SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Feb/14/23 4:02:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there does seem to be a bell ringing. I had heard that the member might be interested in sharing his time. I wonder if perhaps the ringing bell distracted him from that fact.

35 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Feb/14/23 4:17:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, with thanks to the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing some of his time. I think it was another colleague who said earlier that he had some rather mixed feelings about today's motion because there is a lot that is true in it, particularly the first parts that name and provide some useful facts and figures about the very difficult situation Canadians are facing. We know that many Canadians right now are concerned about losing places to live, whether because the interest rate on their mortgages has gone up and they are not sure their family incomes can absorb the additional costs, because rents continue to climb, or for various other reasons. Certainly one important reason is the continuing corporate presence in the Canadian housing market. In Winnipeg, for instance, we just saw Lions Place be offered up to a private developer who has a history of taking over buildings where there used to be affordable rents, doing some superficial renovations and then jacking up the rents. That activity is going on. It is happening and it is a real challenge, putting pressure on the cost of rent. We know that Canadians are struggling with the 11% increase in the cost of groceries and that that puts pressures on household budgets. It is not an optional extra that people can choose to do without. It is a cost that they either have to absorb or, as the member for Victoria was just pointing out, go hungry because they do not have any good alternatives. We are facing a really difficult moment. Where I take issue with the motion before us is that it would lay all of that problem at the feet of government and suggest that it is sufficient just to cap government spending, cut waste, fire high-priced consultants and eliminate inflationary deficit and taxes that have caused a cost-of-living crisis for Canadians. There is, again, some truth in that. I am in favour of cutting waste, for instance, but I think my Conservative colleagues and I might have some differences of opinion as to what constitutes a proper cutting of waste, that is, what is truly wasteful and what is not. As an example, I have been doing a lot of advocacy alongside folks outside of Parliament, like campaign 2000 for a CERB low-income repayment amnesty. I think it is wasteful to chase the poor for money they do not have because they took the government at its word, during a global crisis of unprecedented proportion, that if they needed help they should apply for it. When it turned out that they were not quite eligible because they were not poor in the right way, the government then said that they owe all of that money back. It will pay people to hound them even though it knows they do not have the money, and it will never get that money back. It is going to throw good money after bad. That is waste. If that is what the Conservatives mean by cutting waste, I will show up any day of the week for that. I suspect it is not what they mean, because I have heard them talk about other things that I value and that I think are good investments. For instance, when we talk about pharmacare on this side of the House, that is a cost. Capping spending is not going to allow us to have a federal pharmacare plan, but do members know what a federal pharmacare plan would do? Ultimately it would save money for Canadians and reduce the cost of accessing prescription drugs in Canada, not just in individual budgets but in government budgets too. The latest reports, prepandemic, on pharmacare in Canada said that Canadians were paying about $24 billion a year on prescription drugs. That was a combination of government expenditure, private insurance plan and out-of-pocket expenditure. The findings of many different studies over time, including in this particular example, was that a national pharmacare plan would cost about $20 billion a year. Depending on who pays and what ledger it is on, Canadians stand to save at least $4 billion a year on the prescription drugs they are already buying. To me, it is not the right approach to say the federal government should just arbitrarily cap its spending when there are investment opportunities that could reduce costs to Canadians overall. I think we should be more discerning in our judgment around this place, in a way that this motion simply is not. We have seen a lot of change and we are going to see more change in the economy over the years to come, particularly in regard to energy. We are seeing that happen already. Many of our allies are trying to lower their dependency on fossil fuel. That is happening, whether Canada wants it and gets on board or not. It is happening for the sake of both the climate and energy security. I do not think anybody in this place needs a lecture on that after the last 12 months, not only with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and what has happened to global energy supplies but also the real pinch from Russia's supply of oil to Europe and other parts of the world, as well as the power that that has given it. There are many reasons the world is trying to lower its dependency on fossil fuel for basic things that we cannot do without, such as heating our homes. Canada's choice is whether it shows up to that or not. Back in the 1970s, Peter Lougheed made real investments, as did the federal government, to create the oil and gas industry that exists in Alberta today. That was not at all a spontaneous creation of the free market. There was a lot of very deliberate policy work and financial investment by governments in order to create the oil and gas economy of the late 20th century. Those who say otherwise would be kidding themselves and anyone who listens. Before us is another moment of policy and financial investment to create a new energy economy for at least the next 50 years. Canada has to decide whether it wants to get on that train. We are not going to do so for free. Arbitrarily capping spending right now just takes Canada out of the game at a time when our biggest continental partner, the United States, is finally getting into the climate change game in a meaningful way. It is doing this with the Inflation Reduction Act. A lot of companies that are in the new energy economy and are also making incredible amounts of profit are sizing up the places where they want to invest. We should value that investment as much as we value investment in the oil and gas sector, but Canada does not. It has not shown up for other industries, particularly new energy industries, in the way that it did for oil and gas in the 1970s and continues to do today. Mr. Speaker, just think of the over $20 billion that the federal government found overnight to get into the pipeline business, something it has no business being in in the first place. Do not tell me money is lacking for other important things. Of course there is money. The Liberals have proven that by going out and spending on things like pipelines, which they should not have done. We are in this moment where we are trying to address critical challenges for individual Canadian households, and at the same time, many businesses that are still reeling from the effects of the pandemic. The world is preparing and laying the foundations for the next-generation economy. It is important to my children and to the children of people in this place and across the country that Canada get that right. This will make good-paying union jobs available to the next generation of Canadian children in the same way that those jobs were available for oil and gas workers in Alberta. We want to make sure that those jobs continue to be available. Some of them will be in oil and gas, but there are going to be fewer of those in the future. This is not because the Canadian government of any stripe decided that was going to be the case. It is because many governments the world over are deciding that must be the case, if we are going to have a planet to have an economy on in the first place. They are not wrong about that. Canada needs to get with the program, and we are only going to be able to do that through serious investment. I will close because I know my time is running short. I thank the Speaker for his diligence. I will just mention health care. I do not know that we need to do much more than that, but the idea that we are going to solve the very real problems in the health system without investment is false. In this time when people are struggling to get access to care, government will need to make investments. Provincial governments have been willing to pay through the nose for private agency nurses, overtime work and sending people to the United States to get treatment. That is not a health system. We need to build it, or rebuild it, here. That will require investment. It is worth paying for. This is why it is not the time to endorse a simple spending cap.

