44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 6, 2022 10:00AM
- Dec/6/22 4:04:26 p.m.
- Watch
The member's time has expired. I am sure she will be able to add more during questions and comments.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on the profits of grocers. As the chair of the agriculture committee, I had the privilege of listening to some of the testimony yesterday from corporate leaders in the grocer sector in Canada. They maintain that even during the pandemic, their margin was around 2% to 4% on food-related profits.
The member talked about excessive profits, and I can appreciate that this government has made important investments and made sure banks and insurance companies have been paying additional corporate taxes.
However, what is her definition of “excessive” as it relates to grocers? Is 2% to 4% excessive in her mind? That is an honest question so we can see where that basis might be.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would imagine $1 million a day is pretty excessive. Grocers can talk about it being about the supply chain and so on, yet the amount of money they are making, is $1 million in profits a day. We could talk about the bread price-fixing scam and that they never really paid that money back. We could talk about the money that they were given by the government to improve their refrigerators, money that they were going to invest in their own companies anyway, but the government rushed to the rescue and gave them more taxpayers' dollars. It is the same pockets, but it is just in different ways that taxpayers have to pay.
It is not the government's job to defend companies. Its job is to equalize payments, taxes and programs to ensure equality.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I think there may be one thing she forgot to talk about, and that is employment insurance.
As we know, EI is an economic stabilizer during a recession, and we hear there may be a recession in 2023. I am worried for the people in my riding with respect to EI, because six out of 10 workers will not be eligible for EI.
After seven years, the government still has not made a move. What does my colleague think the government should do to finally reform EI?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was taking too much time and that was the next point in my speech. It was about those workers and how they have given to the EI system. However, because successive Liberal and Conservative governments have used it to pay off debt and make themselves look better in terms of their bottom lines, they have taken advantage of that money and, at the same time, restricted how workers can use EI when they need it. This is a huge fear, and it is what New Democrats have been fighting for in order to ensure EI fairness.
One of the things we want to do is introduce a service guarantee that will make departments responsible for establishing and publishing binding service standards for programs like EI. That would be a start, but ensuring we strengthen it to allow more workers to access it is really key.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the end of my colleague's speech, she talked a bit about layoffs, and we know that in the fall economic statement the government was beginning to hint at the possibly of a recession early in 2023. However, we have not seen the government's much-promised and vaunted EI modernization.
I am wondering if the member wants to talk about the importance of EI reform as we head into a potential recession.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all of his work on this file.
This is really key and something that New Democrats, for a long time, have been fighting for. We have been trying to ensure we are protecting the deferred wages that workers are putting into that system, so they know they are there and they will be allowed to access them when they need them. Those are the key things. It is not about ensuring that governments can use them to prop up what they consider is a balanced budget.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as usual, it is an absolute privilege to see everyone here and to be able to discuss Bill C‑32, which implements the measures outlined in the fall economic update.
I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of the bill. I am very pleased with the way the Minister of Finance has struck a balance between providing important programs for very low-income Canadians in a targeted way while remaining fiscally responsible.
Today, most of my comments will be on important issues for the future, particularly in the context of a potential global recession in 2023. Indeed, the global economic situation is a bit bleak right now, and I think it is very important to create additional opportunities for the future while finding ways to not spend government funds.
I am going to cover three areas. I hope that as we get close to the end of the time I will get a signal so I can try to allocate my time accordingly.
As we try to make the transition to a low-carbon economy, the first thing that I think is really important for all of us as parliamentarians to give some thought to is the amount of energy generation that is going to be required in the country. Estimates suggest that we are going to have to double the generation of electricity in Canada in the next 15 to 20 years. That represents about 130 Site C dams, which is a major hydroelectric project in British Columbia.
I have said it before in this House and I will say it again that the government is focused on it, but I think we as parliamentarians need to be focused on the question of how we actually create that generation capacity. I have been a strong proponent, a strong voice, for small modular reactors. Whether or not it is the hydrogen opportunity that exists or whether it is looking at the hydroelectric opportunities, we need to be thinking about how we are going to generate that electricity in a zero emission way to be able to work towards our goals by 2050.
Whether it is major energy projects or it is things such as critical minerals, we need to be mindful of how we could help drive forward and expedite major projects that are going to be important to our transition towards a low-carbon economy. The two areas would be electricity and critical minerals. We have seen our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry do tremendous work on lining up a supply chain in Canada around the automobile industry. I know this is going to matter for everyone in the country, but particularly for those in Quebec and Ontario, where we do have a very strong auto tradition. That is going to be the future.
