SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 83

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
  • Jun/7/22 10:51:28 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. Canadians are feeling the effects of inflation, especially at the pump and at the grocery store. This situation is largely attributable to the residual effects of the pandemic, namely supply chain disruptions, China’s zero-COVID policy and, especially, the economic repercussions of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This means that Canadians are paying more, especially for energy and food. I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle that inflation is being felt around the world and that, right now, in Canada, it is lower than in our peer countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. It is even even lower than the G7, G20, OECD and European Union averages. I would also like to remind my colleagues opposite, who like to blame all the world’s woes on government spending, that it is thanks to our federal government that Canadian workers were able to continue receiving a paycheque during the pandemic. The reason why we implemented so many supports and programs is precisely so that Canadians could continue to put food on the table, heat their home and gas up their car. These programs proved to be absolutely essential for Canadians and the Canadian economy to survive the pandemic. It is thanks to our support and that fact that we avoided austerity measures during the pandemic that the Canadian government was in the position to withstand the omicron wave, supply chain disruptions and many other situations. The Canadian economy is recovering strongly right now. We recorded the fastest growth among G7 countries in the first quarter, and our real GDP, taking inflation into account, is now higher than what it was before the pandemic. That is remarkable. Canada not only has the strongest and fastest economic recovery, but has one of the strongest and fastest employment recoveries in the G7. In fact, there are more Canadians working now than at any other time in the history of recording unemployment in this country, that is, over the last 50 years. We have recovered 115% of the jobs lost in the very difficult and awful first months of the pandemic. Compared with other countries, that is an extraordinary recovery. Even in the United States, just 96% of jobs have been recovered. Canadians, our entrepreneurs and small business owners have created 3.5 million jobs in the last two years alone. As the job numbers continue to increase and our output lost during the pandemic is being recovered, the focus in our most recent budget has been on making life more affordable for Canadians and making targeted investments that will build Canada’s economic capacity and support Canadians while doing so. However, before I get into that, let me address specifically what the Conservatives are proposing in their opposition day motion today and why these ideas are at best misguided. The only concrete economic policy proposals that have come out of the Conservative Party recently are the temporary suspension of GST on gas and diesel and the cancelling of the price on pollution. That is it. This is the extent of the economic policy proposals we have heard from the Conservative Party. That is all. It is just incredible. As pointed out before in the House by many, there is absolutely no guarantee these large oil and gas companies will pass on any savings to Canadian consumers. It rests entirely with these companies to choose whether or not Canadians see any savings and relief at the pumps. I know the price on pollution is a matter of huge contention in the Conservative leadership race. I know they are still deciding whether there is a climate crisis, and there have been many positions on this issue. In fact, there have been as many positions as there have been Conservative leaders in the past six years. However, on this, economists and scientists are very clear: A price on pollution is the most effective way to fight climate change. The PBO has confirmed that our approach is putting more money back into the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families through our climate action incentive. That means Canadians receive more money back than they are paying at the pump with the price on pollution. It is also ironic that the Conservatives are claiming that our fiscal policies, or perhaps the fiscal policies of the Bank of Canada, which they like to impugn, are somehow to blame for global inflation. They are now putting forward policies in this very motion that economists would all agree increase demand at a time of supply shortage and at a time when these policies would exacerbate inflation, although this may not come as too big of a surprise after the Conservatives campaigned on a $168-billion deficit. The Conservative motion also proposes the easing of sanctions against Russia. I would like to tackle this head-on. The Conservatives stood up and applauded the sanctions against Russia and today are asking us to remove them. When it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, our policy is simple. We have one of the world's leading sanction policies and will continue to target Putin and his cronies. This is what the people of Ukraine are asking for, this is what the global community is asking for and this is what Canadians are asking for. However, for some reason, 100 days into the war the Conservatives are willing to fold to Russia. Perhaps they are under pressure from Russia. Who knows? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
942 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 1:52:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, inflation is a global problem, but guess what? All of the countries where inflation is a problem are countries that did the exact same economic, monetary and fiscal policy expansion that we have seen, and that is why there is an inflation problem. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
51 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 2:35:06 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the party that needs a coherent policy is the Conservative Party, and it just does not have one. As usual, the Conservatives are failing to pick a lane on fiscal policy. Half of the time they like to talk about deficits and complain about government spending, but the other half of the time, like just now, they praise the expensive multi-billion dollar programs put in place by the governments of other countries, so really, what is the fiscal policy of the Conservative Party of Canada?
