44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 5, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his insightful thoughts around co-op housing and the experience he has had. That is a very important thing for us to hear in the House.
The question I would have is around the funding of all this. We know that the government has a burgeoning amount of deficit and debt that is accumulating for generations as we go forward. I look at my own personal situation, with three children and two grandchildren, and somebody is going to have to pay for this. I guess the question is this: Does the member opposite have a major concern with that? What is the plan going forward, and how does he think we are going to actually fund all of these wonderful examples that he has given today?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his engagement on the health committee that we are on together.
On the topic, I will pick two expenses that the member highlighted, things that he highlighted as expenses rather than opportunities. When we build housing for Canadians that is truly affordable, we give them access to the economy. We give their children opportunities to play sports, to learn new things and to engage, and it actually ends the cycle of poverty. I cannot think of a better investment in Canada's future than ensuring that we end the cycle of poverty.
Oftentimes in this House we speak about poverty reduction. I am more of a fan of poverty elimination. I do not think that in 2022 there needs to be poverty in Canada. It is not an inevitability, and we need to provide transitional housing or housing at a low cost. We have a $15 minimum wage in Canada, and that is not a wage that supports the ownership of a home, so there need to be solutions.
There are other programs, like early learning and child care, that actually pay for themselves in the sense that they get people back to work. When people go back to work, that is a revenue prospect for the federal government. As a young person, I have ultimate confidence in making sure that this country is viable going forward.
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Milton for his performance in the soccer game last night against the interns. He kept us in the game, as did the Minister of Justice in goal.
I want to give the member an opportunity to talk more about co-op housing. It is something the NDP has been pressing for for years and years. It is nice to see the government finally coming back to this. What do we need to do in the future to have more of this?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, budget 2022 commits $1.5 billion over the coming years, which will build 6,000 new co-op units. That is more co-op units than this country or any province has built in decades, and that is a turning point, as Tim Ross, executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, has said.
This is a turning point for Canada. I appreciate that the member opposite and the NDP have been pushing for this for so long. I am glad they did, and I am glad we are here now with a solution for Canadians going forward. More people will be able to afford where they live and be able to engage in our economy.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to the member across the way, I appreciate that.
I am pleased to rise today, not only as the member of Parliament for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, but also as the critic or shadow minister for indigenous services on behalf of the official opposition, to speak on the budget implementation act, Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2022 budget.
As I am sure many colleagues already know, I am a Conservative with libertarian leanings, and one of the predominant concepts of libertarian thought is the natural harmony of interests. It is predicated on the idea that individual interests are harmonious, in so far as acting in one's own interests furthers the interests of the community. In other words, it is the free market.
Another pillar of conservativism and libertarianism prompts groups to work out conflicts because of the benefit of joint prosperity. Farmers benefit from the prosperity of merchants. People benefit from competition between those merchants, and the resulting wealth creates jobs and opportunity.
In a system where everyone benefits, interests will naturally align. Only when government begins to hand out rewards based on political pressure do we find ourselves involved in an unresolvable conflict between groups that must contend for their piece of the budgetary pie.
That brings me to my first point of contention with Bill C-19. Rather than support indigenous people to achieve economic freedom from centuries of political oppression at its worst, and apathy at its best, the government has chosen to inflate the very bureaucratic system that purports reconciliation yet does everything it can to stymie it with the broken “Ottawa knows best” approach.
Recently, the first nations financial management board, a top-notch, indigenous-led financial organization that supports economic development for indigenous communities, wrote a letter to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. In that letter, the executive chair, Mr. Harold Calla, summed up the situation, using the example of housing. He stated:
While the budget makes significant investments in new housing, it does nothing to change the failed systems for getting homes built nor [does it] change the pay-as-you-go systems that [purport to] support First Nations housing.
Before I continue to quote more from Mr. Calla, I want to let the House know that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I apologize for not kicking that off. I appreciate the help from the table in front of me for reminding me about that.
As I mentioned, rather than tackling those systematic inequalities that keep indigenous people in poverty, poor health and without adequate housing, the budget simply throws money out, hoping the problem goes away.
Mr. Calla continued:
Building homes on-reserve is possible when homeowners have access to employment income, and economic development that creates employment can be one of the sources of stable, long-term jobs. Securing private sector financing is the key to moving away from the status quo of proposal-based government funding. To our team at the Financial Management Board, this is what systemic change and a new nation-to-nation relationship can look like.
Rather than pitting groups against each other, the government could solve the housing crisis for indigenous communities by, number one, listening to indigenous communities; two, not haemorrhaging money into a broken system; and three, getting out of the way of the free market.
