Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, as the member stated, the blockade and occupation at the Ambassador Bridge were cleared prior to the invocation of this act. They were cleared with the co-operation of our various police forces. I condemn the ongoing situation there, but it is able to be cleared with existing forces. It is the draconian imposition of this act, and all that it entails and all its precedents, as I mentioned in my remarks, that are of great concern to this side of the House. We support law and order. We condemn the illegal occupation and blockades, but as so many of my colleagues have pointed out, resources exist to address the issues without resorting to resources that are not required.

Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, no. What is implied or directly addressed in that act are ongoing powers that are not required. The ones that concern us the most are the ongoing financial powers of the banks to possibly freeze accounts and things such as that. If there are crimes being committed, existing legislation empowers the government to go after those breaking the law through large donations through proper, existing sources. It is not for a $20 donation for a T-shirt to support a cause that is symptomatic of so much unrest in this country. It is sad that we have come to this point in our country.

Madam Speaker, the member made numerous references to the reason to impose this act now. It was to protect critical infrastructure. I lost track of how many times he mentioned critical infrastructure, so I would ask two things. Could he identify which critical infrastructure this act is to protect today? Is the intent to keep this legislation in place to prevent future critical infrastructure attacks that I am not aware of?

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, I asked the government if it was their intent to place public health policy in direct conflict with immigration legislation. Once their working permits expire after February 28, some guest workers are trapped in Canada without status, separated from their families and separated from work. The Minister of Immigration's response made it clear that the government had no apparent idea of this policy conflict. When will the Liberal government treat innocent people fairly and humanely, respect them and fix this Liberal fiasco?