88 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 2:38:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives need to pick a lane on fiscal policy. Half of the time, they talk about the deficit and complain about government spending, but the other half of the time, they praise expensive programs proposed by other governments. What are the Conservatives actually advocating for: spending or fiscal responsibility?
54 words
  • 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 6:32:00 p.m.
  • Watch
moved: That Vote 1, in the amount of $274,137,786, under Department of Justice — Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be concurred in.
33 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 6:39:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will make this quick. This is the business of supply on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and the member is talking about other things. I am just wondering if we can maybe talk about the estimates and the spending of the government, instead of the stuff that he was talking about for the last five minutes. Let us talk about money and the spending of money, as we are supposed to be doing today.
83 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 7:51:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here this evening to debate the supplementary estimates for the 2022-23 fiscal year. As members know, budgets generally go up to March 31. That is usually how they work. My question is about the supplementary estimates or the budget. Since we are talking about the 2022-23 budget, I want to talk more specifically about budget 2022, which was presented in March. I think tonight is the perfect opportunity to talk about a subject that is near and dear to me, but that the government does not seem to care much about. This will become clearer in a moment. There was one short segment in the budget that the government presented not too long ago that might have been overlooked. A federal budget is several hundred pages long, and it is rare for someone to go through it line by line, word by word. It is easy to miss things. Obviously, as the transportation and infrastructure critic, my staff and I are more interested in those areas, so we dug a little deeper. We found that on page 79 of the budget it says: Budget 2022 signals the government’s intention to accelerate the deadline for provinces to fully commit their remaining funding under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program to priority projects to March 31, 2023. As a measure of fiscal prudence, any uncommitted funds after this date will be reallocated to other priorities. The federal government will work closely with provinces to support them in expediting project submissions. The next line says that the deadline remains unchanged for the territories. It is important to understand that the deadline was not 2023. It was moved up; it used to be later. In fact, the deadline was 2025. That is the whole problem. It is 2022 and the government is saying that all projects have to be submitted by 2023. We also have to understand what type of money and what type of projects we are talking about. The investing in Canada infrastructure program is a huge program. It has a $7.5‑billion envelope for the Quebec component alone. How much is left in the program right now? A bit more than $3.5 billion roughly has been allocated, so there is $4 billion left. In an election year, where all sorts of things may happen, where we might lose a month and there may be changes in government and ministers, people had 10 months to submit plans instead of the three years they should have had. Worse yet, it is not just the Government of Quebec submitting plans. The municipalities and towns of Quebec are doing so as well. Who will pay the price for these decisions at the end of the day? It is Quebec's towns. I mention this today because it has had significant and profound adverse effects, but it is more than that. When a government decides to change its agenda, we might say that is its right. It can do that and we can speak out against the resulting consequences, which is what I am doing right now. However, it goes further than that. An agreement was signed with the Quebec government in 2018, which essentially said that the end date was going to be 2025. There was a signed agreement in which the parties agreed on the amounts and the dates. When you have a signed agreement, you usually expect your partner on the other end to stick to it. Of course, when it comes to the federal government, it is a bit harder to know for sure whether one can rely on anything it agrees to, since it does have a bad track record in that regard. Many will remember, as I do, the famous 1980 referendum in which Trudeau senior said that voting “no” was a vote for change. I was not there in 1980 because I was not born yet, but I remember the images, and they come back to haunt me every time I see things like that happen. The infamous change was the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. This was not a very positive change for Quebec, which never signed it, not even to this day. Again in 1995, we were promised the world and what we got was the notorious sponsorship scandal and the equally notorious Clarity Act. That is the kind of reliable partner we can do without. On the subject of infrastructure specifically, I could talk about the national trade corridors fund, which gave us peanuts. I could talk about contracts for the Davie shipyard and how the government laughed in our faces and gave us next to nothing. The federal government seems to enjoy laughing at us and showing us who is boss. That is what we are seeing here. The problem is not just that the government wants to pretend it is the boss. The problem is that real people in real communities will be passed over. These are programs for green infrastructure, public transit and drinking water systems, which are huge issues for all the cities that need them. There is $4 billion up for grabs. Those people over there will say that cities still have a shot at those billions because they still have 10 months to submit something that takes three years to prepare. That means cities will be in a big rush and will put anything down in an effort to save as much as they can, but they are almost guaranteed to lose. It is sad to see a government acting that way. What is even sadder is that, in reading the agreement in detail, we realized that