Bill C-19 is not a responsible budget. This is a budget that, as I have said, simply pumps money into a broken “Ottawa knows best” system. This budget does nothing to empower indigenous communities to make decisions for themselves. Rather, it simply grows bureaucracies in Ottawa.
Again, one of the first pillars of libertarianism that students of political science are introduced to, although they may not know it at the time, is summed up neatly in the famous quote from Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Of course, at the time, the English parliamentarian, historian and writer was referring to the absolute power of popes and kings, but he might as well have been referring to the Indian Act and those government structures put in place to support it.
I will concede, thankfully, that in a parliamentary democracy, legislation is never absolute, and bad laws can be cast into the dustbin of political history, but that does not negate the fact that the Indian Act, like the absolutionist powers of historical Europe, suppresses the individual liberty of indigenous people and hampers their sustained economic growth.
I will take a moment to respond in advance to the government's retorts to the House about not taking advice from Conservatives, to say that successive Canadian governments have had the opportunity to raise indigenous people up, but chose instead to keep them down through the paternalistic policies of broken systems.
As we all know, Canada is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and in desperate need of economic recovery. It has serious geopolitical issues abroad. Now is not the time for the Prime Minister to grant himself even more power and be less accountable to Canadians.
We all share in the shame of the discriminatory historical policies that enshrined a broken, paternalistic system that limited indigenous rights, freedoms and prosperity. However, it is the government that continues to inflate and support those very structures that sustain the broken system that the Liberals promise to fix every election.
My second point of contention is that the budget has unleashed an avalanche of uncontrolled spending while failing to present a fiscal anchor and failing to present a plan to control inflation. We cannot simply keep printing money and seizing the earnings of Canadians to pay for bigger prices and more government spending.
For the first time in over 31 years, prices are up 6.7% compared to a year ago. More and more people are barely making ends meet as the pinch of inflation is making everything in their daily lives more expensive. Families are spending more on groceries. Gas is costing workers more, and home heating is shrinking seniors' savings. There is an affordability crisis here in Canada, and after seven years of Liberal out-of-control spending, Canadians are facing record inflation. The budget does nothing to address this, and it also does nothing to tackle skyrocketing house prices.
It is hubris to think that this government can make houses cheaper by continuing to spend even more money on its so-called priorities, but in fact it may create a shortage of housing that will undoubtedly cause prices to rise even higher as demand outstrips supply. We can say that, whether it be a physical house itself or the materials to build it, governments will never be able to replicate the free market.
A more sustainable, long-term approach to affordable housing would include reducing government red tape and making it easier, faster and ultimately cheaper for homes to be built. There are a number of non-taxpayer-funded initiatives that could support affordable housing, and it starts through the creation of socially responsible investment instruments, mandating federal tax laws to favour investments in affordable housing, and working with the provincial and municipal governments to unshackle the barriers to land use.
Now, a growing number of working Canadians simply cannot afford more of the tax-and-spend agenda of this government. They want real action to fight the cost-of-living crisis and an outline of a clear commitment to control inflation.
My third and final critique of Bill C-19 is that while our financial liability to government debt increases, the government's obligation to the taxpayer decreases. In the last month, my constituency office has been inundated with calls for passports. People cannot get through to Service Canada on the phone and are waiting days with no answer. Some constituents have reported that they stood in line for hours, only to be turned away at the end of the day, even though some public servants had no one in their lines. With the pandemic coming to an end and the anniversary of the 10-year passport, the increase in demand for passport renewals should have been pretty easy for the government to predict. The government expects Canadians to pay their taxes. Well, news flash, Canadians also demand services for those taxes.
Now, small businesses pay their taxes, and their ask has been pretty clear: Prioritize red tape reduction and ensure that the cost of doing business does not increase by tackling inflation. The Liberals have failed to bring forth a budget that prioritizes either request.
Farmers, as we all know, pay taxes. They are struggling to keep up with inflation, and the increased cost of fertilizer due to the war in Ukraine is really causing hardship for these farmers. By 2030, the rising cost of the carbon tax will take over $1.1 billion from farm families, which could be used to upgrade machinery and adopt more sustainable practices. To add insult to injury, the Liberals have chosen to spend $30 million just to administer carbon tax rebates to businesses and farms.
Canadian manufacturers and exporters continue to face high inflation rates. Supply-chain disruptions resulted in losses of more than $10.5 billion and critical labour shortages, with 81,000 vacancies. Budget 2022 fails to do enough to address those issues and many others.