We also need to consider the critical minerals that are associated with those vehicles, with that transition on an energy front and on an environmental front, but also on the security side as well. China controls 90% of the global rare earth minerals in the world. Canada is playing a role and can play an even bigger role, but I think we need to give some thought as to how we are going to allow major mining projects and major energy transition projects to happen in the country in an expedited manner. That is something we need to see in the days ahead. Our various cabinet ministers who would be on this file are thinking about that, but as parliamentarians we need to be providing solutions and giving some thoughts on that as well.
I have mentioned presumptive approval for Health Canada. Health Canada regulates a whole bunch of different things, from hockey helmet specifications to carbonated drinks to feed additives, crop protection products and vaccines. It is quite an extensive list when we see the swath of what Health Canada regulates.
I would like to see us look at ways we can change the approval process of certain elements. As the chair of the agriculture committee, my reflection over the last year or so has been that there are ways we can rely on other jurisdictions. What I am suggesting here in the House today is that we look at things such as agriculture-related products and try to find a way to make sure that our farmers have the same tools that other jurisdictions might have and make sure we are competitive. We would do that by looking at other jurisdictions whose regulatory processes we trust.
I cannot speak for all my colleagues, but I would suggest, by and large, that we respect that as the regulatory process goes forward in United States it is done in a reasonable manner. The European Union, for example, would be another jurisdiction that we respect and believe the process it is undertaking is valid. There is Australia, New Zealand and Japan, as well. Everyone would have their examples, but there are jurisdictions that we think would mirror the process that we have in Canada. What if we had a process where, if an applicant arrived in Canada with a particular product, and I will stick to agriculture for now, that already had approval from the United States, the European Union and maybe Australia, let us say it was three out of six jurisdictions whose regulatory processes we trusted, we would give that product a presumptive approval.
I think it is very important to find other solutions to speed up regulatory processes in Canada so we can make sure our farmers, our processors and our businesses have the tools they need to be competitive.
That would ensure they are actually in hand and are there. It is something I lay before the House. It is something that does not cost any money, but I think is extremely important and could be a really good sign for our stakeholders in the country without putting our Canadian consumers or Canadian values at risk, because we would be relying on existing processes that we trust. We would still be doing the process in Canada, but providing a presumptive approval until such time that Health Canada either found there was a reason to suspend the approval or it went through the entire process and was approved. It would of course reduce that delay time.
One of the two other areas I want to cover is the offshore wind opportunity in Atlantic Canada. There is a global race right now on being able to develop zero-emission hydrogen products. That is important for the future. We have seen the Prime Minister sign an accord with the German chancellor on being able to deliver Canadian hydrogen by 2025. We need legislation to make sure that the offshore petroleum boards in Atlantic Canada can service the regulator on actually developing offshore wind to drive the hydrogen market. It is a multi-billion dollar opportunity in Canada. There are other jurisdictions around the world that have the same potential, but we need to make sure that legislation is in place. It is something that I look forward to working with all my colleagues on, indeed on the government side, to make sure that is in place. There is a requirement with the Nova Scotia legislature as well.
The last thing I want to talk about is the Atlantic loop. I held a press conference last week where I took the opportunity to provide some comments regarding my frustration with the provincial government in Nova Scotia, particularly around the question of affordability and some of the measures it could take in Nova Scotia to be able to join us on the federal side with respect to some of the measures we are putting in place. What is concerning is the premier's comments around what is a really important energy transition project, the Atlantic loop. I will be calling on our government to make sure there is federal leadership at the table to have the Atlantic loop in place, but at the same time, it is not helpful when the Premier of Nova Scotia is sending mixed signals on the best path forward.
I respect the fact that the provincial government is trying to help support affordability by limiting the increases around power rates in the province, but in the process Bill 212 in the Nova Scotia legislature has downgraded Nova Scotia Power's credit rating and is estimated to cause an almost 2% increase in electricity rates to make up for the fact that any future borrowed money, including for projects like the Atlantic loop, are going to have to come from ratepayers themselves. The Atlantic loop is something that I will be encouraging my government colleagues to be supporting to show federal leadership. It is something that matters to the region.
I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.
1484 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk and what he did not mention at all is the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed in the United States and the government's response to that.
At the international trade committee, we heard over and over again that investment is going to evaporate in Canada unless changes are made. There are a couple of little sprinkles here, but the IRA was introduced in August and it is now December. Why has it taken the Liberal government so long to meaningfully respond to the significant risk to Canadian businesses as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an important question, and I only have 10 minutes.
I talked about some of the things that I think are going to be important, including the regulatory measures. I hope the member opposite would agree it is simply not a spending race, in terms of the government being able to draw private capital. Yes, that matters, and as I mentioned in my speech, we have seen our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry drawing private capital here.
