44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, first of all I would say that if the member listened to my speech, he would know I said that one of the things we got was dental care. This budget was not what we wanted to see, but we were able to get some things.
The member also talked about the fact that we cannot hold the government to account. In fact, we have a very transparent, clear agreement, and if the government does not fulfill its side of the equation, then we do not support it. It is very simple.
Maybe the opposition members are very upset because they have not been able to show that they have gotten a single thing for Canadians during this Parliament.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 6:03:01 p.m.
- Watch
I want to ask members who have questions to please wait until I call for questions and comments. Otherwise, they should not be speaking out.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with much of what we heard from the member for Edmonton Strathcona, in particular coming from Alberta and talking about the need to invest in a prosperous transition for workers and the concerns with not seeing any emergency funds for Canadians with disabilities.
In particular, though, the member brings a lot of experience and expertise to this place with respect to corporate accountability abroad, and in fact she has a private member's bill on this topic. I wonder if the member would share more with this House in terms of what she is proposing with that bill.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague's interventions in this House are always very helpful, and I love the opportunity to speak about my bill, Bill C-263.
Basically, it is to do what the government had promised to do initially, which is to give us a CORE ombudsperson who has the ability to compel testimony and compel documents. It is basically to give the CORE ombudsperson the teeth necessary to do the job that was promised in the first place.
Right now, we have an ombudsperson who was put in place in 2018 and has investigated an entire zero cases of misbehaviour by Canadian companies, despite over 40 complaints by people around the world.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, especially since it might give me a chance to reconcile with the member for Winnipeg North. We had a bit of a discussion about Quebec's political weight this week. I am soft at heart and did not want to offend him, so I thought to myself, why not try to be optimistic for 10 minutes?
I will start by saying that there is a pretty big rumour going around, fuelled by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, that the Bloc Québécois is looking for a fight. First of all, the very definition of politics involves parties with opposing views that challenge one another, which inevitably leads to some fighting. However, that is not all. The Bloc Québécois is a party of proposals, and we demonstrated this in the context of programs related to COVID-19. Consider, for example, commercial rents. The Bloc Québécois has proven that it is ready to work to improve government bills.
For example, there is my colleague from Joliette, also known as “handsome Gaby”, and what he has done for the meaderies. In my riding, there is the Walkyrie meadery in the small municipality of Lamarche. The owner, Pierrot Lessard, came to meet with me with one of my former students. That struck me, because shifting from political science to making mead is quite something, even though politics leads to all things. They told me that if an excise tax were ever imposed, they would no longer be competitive and could not sell their bottles of mead. They were truly distraught. We managed to talk about it with my colleague from international trade and the member for Joliette, and I think it was a good collaboration. This may be what brings us closer together, the member for Winnipeg North and me.
I simply and quickly want to say that lifting the excise tax in the context of the agreement with Australia is a big deal for Quebec. Microbreweries are developing and expanding. We are seeing that quite a bit in Quebec, but we are also seeing that with the meaderies and the cider mills. The volume of cider production has gone from 3.2 million litres in 2005 to 5.1 million litres in 2021. That is not nothing. That is 60% growth in five years. The sector is clearly booming. An estimated 11% of all apples grown in Quebec are turned into cider, a volume that is trending upward. I can imagine what the imposition of the excise tax might have meant; it would have disrupted not only the development of the cideries sector, but also that of the apple growers. We know that the excise tax would have considerably reduced the farmers' net margin. Lifting the tax is a good thing. This collaboration is something the member for Winnipeg North could keep in mind when we talk about this again later.
The other fairly interesting aspect of Bill C‑19 is the work of my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, whose nickname is “sweet Loulou”. The Bloc Québécois demonstrated that Bill C‑19 contained a significant flaw concerning the social security tribunals. I remember them because I had some dealings with groups of unemployed workers when the Harper government decided to carry out its unfortunate reform of EI in 2013. I am not going to make my Conservative colleagues' ears burn, but the government replaced the administrative tribunals with a single-window decision body. Many unemployed workers ended up being very poorly served. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who is a former trade unionist, which shows that no one is perfect, raised this with the support of former colleagues, and the government reconsidered its position. This change had been proposed by KPMG. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville argued this point very capably, with the result that we were able to move Bill C‑19 in a direction that may serve the interests of unemployed workers better. I want to thank her for that.
I said that I wanted to be optimistic, but bad habits are hard to shake.
There are some aspects of Bill C‑19 that are not quite as good. My colleagues know that I am a fan of the Minister of Finance. I have been in Parliament since 2019, and I have found the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to be amenable and open to discussion. I will always remember how much she helped by getting aluminum recognized in CUSMA. Through our discussions with her, we were able to come to an acceptable compromise.