Madam Speaker, Canadians are calling for leadership in moving from pandemic to endemic and managing the country as it learns to live with COVID. In another example of poor management, public health policy is now set against immigration legislation. As of February 28, some guest workers who legally came to work in our country will have their working permits expire and they will not be allowed to leave. This creates the situation for illegal immigration, as individuals may enter Canada unvaccinated and now know they can stay. To the minister, is this intentional?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks, and I want to thank him and his colleagues for his support of our motion today. I also join him in condemning anything Gestapo, but as a former tomato farmer, I have to say gazpacho would be the way to go. Chatham-Kent—Leamington is the home of tomato production in Canada, a huge greenhouse sector with half a billion dollars of annual farm gate production a year. It is being interfered with dramatically by the blockade. I will join my colleagues' voices today in calling for both the end of the blockade and an end of the mandates. The mayor of Windsor, yesterday morning, called for federal leadership to resolve this. I would ask my colleague to comment on what he is looking for in the federal government's leadership to end the situation.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have a question. The government has promised that a payment is coming to seniors. When? My constituents have not seen it. Second, seniors and all people on fixed incomes are experiencing inflation. That is the tax that is eroding what they are already receiving. We need to blunt the force of inflation, and the resulting higher interest rates, to help our seniors and all of us in this economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking for the first time at length in this 44th Parliament representing the citizens of Chatham-Kent—Leamington. Before I go on to make some comments on this specific legislation, I want to congratulate two of those citizens, my parents, as today is their 61st wedding anniversary. With respect to Bill C-8, it should come to no one's surprise that I will be opposing this legislation and these additional spending measures. Why? It is because they are adding more fuel to the inflationary fires. The recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer states that more stimulus spending will only stoke these inflationary fires, resulting in an inflation tax. Asked at the finance committee if government deficits contribute to inflation, the PBO stated very clearly that, yes, they can. How much money are we talking about? Another $71.2 billion in spending is referenced in the economic and fiscal update, and since the beginning of this pandemic, the government has introduced $176 billion in new spending that is unrelated to responding to the pandemic. Our interest-bearing debt is approaching $1.4 trillion. I will borrow some descriptions my colleague from Edmonton West used yesterday when he outlined what that means. We understand what $1 million looks like. It is a one and six zeroes, but $1.4 trillion is $140 million millions. Folks should think about that. Yesterday during question period, the finance minister stated that 8 out of 10 dollars spent as a COVID response have come from the federal government, even if they have been delivered provincially, so the accountability for this spending lies with the government. Let me mention two areas where Canadians would have been better served by a government being more proactive, which would have lessened the need to be so reactive to pandemic effects. The first is securing rapid tests. Conservatives supported the sourcing of rapid tests well before we had vaccines, almost two years ago now. Late in this pandemic, the government seems to have seen the light and now wants more rapid tests. After five waves of infection and the economic carnage that lockdowns bring, we are now finally seeing an effort being made. The second is ICU capacity. Lockdowns have been invoked by provincial governments largely in response to the fear that critical care capacity will be overwhelmed during peak infection periods. It is not that often that my colleagues agree with opposition colleagues in this chamber, but on the point of increased health transfers, we do agree. In particular, while in some places we lack bricks and mortar in our health care system, we primarily lack doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. It is the critical care capacity deliverers that we need so many more of. While this is of course a provincial responsibility, in my federal role I have been closely monitoring the local health care capacity in my riding at Erie Shores hospital in Leamington and at Chatham-Kent hospital, especially because of the overlap of providing this care to our citizens combined with care for the guest worker community of the agricultural sector in my riding. I could spend 10 minutes just talking about the experience