1615 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Feb/14/23 4:28:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say this is an example of the one-two punch the oil and gas industry gets in this House between the Liberals and Conservatives. The Liberals spent over $20 billion on a pipeline, and the Conservatives get up and say that the Liberals are not supporting the oil and gas industry. They can debate whether they want to or should support the oil and gas industry with massive government expenditures, but I would say the Liberals have been trying really hard to do so. I do not think they are failing to try. In fact, I would criticize the Liberals for the extent to which they are doing that. I think of the opportunity cost of that $20-billion investment. We are told that we cannot have a western power grid that would help share hydroelectric energy from British Columbia and Manitoba across the provinces. This is because we do not have the money to build it. Then they turn around and build a $20-billion pipeline. We cannot afford to be sinking that much money into new oil and gas infrastructure when we could be spending it on different types of infrastructure that would also create really good-quality jobs here in Canada. The point is to create those jobs in a way that is going to be sustainable over time. I would say that the Liberals have placed their bet on the oil and gas industry, and we think that is the wrong place for that bet when it comes to the next generation of Canadian workers.

263 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Feb/14/23 4:30:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge the decision that Canadians made in the last election. We are here to try to achieve progress whenever possible. I do not think that holding an election tomorrow will resolve the issue of the Liberals and Conservatives giving significant support, on behalf of Canadians, to the oil and gas sector. That is something we want to resolve. We are working with people in Canada and Quebec who want to change that, but we are not yet there. We are in a position where we can have a federal dental care program, which we believe is a good thing. We will achieve gains wherever we can and we will continue to fight wherever we must.

118 words

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Feb/14/23 4:32:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the arguments in favour of a national child care program. I recall making them as a candidate in 2015, against Liberals who said it was a bad idea and it was not the federal government's business to invest in child care. I am very glad to see the government come around on that, and I am glad to see some of the positive effects that were anticipated by New Democrats and others who knew better. I welcome the Liberals to the party. I hope they will join us on some other things while we are at it.

105 words

All Topics