I am not sure we are necessarily going to be able to match the level of spending we have seen in the United States, but I agree with him that there are measures in the fall economic statement that are important. I suspect the government will have other measures in the budget for 2023. However, I will remind him it is not just about spending. It is also about other measures that can draw private capital in to help make a difference and drive these projects forward as well.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, something outrageous happened during question period today. The member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine made some unacceptable remarks that left no doubt she does not have confidence in the Auditor General and does not find her credible. She gave two absurd examples, described the situation as being worse than the Second World War, and more. I will spare the House the shocking details.
The government has to work with the Auditor General. It also has to work with the opposition when it comes to the budget and the economic statement. In my colleague's opinion, do such remarks jeopardize those relationships?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did not hear the comments made by the Minister of National Revenue during oral question period. I understand the importance of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, of course. Since I did not hear the the Minister of National Revenue's comments, it is hard for me to answer my colleague's question.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad there was discussion with regard to auto investments. I would like to hear comments from my colleague with regard to EV incentives. Unlike the United States, Canada has nothing for used batteries, and we only have a $5,000 incentive federally. The U.S. actually has $7,500 U.S., which is around $10,000 Canadian, and they have state incentives as well. The Prime Minister did say in Washington, D.C., that he would harmonize those incentives. He has not done so, which is going to distort our auto market and the introduction of electric vehicles.
What solutions does the government have, given the fact that right now the Biden administration will provide a better incentive for Canadian-made vehicles than the current Prime Minister?
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not speak on behalf of the government, but of course, I am on the government side as a caucus member.
I am proud of the way this government was able to step up and work with the United States to make sure their tax credit was aligned. I take note that the member opposite wants to make sure there is public money on the table to try to have a symmetry between those. That is a conversation I am happy to have with my hon. colleagues, whether it be with the minister responsible for trade, the minister responsible for global affairs or others, to see whether we will see that alignment.
I want to remind the hon. colleague that we are coming into a period where there could be a global recession. We are going to have to make some choices between supporting health care, making sure we support future investments in defence and making sure Canada has a role in the world. There is a finite amount of resources on the table. I am happy to have the conversation with our government ministers, but we are going to have some important choices to make in the days ahead.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the fall economic update.
“Canadians have never had it so good,” is the message we get when we listen to Liberal members talk about what is going on in Canada. They say things are great, that Canadians should be grateful for everything that is going so wonderfully here in this country. They talk about how it is so wonderful because of all the money they have spent. The answer to every problem in Canada, if one is a Liberal, is to spend money. That is the solution, so spend they have.
The Liberals have doubled the national debt. The amount of debt of every prime minister up to the current Prime Minister, the Liberals have doubled. Every prime minister before accumulated a certain amount of debt, and the current Prime Minister and government doubled it in a few short years. They say that as a result of that, things are great.
Maybe we should talk about how great things are as a result of all this spending. First of all, we just heard from the Auditor General that a lot of the spending did not really go anywhere that it should have. There were $4.6 billion in confirmed overpayments during the pandemic and $27 billion in suspicious payments, so we are looking at $32 billion of money that went who knows where, not where it should have gone. This includes the fact that 1,500 people in jail received these benefits.
To this point, there is absolutely no real plan to get any of this money back. Liberals say they are working on it and the wheels are in motion, when they are not saying the Auditor General was pushed into making this report by the opposition and trying to undermine the Auditor General. It is an interesting position for a government to take, when it appointed the Auditor General.
We look at all that spending and at the issues across the country from coast to coast to coast. Many members have been rising in this chamber to talk about the issues in hospitals all across the country. The premiers have said the federal government should be transferring more money to the provinces for health care, and the government is saying that the cupboard is kind of bare.
I am thinking that $32 billion, if it had been properly managed, would therefore have been available for health transfers, but that ship has sailed and the government is doing virtually nothing to get that money back.
There is $27 billion a year now being paid in interest on the debt, which has doubled over the course of the last number of years under the Liberal government. That is $27 billion every year that could be spent on things like health care. Right away, if we put those things together, one year of the massive interest on the massive debt plus the $32 billion spent on who knows what, and we would have over $50 billion for health care.
There are some hospitals and some provinces across the country that would very much be interested in receiving some of that money, but of course they cannot, because the Liberals have spent it on other things.
The interest on the debt is actually going to go to $43 billion a year by 2026. Let us think about that number. It is staggering: $43 billion a year simply to pay interest on the credit card.
When one raises issues like this, the government says it spent so Canadians did not need to spend. Well, Canadians are spending now, through their taxes, paying $27 billion a year in interest, which is moving to $46 billion. However, that is okay, because everything in this country is fantastic. Canadians have never had it so good.
Right now, inflation is at a 40-year high. People in this country are having to choose to eat or to heat their homes, but Canadians have never had it so good.