there in the last two years. I did not realize that Canada only has one-third of the health care capacity of our neighbour to the south. I did not know that until we got into this pandemic. That is why such a low percentage of people who are critically affected by COVID so quickly overwhelm our health care capacity. These are the two areas where, especially early on in this pandemic, it would have been far better to respond proactively. However, the cumulative effect of government spending in areas responding to, rather than preventing, the economic damage of COVID have led to a very predictable outcome: inflation. This form of taxation, and that is what inflation is, affects so many areas of our lives. It affects those particularly who can least afford it more than those with assets who can actually benefit from it. Let me touch on just two areas. The first is housing and the crisis in housing inflation. The injection of so many printed dollars into our economy has exacerbated the rise in the cost of housing. While in Chatham-Kent—Leamington the average costs are not as high as national averages, the rate of increase, particularly on the lower end of the spectrum, is even higher. With the interest rate now below the rate of inflation, because it is rising, this provides a further incentive to bid up prices. We have not yet seen the end of this inflationary housing bubble. The end is not written. The Bank of Canada has signalled that interest rates will rise. How many people will face an even greater pressure on their personal finances when it comes to renewing their home mortgage? The main solution of course lies in the basic laws of supply and demand. We need more houses built, not more taxes, and not more spending, which only drive the inflationary cycle. Second is food inflation. Anyone who eats or, more specifically, buys groceries understands the rising cost of food in Canada. Prior to having the honour of standing in this place today, I actively farmed and produced food for most of my adult life. I also had the opportunity to be involved with the business of representing food producers at negotiation tables and in industry circles. I understand that the broad inflation is not the primary driver of the cost of raw product of food prices in Canada. Weather events, geopolitical tensions and other trade issues impact the cyclical nature of these markets more than broad inflation, but, and this is a big but, I am speaking of raw food pricing. What the Canadian consumer experiences at the grocery aisle is only minimally impacted by the price of what a farmer receives. In most food stuffs, the percentage cost represented by the raw component is very small. The labelling, packaging, transportation, processing and preparing are cost components that dwarf the raw component, and of course, these are all cost drivers that are affected by inflation. In conclusion, what would it take to get us out of this mess? First, the government needs to reorient its approach. It is encouraging to hear from our health care leaders, and in particular I want to point out Ontario's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Kieran Moore, who support our need to learn to live and work with COVID. We need to move from a pandemic state of COVID to an endemic state. The vast majority of Canadians have done what we have asked of them. They got vaccinated and observed public health measures. We have the tools, the vaccines and the rapid tests, or we should have the rapid tests. Now we need to learn to live with COVID, and we need to open up. Second, we need to rein in government spending. We need to tamp down inflation, and we need to blunt the trend of rising interest rates, which inevitably result from inflation. It appears that the government's tax-and-spend approach, which resulted in inflation, is almost intentional. This is its way of inflating its way out of massive debt. Lower taxes, less spending, leading to lower inflation and more economic growth is the only way out for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, that is actually not what I said. What I said is that we need less spending broadly. I supported measures for rapid tests, particularly if it had come much sooner. Targeted spending at preventative measures would have lessened the need for gross spending in response. I cited two areas, rapid tests and investments in health care. That would have prevented much of the spending in response and the resulting inflation that Canadians are now experiencing.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, on behalf of the citizens of Canada, to bring forth a petition calling upon the Government of Canada to call out the ongoing genocide of the Uighur people by the Communist Party of China. Citizens are calling for Canada to not remain silent in the face of this ongoing atrocity, to formally recognize that the Uighurs have been and are subject to a genocide, and to call forth the use of the Magnitsky act and sanction those responsible for the heinous crimes that are going on.