These are just a few issues on which the budget fails to meet the needs of everyday Canadians, and they are why I cannot support this budget.
Milton Friedman once mused that if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand. We need less government liability, not more. We need more economic freedom, not less. Unfortunately, this budget delivers on neither.
1658 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today, May 5, is Red Dress Day, and many of us will be wearing red dresses on our lapels. It is a time to reflect on its significance. It is the day we recognize hundreds of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and the impact that has had on our society.
Within the budget there are many measures to deal with the issue of reconciliation, an area the member did not talk about. I wonder if he can express, from his point of view, the significance of May 5 being Red Dress Day, the importance of reconciliation and how this budget ultimately does take that into consideration.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for that important recognition and comment. He is right that today is Red Dress Day. We had a debate yesterday in the House until midnight regarding murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, and a lot of emotions were being shared in this chamber. We also talked about other campaigns. In my speech yesterday I talked about Red Dress Day, the Moose Hide Campaign and many others, all of which raise awareness of these very important issues.
Obviously, with a budget, things are not always terrible. There is money to address some of these issues, and I thank the government for that. However, at the end of the day, when we are talking about economic and fiscal reconciliation, that is where the budget falls short.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since my colleague is the critic for indigenous matters, I would like to point out that there was an excellent article this morning in Le Devoir about indigenous homelessness in urban areas. I am assuming he did not read it, but that is not what is important.
This is known to be a big issue in Montreal. Money was allocated to combat homelessness during the pandemic because it was becoming a growing problem in cities.
Unfortunately, there has been no solution to indigenous homelessness. Some money has been allocated but it is not fixing the problem. There have been deaths in Montreal in recent years, and I imagine the same is true in Toronto and Vancouver.
How does my colleague propose that we solve this crisis? Even if the money is there, it is a particular problem that Canada has not been able to resolve.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my friend from the Bloc is absolutely right. Housing is a major concern for indigenous people, first nations and those who are off reserve specifically, which I think his question referred to. There is a major problem with access to affordable housing.
There are some solutions we can talk about, such as incentivizing municipalities to speed up the process and costs associated with accessing building permits. In many cases, obtaining a building permit, whether it is for a private investor trying to build rental housing or for the government itself, and trying to access funds from provincial and federal governments to build housing on a municipal level can be quite time-consuming and costly. That all factors into the price, so when we are talking about affordable housing, we need to reduce the barriers and red tape.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the budget contains $300 million this year, $600 million next year and $1.2 billion the year after, for a total ongoing commitment of $1.7 billion thereafter, to provide dental care to some 6.5 million Canadians: the children, seniors, people living with disabilities and low-income families with no dental insurance now.
My hon. colleague talked about being unable to afford things. I was in the House when the Conservatives wanted to increase military spending in this country to 2% of GDP, which would add about $26 billion every year to our budget.
Does he think that spending $1.7 billion to bring dental care to 6.5 million Canadians is less of a priority than spending $26 billion a year? Can he explain to us why he thinks we can afford the military but cannot afford dental care given those numbers?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course dental care is an issue. In every community, people are trying to access it, and I think we need to do a better job of that. The feds need to work better with the provinces to figure out a solution to that. However, there are priorities every government must manage. First we need a strong economy in order to fund those programs, and at this point our economic anchors are being eroded away.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the budget implementation act and the impacts this legislation will have on the constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain and Canadians across the country.
It is disappointing, but not surprising, to see yet another budget that is full of exorbitant spending that will do almost nothing to benefit those who live in rural Canada. One need only look at the news these days to see how divided our country has become. It is thanks to policies like those contained in this omnibus budget that those divisions are continuing and widening under the Prime Minister. This is the same Prime Minister who promised he would never do an omnibus budget bill, although it is reflective of his understanding of and statements on financial issues: He believes the budget will balance itself and that monetary policy is not a priority.
When looking at the overall picture of the Liberal government’s spending, the numbers are concerning to say the very least. In just over six years, government spending has increased by 53%, yet Canadians are worse off than they were when the Liberals first sought power in 2015. It is unconscionable to both me and my constituents that a government can spend billions of dollars, racking up our national debt in the process, and still have no meaningful impact on improving the lives of Canadians.
This reckless spending will need to be paid for at some point in time, and it will fall onto our children and grandchildren to foot the bill. My daughter will have a second child next month, our second grandchild, and unfortunately our future grandson will have this enormous debt to pay off over his lifespan. In fact, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's national debt clock, as of yesterday, had debt per person at $31,345.01. This is the escalating legacy that the Liberals are leaving behind, despite their false assurances that Canadians are happy and prospering under their leadership.