I do get the impression that she has been weighed down a bit because of the conflict in Ukraine, which must be taking up a lot of her time. I want to be charitable because that is not her fault. However, there is something that the government did not manage to address in Bill C‑19, and that is the harmful effects of the luxury tax on the aerospace industry. This issue could have been addressed relatively easily, since we are in favour of the luxury tax in principle. The only problem we have is that this tax also applies to exports.
My colleagues know that the aerospace industry is located primarily in Quebec. This tax weakens that industry. In simple terms, Bombardier estimates that this tax could impact its cash flow by as much as $50 million to $150 million per quarter. There should have been an opportunity to work on this as a team, which would have been very welcome.
I do see a way out. As we emerge from the crisis, the public treasury will have to get back on its feet. Our country's fat cats must be asked to contribute in order to have worthwhile public services. Why not go after the greediest ones? On this point, I agree with my NDP colleagues. Right now, the fattest cats are the oil and gas sectors, which are reaping profits the likes of which have not been seen in 30 years. It is completely outrageous that every big oil and gas company is pocketing middle-class wealth while ordinary people are forced to continue buying gas while waiting for transportation electrification. That said, I do see a solution, namely, slightly more aggressive taxation and an end to the generous subsidies that the oil and gas sectors receive.
We as a society will pay for these much-vaunted carbon capture and sequestration strategies. The budget earmarks $2.6 billion to support greedy oil companies, which I find kind of hard to swallow given that I am still waiting for the federal government to support the aerospace industry, a pretty crucial sector for Quebec's future.
I am a good sport, and I hope to connect with Ms. Freeland after the battle. Maybe we will manage to—
1194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 6:13:10 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I would remind the hon. member not to use ministers' first or last names. I encourage him to be more careful. He has one and a half minutes left.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my most sincere apologies. How rude of me. I got carried away, and I apologize.
I cannot finish without speaking about what is missing from Bill C‑19. This bill provides $2 billion for health, but this is a one-time, non-recurring payment. Has a nurse ever been hired on a non-recurring basis? We cannot say that we need a nurse or medical specialist for the year 2022-23 but will no longer need them in 2024.
The major missing piece in Bill C‑19 is funding for health care. All of the provinces are asking for $28 billion to increase the federal share of funding from 22% to 35% of the total cost of health care. Everyone knows that, year after year, Quebec allocates between 46% and 48% of its total budget to health care.
How much is left for primary, secondary and post-secondary education? How much is left for all the other government responsibilities? Not much. This is work we could do together with the government. A sustainable health care system requires transfers. I am certain that we will manage to discuss this issue with our Liberal colleagues.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there were wonderful references and the attempt in the speech. What the member does demonstrate is that, in the last federal election, there was a very clear indication that Canadians in all regions of our country want a higher sense of co-operation, and we can provide that.
I am going to pick up on the member's last comments on the importance of health care transfers. We all recognize how important that issue is, and I have always thought maybe it is something we should have some ongoing debates on, whether it would be with an opposition motion or in a standing committee. It would be very interesting to get a better sense of exactly where we are and what the future might hold in terms of long-term investments into health care. In order to appreciate that, we also have to appreciate the history of health care transfers. Could I get the members thoughts on that aspect?
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to correct my colleague.
It is true that there was an indication from Canadians during the election campaign. That does not stop at the end of the campaign, however. The government needs to listen to what civil society is saying now.
Not too long ago, we showed up with representatives from all health care sector unions. All of these big unions called for health transfers to be increased to 35%. All provincial premiers and the Council of the Federation have said the same thing.
Collaboration requires that the government listen to civil society, but I do not think that is happening. Sometimes, the government appears to be using its new alliance with the NDP as an excuse not to listen. This is not a judgment, but something I have observed.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague noted the tax on luxury goods, which is included in Bill C-19. While this is something we certainly support the direction of, I cannot help but note the theme where the government makes symbolic but largely insignificant moves on things like wealth inequality or housing affordability, yet it refuses to pull the larger levers that would make an actual difference on these important issues.
Does my colleague agree this is a troubling theme we see from the government?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely.
However, my main concern is that all this public money is going to the oil and gas sector, which is making money hand over fist. I cannot understand why any public decision-maker would decide to financially support an industry that is currently reaping eye-watering profits, an industry that also contributes to putting us all at risk, since it is the industry that produces the most greenhouse gases.
