at great length here in the House, but it is crucially important as a tool for public policy. My predecessor, Scott Brison, served as the President of the Treasury Board. I know there are a number of initiatives that the government has taken on. Budget 2022, along with the main estimates, does have some areas in which the government will be looking at those measures. I think we can do even more. I think we need to get serious about how we create a culture in the Government of Canada around how we can better regulate industries, how we can modernize our practices in service delivery and how we can put forward a regulatory environment that is not command and control. It has often been said, but if I went to the best baker in Montreal, in Madam Speaker's region of the country, I would not say to the baker, “Here is the recipe; build this cake”. I would say, “You are the baker and here is how I want the cake to look. I want it to have chocolate icing. I want it be soft and delicious,” and I would set the outcomes of what I want, and then the baker would tell me how he or she is going to build that cake. That is how we should be looking at regulations and how we move forward on those regulations. We should let individuals and organizations show us the pathway to the outcomes we expect, as opposed to a command-and-control type of format. There are internal trade barriers. I just mentioned the world-class wines in Nova Scotia. It is easier for my producers to get them to France and to Europe than it is to Ontario. We are a country. We have to be able to work on reducing those types of barriers. Again, this is very technical stuff, but it is important. Labour mobility is an important element as well. Last, I will say a couple of things about the importance of innovation, competitiveness and long-term economic success. I think we have a tremendous capacity in critical minerals. I was pleased to see the exploration tax credit. I would love to see more work on the Atlantic loop and advancing that project for a clean-energy future in Atlantic Canada. There is money that is set aside for those types of grid investments. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House and indeed the government to advance those. The final thing I will say is about small modular reactors. They are extremely important for our energy future for lowering emissions. I will leave it at that, because I know we want to get to questions. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues here tonight.
1266 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 9:02:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is in the mandate letter of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I sit in the government caucus but I am certainly not in the Privy Council, so with regard to extreme details on what conversations are being had intimately with provincial counterparts or territorial counterparts, I do not have information. I do know this is on the government's radar. I also know that, particularly as it relates to labour mobility, there is going to be a focus in that domain. Obviously, I would like to see that extend to certain agriculture products as well. Again, these are very technical terms, but the Senate report suggests that if we can eliminate those barriers, 2% to 4% GDP growth can be accomplished. It is important. I will continue to work with the member opposite to advance these principles.
140 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 9:03:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. The question is quite vague. If the member wants me to raise a question with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, I will. I think that the Government of Canada has a very strong relationship with the provinces and territories, especially Quebec. Given the pandemic and the initiatives to help the health care systems and networks, among other things, the relationship between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories is very solid.
86 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 9:05:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Guelph has been a strong champion, for a number of Parliaments now, in advancing the very issues that he just talked about. He could very well speak to the House in great detail on them because I know he is very knowledgeable. There are a couple of things I will say. The critical minerals strategy we are advancing is extremely important for clean growth and clean technology. We talk about EVs. We talk about a transition to a low-carbon economy. Critical minerals play an important role in that. The 30% exploration tax credit is extremely important and so too is the strategy. I will reiterate the importance of regulatory reform to drive innovation in some of these different technologies. I am proud of the work that our government has done on this file. It is important for economic success. It is important for fighting climate change. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they have to run together even more.
168 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border