On top of an ever-climbing national debt, Canadians are also dealing with out-of-control inflation, which is driving up the cost of living across the board. Instead of using this budget as an opportunity to give Canadians a much-needed break, the Liberals chose to spend money launching new programs that stand to benefit a few rather than help the many who need it.
For example, on April 1, the Liberals had an opportunity to provide Canadians with some relief from the carbon tax, yet instead they chose to increase it, taking more money out of the taxpayer’s pocket and putting it into government coffers. As I have said before in the House, it is “dyspocketnesia”: taking from one pocket and putting it into the other, and then forgetting why it was done. This is not what my constituents want, need or deserve.
I would like to spend some time talking about the impact of this budget on the energy industry in my riding, especially as it pertains to emissions and the future of energy production in Canada.
A large number of my constituents work in the energy sector, and thanks to the government, many are experiencing deep concerns about their careers in the longer term. As many members are aware, the Liberal plan to phase out coal-fired power is well under way, and while the Liberals believe they are supporting this transition adequately, I can tell members first-hand that they have completely dropped the ball and workers and communities are being left behind.
Since I became a member of Parliament in 2015, one of the issues I have advocated for time and again is the use of carbon capture and storage technology, or CCUS, to reduce emissions while also extending the life of the power plants it is used on. It took seven years for the government to listen. Just imagine the amount of emissions that could have been captured in those seven years if we had acted earlier, not to mention the jobs that would have been created.
The 2022 budget does create a new tax credit for CCUS expenses, but the credit does not cover enhanced oil recovery, which to me is a huge oversight. For those who may not know, carbon capture serves to decarbonize the energy sector by permanently locking liquefied CO2 into the rock formations of spent oil wells.
On a number of occasions, I have had the privilege to tour the Boundary Dam site in my riding, which captures CO2 using amides. BD3 takes the captured CO2 and either stores it two kilometres below the earth’s surface or sells it, transporting it 50 miles away where it is stored and enhances the oil recovery at the Whitecap Weyburn injection site. This utilized enhanced oil recovery continues to impress me, as does the level of knowledge and innovation that has gone into developing this technology. This is on top of the reduced emissions, which border on making BD3 CCUS carbon-neutral.
The fact is that if the Liberals had included enhanced oil recovery in their tax credit, it would have brought much-needed jobs and investment into Canada, especially during a time of change and uncertainty in the energy industry. Unfortunately, those huge investment dollars are going south to the United States, where they have the 45Q investment tax credit. I have asked multiple cabinet ministers over the years if it is the industry they want to kill or the emissions, and of course the enthusiastic answer I get every time is that it is the emissions. The exclusion of enhanced oil recovery from this tax credit tells me this is not the case.
Canada still requires the use of fossil fuels and will for some time as we move into the future. Instead of allowing CCUS and EOR to function as tools that would help lower emissions, while simultaneously producing the energy that Canada needs at the lowest possible emissions intensity, the Liberals have chosen not to support the innovative work and projects that are happening right here in our own country.
Furthermore, a white paper produced by the International CCS Knowledge Centre states, “[enhanced oil recovery] results in a 37% reduction in CO2 emissions per barrel of oil produced as compared to conventional oil production.” The numbers are there and the technology is there, but the Liberals have yet again chosen not to support the energy industry by picking and choosing which parts of CCUS fit their green agenda, regardless of how this might impact Canadians.
In the last month alone, I have seen multiple groups travel from my constituency to Ottawa and advocate on behalf of the people and communities that will be drastically impacted by the transition away from coal-fired power. According to the Coal Association of Canada, the transition will eliminate approximately 42,000 jobs from Canada’s labour force and take many billions of dollars out of Canada's economy each year. While I understand that the Liberals will try to justify this by saying that they are providing funding for these communities through their just transition initiative, I am here to tell members that they have patently failed the hard-working Canadians who will be affected by this major industry shift.
One of the groups that came here shared a study that was conducted for the Town of Coronach, in my riding, regarding the negative impacts the transition will have on the community. The economic consequences are alarming, indicating a $400-million loss in GDP, a 67% loss in population and an 89% loss in household income.
While the Liberals will claim that the just transition initiative is going to create new, green jobs to replace those that are lost, the fact is that those new jobs would not be in rural areas. This means that the people of Coronach, and those in other rural communities who are in the same boat, will need to consider uprooting their lives to find work elsewhere. In what world does this show a just transition for those who have been contributing to Canada’s economy for their entire careers?