it contained something specific to Quebec. In Quebec, we do not necessarily like to be yes-men. Infrastructure and municipal affairs are not under federal jurisdiction. A total of 97% of the country's infrastructure belongs either to municipalities, provinces or Quebec. This means that the federal government owns roughly 3% of infrastructure, next to nothing, but it thinks it is the boss. The problem is that this government, which is notorious for thinking it is the boss, does not even uphold the agreements it signs. However, we need this money for our infrastructure. As I was saying, we took a look at the agreement to see the differences between Quebec and the other provinces, because we know that the federal government does not like it when Quebec does something different—that is practically criminal—because Quebec does not have the right or because it is dangerous. Quebec is not allowed to have its own identity. There are two sections in the 2018 agreement with Quebec, sections 3(a) and 3(b), under the heading “Commitments by Canada”, which are not in the other agreements. At the end, there are two short phrases noting that Canada would subsequently add phases to the program. There have indeed been several phases in the investing in Canada plan, but in the first phase, there was $342 million remaining in the amount allocated to Quebec. The sections I just mentioned state that the amounts not used in phase I will be able to be used in subsequent phases. This is worthwhile and very positive, because Quebec will not lose money and will be able to use this money to plan other projects. However, something happened at last Monday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Since we have a reliable partner that always keeps its word and never backs out of agreements, I asked the Minister of Transport what would happen to the money remaining from phase 1 and whether it would be transferred as set out in the agreement. The minister told us no, we would not see or get that money, and that the government would keep it, that it would be recovered by the receiver general of Canada. I was not impressed. I then asked myself if Canada plays these kinds of games when negotiating with other countries. Take for example an agreement with China, the United States, France, Germany or Japan, or a bilateral agreement with another country. Will the Canadian government renege on this agreement a few weeks later? If so, do members think that the other country would be happy about it? Obviously not, and Quebec is also not happy today. I am wondering if Canada generally honours its agreements. I am guessing it does, and I am guessing that the only reason it is not honouring this agreement is that Quebec is not a country. It is that simple. We are not a country, and the government knows that ultimately, there will be no consequences. It can do whatever it wants, and it knows that its word is worth absolutely nothing. That is disappointing. Quebec is set to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because of the arrogance of this government, a government that we cannot trust, that could not care less about Quebec and that only wants to be in charge and impose its own laws. That is completely unacceptable. That is what we are fighting against, and we are really going to ensure that we hold the government to account on that. I find this so unacceptable that we passed a motion in committee this week to once again summon the minister to explain why Canada is not living up to its bilateral agreements. The government has not upheld its agreement with Quebec, but the other provinces are also suffering because their bilateral agreements have not been upheld either. Quebec is not the only one being disrespected; all the Canadian provinces are, through the decisions that the government makes. However, the biggest difference is that it is Quebec that is being punished the most. Quebec believed the government opposite. Perhaps we were naive to believe that we could trust the Liberals and trust the Canadian government. I am not sure if I any time left, but I think I have said basically everything I wanted to say.
1685 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 10:47:17 p.m.
  • Watch
The next question is on opposed Vote No. 1. Pursuant to order made on Monday, May 2, the question is deemed put and a recorded division is deemed requested. The question is as follows: That Vote 1, in the amount of $274,137,786, under Department of Justice—Operating expenditures, in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be concurred in.
66 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 10:59:36 p.m.
  • Watch
moved: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, except any vote disposed of earlier today and less the amounts voted in the interim supply, be concurred in.
33 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 11:02:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-24 
moved that Bill C-24, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be read the first time and printed.
36 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 11:04:24 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-24 
The House is now in committee of the whole on Bill C-24, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.
38 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 11:06:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-24 
moved that Bill C-24, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be concurred in at report stage.
35 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 11:08:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-24 
moved that Bill C-24, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be read the third time and passed.
36 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 11:10:37 p.m.
  • Watch
moved: That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be concurred in.
17 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 11:22:59 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
moved that Bill C-25, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be now read the first time.
35 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/7/22 11:25:22 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
The House is in committee of the whole to consider Bill C-25, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023. The hon. member for Edmonton West.
43 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border