Madam Speaker, we are in the fifth wave of COVID, and I do not know how many waves of government spending we have seen in response to it. Could my hon. colleague comment on whether that spending could have been far more targeted? We finally see measures to address more rapid tests, but we have one-third of the capacity of our neighbour to the south regarding critical care in this country. Each wave has put a few people into the hospital in critical care. If we had had more capacity there, would we have needed all of these waves of spending?

Madam Speaker, my colleague referenced affordable housing and the lack thereof in his home riding. Certainly it is an issue in Chatham-Kent—Leamington as well. We are not a large metropolitan area. It is a mix of rural and small cities and towns. He just touched on this in his answer to my Bloc colleague. Do the basic laws of supply and demand continue to hold true in the housing market? We have huge demand. Would it not be better, rather than adding another small tax that is not going to make a difference, to look at the barriers to supply? Could he comment?

Madam Speaker, as this is the first time I am rising in the House, I want to thank the citizens of Chatham-Kent—Leamington for allowing me the honour and privilege to represent them. I also want to thank my family, my EDA and all the volunteers for their support. I certainly agree with the minister that the pandemic has exposed a number of weaknesses in our social security systems. However, why are we a year and a half into the pandemic before we see this form of legislation?

Madam Speaker, 18 months ago I congratulated the former member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as she gained a new resident, Brynnley Lisette Huby, my granddaughter. Today I wish to congratulate the new member of Parliament for the same riding for the same reason. Brynnley's sister, Hannah Laurelin Huby, was born yesterday to parents Adam and Carina. All are healthy, and I thank God for her safe arrival. I also, 18 months ago, questioned the Minister of Finance as to the level of debt my first granddaughter, Brynnley, was to inherit and asked this question before the massive overspending of the past 18 months. Today, Hannah, her parents and all Canadians are facing rising monthly inflation rates and a housing affordability crisis. I implore the government to address our country's financial mess. Many of us began our business careers amid the rampant inflation and the interest rates that rose dramatically during the early 1980s. Surely, this is not the future we wish for our children and grandchildren. Let us fix it.

Madam Speaker, there are over 4,400 natural gas wells throughout southwestern Ontario, a number of which are in my riding, including the community of Wheatley that was rocked by a natural gas leak explosion this past summer. On August 17, the Ontario Petroleum Institute and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Finance, seeking to collaborate on the development of a program for Ontario's orphan wells. Will the government commit to working on this critical issue in southwestern Ontario?

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present e-petition 3393 on behalf of many Canadians, particularly those from my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington. The petitioners are extremely concerned that Bill C-10 unjustly infringes on citizens’ right to freedom of expression outlined in section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly that the speech Canadians engage in on digital platforms is crucial to their conveying of their basic individual expressions. Bill C-10 would provide the CRTC with the authority to control and regulate user-generated content on digital platforms that Canadians use every day and censor what Canadians post and see on social media and the Internet, providing it with sweeping powers over how Canadians communicate and express themselves online. These Canadians want their rights upheld and due process followed. I commend you, Mr. Speaker, for so ruling yesterday.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech, and the previous speaker's as well, regarding this report and their work on direction and control. The government stated that Canada would be back on the international stage, and yet the record does not show that. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that. I understand from previous Conservative administrations that Canada's percentage of foreign aid was up to 0.55%, or fifty-five pennies out of a hundred dollars of gross net income, under the Mulroney government. It was up to 0.37% and 0.38% under the Harper government, yet in the last several years, it has hovered between 0.26% and 0.28%. The Liberals say they are back, yet we continue to drop in our place in the world. I wonder if my colleague could comment.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Internet costs are among the highest in the world and this is one of the few countries where they continue to rise. On May 27, the CRTC reversed its own decision to reduce the broadband access costs from the large telecoms to the smaller Internet service providers, such as TekSavvy, headquartered in Chatham. Whereas the railway secured Canada's future 136 years ago, Canadians need reliable, reasonably priced access to broadband to secure our future today. Is the government breaking its own promise to reduce rates, or what is the plan?