When people look back and analyze this situation in 20 or 30 years' time, I can guarantee that no one will believe the kind of rationale the government is using to try to justify supporting the oil and gas industry.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Jonquière for his speech.
To be clear, the budget proposes to invest a total of $7.1 billion, until 2030, in a new subsidy for the oil and gas sector in the form of a carbon capture and storage tax credit, which academics across the country have called a false climate solution.
I know my colleague shares my disappointment in that regard. Can he elaborate on how that money could be provided to workers to support a successful transition?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague, especially given that the Minister of Environment told us that he was going to end the fossil fuel subsidies since they are inefficient. I now have the impression that all this talk of inefficient subsidies is nothing but rhetoric.
What the government is trying to say today is that the oil and gas sector is synonymous with green development, which is a complete contradiction. Far more things, constructive things, could be done by investing in clean energy sectors. However, that is not happening.
I will close by saying that it is a 1:14 ratio. The government is investing $1 billion in clean energy while investing $14 billion in the oil and gas sector.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak this afternoon to the budget implementation bill at report stage. The bill seeks to implement certain measures found in budget 2022.
It was encouraging to see the opposition parties work together to improve this bill at committee. However, I believe that more amendments are needed.
I also want to recognize the hard work of my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, in his role as the shadow minister of finance.
Through these deliberations, parliamentarians will decide the direction of our country for the next year and beyond. These decisions will have long-lasting effects. That is why it is very important for all members in this place to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation. Regrettably, the government, with the support of the NDP, has once again stifled debate on legislation by imposing time allocation.
An issue that remains top of mind for millions of Canadians, and many in my riding, is health care. If the pandemic highlighted anything, it is the importance of having a strong health care system in place, one that can respond effectively and efficiently in a crisis. While health care falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces, I had hoped that, given our system was nearly driven to the breaking point, the government would have supported them in addressing their respective needs.
The first ministers were clear. They asked for an increase to health transfer payments to deal with the remaining effects of the pandemic. However, once again, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, decided to disregard the requests of the provinces and not provide any additional support to them.
With respect to the cost of living, the pattern set by the government over the years is a complete disregard for the needs of Canadians and an inability to properly manage Canada’s finances. In 2015, the government inherited a balanced budget, which was made possible by the careful management of Canada’s finances through the 2010 financial crisis and the years that followed. While the Liberals continue to claim that the pandemic caused inflation, we know that high deficits pre-2020 were already setting the stage for inflation. The reckless spending in the five years that preceded the pandemic put Canada in a more precarious position than we needed to be. This is having dire consequences on the ability of Canadians to manage their finances.
Record government spending has caused the cost of living to rise dramatically, with inflation at a 31-year high, reflected in rising food and gas prices and astronomically high home prices. This has been devastating to many Canadians across the country. While the NDP-Liberal government brags about the amount of money it has spent, it fails to recognize that its programs inevitably end up costing more with little to no results. Now, with this budget, it is doubling down on many of the same failed policies.
Over the past seven years, the Liberal government has hampered Saskatchewan’s growth by implementing job-killing policies, increasing regulations, increasing taxes and scaring away investment.
Having said that, in budget 2022, the government is finally following the leadership of my home province of Saskatchewan with respect to the development of small modular reactors. In March of this year, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick came to an agreement for the construction of these reactors. This was great news for the respective provincial economies, as well as the environment.
Conservatives have long been proponents of nuclear energy and have pointed out numerous times that the development of nuclear energy would greatly improve our domestic energy sector, as well as assist in the reduction of emissions. Rather than attacking our oil and gas sector, which is among the safest and cleanest in the world, the federal government could have been more proactive in promoting nuclear energy as a way for Canada to reduce carbon emissions.
I am sure the agreement between the provinces went a long way in convincing the federal government to jump on board with the good work being done by the provinces.
Staying on the topic of energy and failed Liberal-NDP policies, the climate action incentive payment resulting from the skyrocketing costs of the carbon tax is desperately hurting my constituents. The PBO has reported that households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will face carbon taxes which exceed the climate action incentive payments.
In a rural riding such as mine, the carbon tax is particularly hard-hitting. During the long, cold winters on the prairies, heating bills increase significantly, which is only further exasperated by the carbon tax. Add to this the large geographic regions and the lack of public transportation in many rural areas, which mean people must drive everywhere they need to go. The rising carbon tax is doing nothing but putting more pressure on my constituents.
That same failed approach is true for the agricultural industry, which is also very important across Saskatchewan and indeed to the whole country. Here was an opportunity for this NDP-Liberal government to demonstrate that it understands and values this industry. However, it let the opportunity slip through its fingers.