In one month, 1.5 million Canadians used a food bank. It is unprecedented. The struggle of Canadians after seven years of spending by the government is worse than it has ever been, so the rationale that we have spent all this money and things are great is completely debunked, because things are not great.
There are so many Canadians who are within a few hundred dollars of not being able to make ends meet, and inflation is eating into that every single day, but, right, everything is great. The money was spent to make the lives of Canadians better, except that their lives are not better. By virtually every measurable index, the lives of Canadians now are worse than they were 10 years ago.
There is no apology from the government on this. It will say things like, “Yes, but we are going to pay this benefit here or this little benefit there.”
When a person is $200 away from not being able to make ends meet, a one-time payment of $500 is not going to help. It might get them through the first couple of months, but there are 10 other months in the year in which we have to try to make ends meet.
One in five Canadians are skipping meals, but all this spending was so great for Canadians.
The result of the economic policies of the government has been to impoverish the nation, and that is where we are when we look at all the statistics that are adding up.
There is absolutely no recognition of this by the government. There is no apology for it. It simply says, “We have this little program here. We have another program here. That is all Canadians need.”
The other glaring omission from the government has been any meaningful response to the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States. It is a transformational document on how the United States is going to have its economy move going forward. No, we cannot match, dollar for dollar, the kinds of programs the United States is offering, but it offers these things in very clear ways. It offers tax incentives for governments. It offers production incentives for businesses.
What we are being promised here in Canada are programs. There is going to be a program here that a business can apply for, an opaque program. At committee, we heard industry representatives say that these programs are given according to a naughty list and a nice list. If one is on the naughty list, one has no idea why one is on the naughty list, and one does not get the funding.
When the government is picking winners and losers in business, everyone loses. The response is not sufficient, and the response it is offering is not going to help Canadian businesses.
We have heard over and over again from witnesses that this is a game-changer in the United States and that the government needs to act quickly. Well, my definition of “quickly” is not waiting for the budget in two, three or four months to announce some measures, sprinkling a couple of things here in the update and then saying to businesses, “Do not worry. Everything is going to be fine when the budget is released.”
Businesses cannot wait three, four, five, six or seven months. Investments are happening in the United States right now.
The government has impoverished Canadians over the last number of years, and now it risks losing out on the manufacturing bonanza for electric vehicles, etc., that is coming, because it is just acting so slowly.
This is an update that we cannot support and Canadians cannot afford.
1292 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the way the member ended his speech, by saying the government is the reason Canada is lagging in terms of electric vehicles.
Does it not have anything to do with the way the opposition has acted over the last seven years? We are talking about a political party that does not even believe climate change is real. We are talking about a political party that at every single opportunity goes on and on about extracting more fossil fuels from the ground, and now the member is trying to suggest that, suddenly, Conservatives are going to be the champions of electric vehicles. It is absolutely ludicrous to hear that.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member spend a little less time standing in the chamber pontificating and maybe spend some time at committee listening to what industry is saying. Industry is unequivocal that the government is leaving it behind. Whether it is with respect to the production of electric vehicles or whether it is with respect to the production of electric vehicle charging stations, the government is so woefully behind on this that there is no chance there is going to be anywhere near the number of chargers needed. This is clear and on the record at committee.
My response to the member is this. Maybe he should spend a little less time in the chamber talking and a little more time researching and listening to witnesses.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague's last intervention was very interesting. It was about production and delays involving electric vehicles.
The Bloc Québécois keeps proposing a gradual energy transition, which would mean taking the money that is being invested in Albertan oil and investing it in the development of clean energy instead.
I will ask my colleague a question, since he seems to be on the same side as me on the issue of encouraging the purchase and production of electric vehicles.
Would he agree with the Bloc Québécois's suggestion to stop funding the most polluting energy sources and using that money for investments in clean energy so that Alberta can continue to be a leader?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if a person lives in a riding like mine, Dufferin—Caledon, and does not have any gasoline, and the production of gasoline is stopped, they are going to have a hard time getting to work. In the town of Orangeville there are six charging stations, six for a town of 30,000 people.
What I would suggest is this. We can transition in a responsible manner. I do not know how long that transition is going to take, but I can tell colleagues that it is not going to come anywhere near the timelines the government is talking about. It is so woefully behind on the charging network. It has no plan whatsoever for how we are going to triple electricity generation in this country. The provinces cannot afford it.
RBC has put out a report stating that the path to net zero is $2 trillion. How much has the government allocated for any of it? The answer is not even 10% of it.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Caledon was the critic for environment as well. How out of touch the Liberals seem to be. Could he just give our Liberal colleagues an idea of the actual cost of these charging stations, and what the estimation was that the Canadian motor vehicle association was giving us at committee so he could get himself educated?
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