Madam Speaker, with Moraviantown and Caldwell First Nation in my riding, I want to begin by acknowledging the tragedy of 215 unmarked graves discovered at the Indian residential school in Kamloops, now the adopted home of my daughter and her family. It does, however, give me pleasure today to speak to my enthusiastic colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South's private member's bill that affects many constituents and myself and my own family farm, but before getting into the specifics of this bill, I want to note four general points to frame my remarks. First of all, as individuals, farmers are environmentalists by nature and by necessity. The drive to leave the land and surrounding areas in better condition than when they found it is innate to the vast majority of farmers I know. It is the condition of the land, flock or herd that supplies the farm family with return on its labour, investments and inputs, so it is in their own self-interest to leave the vehicle of their own prosperity in better condition for the next generation. Second, collectively, agriculture has a strong track record of reducing its environmental footprint, be it through the adoption of low- or no-till, saving moisture and reducing erosion; through the refinement of and working with nutrients; through the lens of the four “R”s, using the right product at the right time, placing it in the right place and at the right rate—

Madam Speaker, be it through the use of more intensive use of cover cropping or rotational grazing, recently we had officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada testify at committee. They acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture have remained steady since 2005, despite increased production. By my own personal experience farming in a sandy vegetable production area, it was not uncommon to experience sandstorms in spring as the soils were being plowed to prepare them for potato, tomato and other vegetable seedlings. Having to turn on headlights to drive at midday happened more than once, I am sorry to say, in the mid-1980s. That does not happen anymore. Windbreaks have been planted, cover crops are managed far more intensively, and the use of strip tillage has virtually removed wind erosion as a concern. Third, ag has a strong record of innovation, of adopting new technologies, such as the use of GPS technology on the farm, the growing adoption of variable rate application, both in seeding and in crop protection products, robotics in our dairy sector, automation and climate controls in our greenhouse sector and many other innovations. Why is this? It is because farmers know they have to compete. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this industry has often been described as one of the few that buys their inputs retail, sells their outputs wholesale and pays the freight both ways. This leads me to my final framing point. By and large, farmers are price takers. They cannot effectively pass along imposed cost increases to their buyers. Let these four points set the stage for my remarks of Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel), adding propane and natural gas to be exempted qualifying farm fuels from the carbon tax. We have heard much in this House about the harvest from hell in 2019. Particularly, in Western Canada, this very difficult harvest, which saw extensive and prolonged rainfall, as well as early snowfalls and frost right before and during harvest, necessitated the use of natural gas and propane to dry the grain into a storable condition. Farming in Ontario requires the use of grain dryers every year, particularly for grain corn, though it is often also needed for soybeans, wheat, barley, oats and canola. During a recent conversation with Dr. Alan Mussell, he reminded me that farmers have been extremely focused on their use of energy since the very beginnings of organized agriculture. They have focused on maximizing yield and quality, and maximizing the feed conversion as plant energy is converted to protein. They have been focused on the 99% of the energy used on the farm, the energy received from the sun, solar energy. By maximizing the efficiency of this energy, by maximizing yield, quality and conversion, and by achieving greater plant growth per hectare, as a consequence, they have also increased carbon sequestration. In fixing CO2 as a consequence of driving yield, it is heavily influenced by the management techniques employed by progressive farmers. It has only been in the last decade or so that there have been whispers about agriculture as being a dirty industry. Since the use of electrical and fossil fuel energy sources comprises only a small component of energy use, farmers have rightfully been historically focused on maximizing efficiencies through increasing the yield and quality of their crops by maximizing the use of the sun, by driving yield and consequently, sequestering carbon. Incidentally, the movement to reducing or eliminating tillage provided improvements in moisture retention and a reduction in erosion and, of course, increased sequestration, all without the imposition of a tax, something also not acknowledged in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. However, then to increase agriculture's focus, even on the relatively small use of energy from fossil fuel sources, does it not make sense that adding a carbon tax would drive a reduction in its use? The answer is no for three reasons. First, imposing a carbon tax on farm fuels used for grain drying could induce a logical response by the industry that reduces yields and then is at cross-purposes with the goals of the tax. Particularly, with respect to the growing of corn, farmers have chosen varieties that require the most growing degree days that can be grown in their region with acceptable risks to maturity so as to maximize the conversion of solar energy into yield, which then also maximizes carbon sequestration. They could choose to grow shorter-season varieties, which would be drier at harvest, to avoid carbon tax costs. This would require less energy to dry the crop into a storable state. However, this comes with a corresponding reduction in yield, less fixing of CO2 and requires more land to grow the same amount of grain for their markets. Second, commercially viable, scalable alternatives to using natural gas and propane simply are not available today. Because there are not any viable alternatives, the demand for fuel tends to be unaffected by price, making additional fuel charges in the form of an additional tax an ineffective policy tool to lower emissions. The additional fuel charge as presently applied is punitive. It taxes our farmers, with little to no benefit for the environment. It has been mentioned that the recent budget did contain some funding, with $50 million for research to explore and develop viable alternatives. This initiative can be supported. If and when viable alternatives are commercially available, they are usually more expensive than the status quo. Incentivizing their adoption rather than taxing a present practice with no alternatives is a far better policy tool. If possible, use the carrot rather than the stick. As mentioned earlier, farmers cannot pass this additional cost on to consumers, and this leads me to my final point, which is basic fairness in the market. Our Canadian grains compete directly with American grains and are priced off the Chicago Board of Trade. Our own farm is primarily a processing-vegetable farming operation, but Lycoland Farms also produces grain and oil seeds. Because our volume of production is too low presently to warrant an investment in drying and storage facilities, we deliver our grains to Tec-Land, a farming operation and elevator in Wheatley, and receive a price based in U.S. dollars off of Chicago plus a local basis. This basis takes into account the exchange rate, local supply and demand factors and freight considerations to market. Tec-Land has options for marketing to customers such as Hiram Walker or ADM in Windsor, Greenfield Global, an ethanol producer in Chatham here in my riding, Cargill in Sarnia or Ingredion in London, but none of these customers will pay more basis to Tec-Land to cover the carbon tax and drying cost. Why is that? Each of these end-users can also buy American corn or soybeans, and they often do, and these grains do not incur a carbon tax on the drying or on the farm fuels used to produce them. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act did exempt gasoline and diesel fuel, and Bill C-206 is looking to correct the oversight regarding natural gas and propane used for drying. Many of my neighbours and most farmers in our riding, unlike Lycoland, have grain and oil seeds as the focus of their operations. Many have invested in their own drying and storage facilities. I recently spoke with neighbours, such as Paul Tiessen, Tom Dick, Walt Brown, Doug Mills and many others, who have all had the same experience as Tec-Land: When they were marketing last season's crops, they were unable to pass along any additional carbon tax costs to buyers. Recent research from the Grain Farmers of Ontario has estimated that by 2030 the carbon tax on fuel used for drying will cost the average farm an additional $46 an acre. On an average 800-acre Ontario grain farm, it is a tax of $36,800 that cannot be passed along. In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to support passing a bill that would remove the potential of being at cross purposes with the goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Please support the removal of a tax for which users have no viable options, and please support basic fairness in the market for the ag sector.