On top of these startling figures, the federal Liberals have only dedicated approximately 3.5% of transition funding to economic development activities that would ensure affected communities remain viable post-2030. Instead, they have invested the funds into community infrastructure such as roads, waste water and parks, which are built by businesses from bigger, urban communities from outside the riding.
If the Town of Coronach stands to lose 67% of its population, what good are the parks? What good are roads if there is nobody left to drive on them because the Liberal government decimated the local workforce? There will be nobody to pay taxes for the upkeep of this infrastructure or to maintain it. It will just deteriorate.
Another sector that is essential for my riding is agriculture. Shamefully, the word “farmer” was only mentioned 11 times in the 280-page budget, and there were no new measures that would have provided support to our agricultural producers. Recognition of the need for food security does not exist with the government. Instead of giving farmers a break, the Liberals increased the carbon tax on April 1. The carbon tax alone takes almost $1.1 billion from farm families that could have been used to upgrade equipment and adopt more sustainable practices. As a reminder to my colleagues across the floor, farmers are small business owners. They cannot afford an ever-increasing carbon tax on top of things like inflation and skyrocketing gas prices.
In conclusion, I know I speak for my constituents when I say that the people of Souris—Moose Mountain have had enough of a government that pretends to take of care them while doing nothing to make their lives easier. Our country has never been more divided thanks to a government that disregards anyone who does not agree with it. Canadians deserved a budget that would give them a break, but instead they are facing uncontrolled government spending, higher taxes and a rising national debt.
1705 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's intervention today. At the beginning of his speech, he said that the response to spending and investing in Canadians was, in his words, “no meaningful impact”.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because if we compare Canada with other countries, we have one of the best responses in terms of taking care of our citizens and in terms of looking at the death rate per capita, for example.
I am wondering this. Could the member explain to the House, and perhaps give a couple of examples of other OECD countries that fared much better than Canada did?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the member has indicated, around this country, we see where the economy is going.
I recognize the member is from the Kingston and the Islands area, but the unfortunate part, and the reality, is that a lot of Canadians do not understand rural Canada. They do not have a clue. Although the member might believe that rural Canada is where he is, a population of 50,000 is not rural Canada. I would invite the member to come to my riding. I would be happy to bring the member to my riding and show him what real rural Canada is about.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The Islanders are not going to like that.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/5/22 1:28:37 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the parliamentary secretary that he had his opportunity to ask a question. If he has anything to add, he needs to wait until it is time and I recognize him.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech on carbon capture strategies in the oil and gas sector. I always thought the Conservatives liked to position themselves as defenders and custodians of the public purse.
Two of the big carbon capture projects under way in Alberta are costing more than $2 billion, and 57% of that is coming out of the public purse. Low-carbon oil is therefore not cost-effective without government support.
I have a hard time understanding how a Conservative could advocate government support for an industry that does not need it. Could my colleague explain?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, once again, I would be more than happy to have the member come out to Souris—Moose Mountain. I would take him to CCS, so he could actually see what is going on.
There are many people at the CCS Knowledge Centre. I would be happy to introduce them, so the member could learn a little more. Ultimately what we are talking about is carbon capture. We have a power plant, BD3, that is capturing all the emissions. It captures 98% of the sulphur. It takes that sulphur and produces sulphur dioxide that it either utilizes or sells. It captures the CO2 by using amines to capture it and inject it into the ground. The power plant injects it into the ground two kilometres below where we are. On top of that, it can then sell that emission to help reduce the emissions for oil-intense companies. They would utilize that to further reduce, by 37%, their emissions.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, I spent much of my youth in rural Saskatchewan, as well as Wynyard.
I just want to talk a little about aging. Aging in rural Canada is happening at a rate as fast as, if not faster than, the rest of Canada. Aging in place is very important. I just want to ask the member a question. There are some aging in place items in the budget, such as the multi-generational home renovation tax credit, the home accessibility tax credit and the homebuyers' tax credit, but each of these requires persons with disabilities to have disability tax credit eligibility.
I wanted to know if the member feels this is fair. Does he feel these will be adequate tax credits for people living in rural Canada?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is right. She points out things that are very important as the population ages and as we see disabled people within this country having multiple challenges in order to move forward.
The member mentioned the issue of home renovation tax credits that were there. That is a huge issue, because the reality is that, with the way it is set up, the government has not even put in place people who can assess whether they need those renovations. A disabled person who knows they need to put in new windows cannot even touch that until such time as somebody has come, which is taking forever because those people are not available.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