With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, world food security has become a major area of concern, and our ability to feed the world is now more critical than ever. It would have been prudent for the government to focus on supporting our agriculture sector and the complimentary infrastructure farmers need to get their products to market.
Listening to our producers, who are being hit hard by the carbon tax, inflation and higher input costs would have been a welcome change of pace for the government. Instead of listening to the pleas of our farmers, ranchers and other workers in the agricultural sector, and getting behind the Conservative initiative to exempt farmers from the carbon tax, the government hiked it once again.
Budget 2022 also includes an increase in defence spending for which there is broad support. Increased NORAD funding is a good start to improve our ability to protect the integrity of our national borders.
With the complete disregard Russia has shown for international law through its invasion of Ukraine, the need to ensure the integrity of our land in the Arctic has been intensified by the territorial claims put forward by it, which encroach on our northern borders. The promise of an additional $8 billion of funding over the next five years looks good on its face, however, the funding plan that has been put forward has been woefully underwhelming.
A PBO report shows that from the 2017-18 fiscal year to the 2020-21 fiscal year, there was $10 billion in lapsed funding. Setting aside the lapsed funding, the additional funding amounts to little more than a top up.
Due to the inflation crisis, which the government has treated with callousness, the impact of increased defence spending will be significantly lessened. Further, the NDP voted against a Conservative motion to increase defence spending to meet our NATO obligations. How can we trust the government to take the funding of our armed forces seriously when it has allied itself with a party that has made clear its lack of support for military spending? Perhaps this is the reason that the announced funding does not bring us up to the requirements of our NATO obligations.
In closing, Saskatchewanians and all Canadians needed a budget that would address the issues facing our energy and agriculture sectors, the cost of living, and our failing health care system. Instead, the Prime Minister chose to buy the NDP’s support so that he can continue to govern rather than earn back the trust of Canadians. This budget is symbolic of broken promises and the Liberal track record of leaving Canadians behind.
1311 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was going to bring up the Minister of Agriculture coming to Manitoba to meet with cattle producers and talk about providing direct drought relief, which was exceptionally well received in the Prairies, as just one of many examples, and/or the huge increases we have seen in the Department of Agriculture, but my question is in regard to the member's statement on the NATO commitment of 2%.
Does the member not realize that during Stephen Harper's era, it just got to the 1% mark? We have seen dramatic increases under this administration in support of our allied countries. Could the member provide her thoughts on whether she has any regrets that Stephen Harper did not have that same sort of commitment that she seems to have today in terms of supporting NATO?
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I will say is that the budget makes it very clear that the NDP-Liberal government has no plan to increase defence spending to reach the target of 2% of GDP, which Canada committed to as a NATO member. Despite promising to invest $6 billion in the Canadian Armed Forces, there is no plan to ensure that the NDP-Liberal government will follow through on any of its commitments.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, but I do need to share some concerns. I might encourage her to dial back some of the things she said.
She said western oil is among the cleanest in the world, but we need to acknowledge that, empirically, tar sands oil is extremely polluting. I would like her to clarify what she meant and tell us what oil she was talking about. Given this problem, does she not think it is about time the west undertook an economic and environmental transition?
The Bloc Québécois has said time and time again that it is prepared to commit whatever money is being spent on fossil fuel every year to supporting the region's energy transition, which would be a huge help to my colleague's constituents.
I would like her to comment on that.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the simple answer is no, I do not agree with that member. I believe that we should be developing our resources here in Canada to meet the needs of not only our country but the world, when it comes to ethically produced and developed oil.
From the beginning, the Liberal government has been anti-energy. Its policies have been destructive to the energy sector in my home province of Saskatchewan and the west.
I would urge this colleague to reconsider his stance on the ethically produced oil within our own country.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just weeks ago, the Conservatives were in the House arguing on an opposition day that we need to increase the defence budget in a way that, according to the PBO, would cost more than $30 billion, but then they oppose dental care and they oppose investments in child care.
If the hon. member had a choice, which programs would the Conservatives cut first? They are certainly not standing up for people. Would they cut dental care, child care or the $8-billion increase to military spending?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the important things to note in this debate is that after two years, the Liberal government has still not demonstrated any national leadership. This has caused provincial governments to have to spend more on health care. I truly do believe that, with the dental care program that the Liberals negotiated with their NDP counterparts to put into the budget, they are attempting to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Provinces have been bearing the brunt of dealing with COVID and now the government is repaying them by trying to infringe on their jurisdiction.
I would encourage that member to continue to hold those members to account for the decisions they are making.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