Madam Speaker, the upper amount of cannabis individuals are authorized to possess for medical purposes is almost impossible for an individual to consume personally, and the sourcing of this production is being given over to designated growers. According to law enforcement officials, these production licences are often abused, with the excess production being illegally sold into the black market, traded into the U.S. for fentanyl or, even worse, traded for handguns, fuelling our gang violence. When will the Minister of Health address the loopholes in these regulations? These loopholes are large enough to drive a U-Haul truck through, delivering illegal, black market—

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put some thoughts on the record with respect to Bill C-30. I want to thank my colleague from Foothills for splitting his time with me. In my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, or CKL for short, agriculture, agri-food and agri-food processing is a bedrock element of our local economy, just like for the previous speaker. I want to begin my comments here. Before proceeding, I would also note that as a father of four daughters, my desire is that they face no glass ceilings in their careers. I want to congratulate the finance minister on being the first female finance minister to deliver a budget. My youngest daughter Kiana just completed her masters in economics, and so maybe, one day, she, too, will deliver a budget, hopefully one based on solid economics rather than election politics. Back to agriculture, the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system is a key driver of our economy and generates $143 billion, accounts for 7.4% of our GDP, and provides for one in eight jobs, at least in 2018, and more than that this year. This budget does include some provisions for up $100 million for rebates from the carbon tax for on-farm natural gas and propane use. At the agriculture and agri-food committee, we are presently finishing a review of Bill C-206, sponsored by my colleague, the MP for Northumberland—Peterborough South, which proposes an exemption from the carbon tax for on-farm propane and natural gas. No doubt the existence of this private member's bill influenced the government's decision to include this measure. We discussed, and continue to discuss, at committee the utility of a rebate versus an exemption system. Farmers in my riding and indeed farmers all across Canada can thank Conservatives for this initiative appearing in the budget. Nevertheless, it is good to see that this issue is acknowledged, and that is a positive. I also want to acknowledge monies targeted to agriculture in the form of incentives as part of programming to address climate initiatives. Practically speaking, though, the costs alone of fossil fuels, of nitrogen fertilizers is enough to encourage their judicious use. Despite that, innovation and environmental responsibility have always been hallmarks of our ag sector. As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has acknowledged, present viable, scalable technologies that reduce agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions are presently lacking. Given that, incentives to encourage development and innovation are far better tools than punitive taxes, as many witnesses at the committee have testified. However, if there is one measure that has the potential to move the needle in the adoption of technology in the ag sector, it is the expansion of high-speed broadband to rural and remote areas. The further adoption of precision agriculture, a key technology to build on ag's strong track record of environmental responsibility, is so often hindered by the lack of high-speed Internet access, and the previous speaker echoed these comments. While the $1 billion amount announced for the universal broadband fund pales in comparison to other funding promises, it is the increased use of this technology that does have the potential to lower ag greenhouse gas emissions. Given all the attention that the deficit of connectivity in rural and remote areas has attracted over the years, all of the promises, all of the election pledges, even before COVID-19, should have led to the ag sector, and indeed all rural Canadians, using world-class broadband infrastructure by now. To quote a recent Western Producer editorial, “They didn't and we don't.” The parallels between promises of increased high-speed access and national child care programs are eerily similar, often announced and seldom delivered. Specifically, I want to point out the situation in my riding of Pelee Island. While the most southerly inhabited point in Canada, it can be considered as remote as, if not more remote than, many parts of our north. There is no reliable 911 service. As it currently stands, Pelee Island has no broadband Internet available to the public. Internet speed on the island is either dial-up or slow cellular hubs for existing businesses, residents and visitors with huge costs associated for small amounts of data. Stormy weather disrupts this service. Pelee Island is the very definition of remote, with only boat and air access in summer, in good weather, and only air access in winter, again, in good weather. My riding lies in southwestern Ontario, a region serviced by the Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology, or SWIFT for short. Ten per cent of Canada's underserved broadband area resides in southwestern Ontario. Therefore, under the government's previous connect to innovate, CTI, program, SWIFT's share of funding should have amounted to $58.5 million, yet the amount received was zero, not a penny. Similar to the structure of the previous CTI program, the government has chosen to administer the present universal broadband fund with no pro rata share provisions for under-serviced areas. This budget contains spending measures of $509 billion, over half a trillion dollars, but Canadians were looking for a budget with a plan for growth, for investment in infrastructure and a budget with a debt management plan to recover from the huge impacts of COVID. I recently surveyed my constituents on a host of issues. Specifically on the statement that small businesses are the key to economic rebound in Canada, and 87% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Only 13% agreed or strongly agreed that multinational corporations were the key to our economic recovery. My constituents and all Canadians were looking not for a government-led spending plan, but a budget investing in infrastructure and creating the climate for a business-led recovery. The small businesses that I relate to in Chatham and Leamington, Blenheim, Ridgetown and many other towns in Chatham-Kent—Leamington need the confidence that their government will manage the country's finances well, so that the climate into which they invest is stable and predictable. While this budget talks about some small investments in infrastructure and necessary measures to support small businesses affected by government, what this budget does not contain is a plan to pay for all of the election promises. There are no tax reforms, no financial guardrails anchored to fixed thresholds, no targets and no path to balance. These are the kinds of measures that give small business the confidence to invest and lead our recovery, and that is this budget's greatest failure. Is this the spending legacy that we want to leave to our children and grandchildren? Last June I had the pleasure of announcing in the House the birth of my first grandchild. I also stated at the time that it was estimated that her share of the federal interest-bearing debt would be over $39,300 at fiscal year end. I was wrong. According to the budget just tabled, her share of the debt as of March 31 is over $43,300 and the budget predicts that her share of the debt five years from now will grow to over $50,700. Here is what really scares me. Today's budget has assumed an average interest rate-carrying cost on our present debt of 1.2%. Yes, today's interest rates are low, but these budget assumptions assume that the average carrying cost will only rise to 1.9% five years from now. This assumption is inconsistent with how the government is funding its annual deficits. The government is printing money to finance its spending and every time in the past when governments have done this, the economy experiences inflation. In fact, we already are. Asset inflation is here, as anyone who is trying to buy a house or a two-by-four already knows, and the Consumer Price Index is sure to follow. What follows inflation? It is higher interest rates as the government tries to rein in inflation and prop up its currency, so I have very little faith that interest rates will average 1.9% on the government debt five years from now. Who does this hurt? People who have assets with low debt like this scenario, but for those working for a paycheque, their wages seldom keep up to rising costs. Everyday Canadians do not want this inflationary future, so this budget, with so much unfocused inflationary spending, cannot be supported. We will hear the usual refrains from government members that we Conservatives want to have our cake and eat it, too. Conservatives have supported and will continue to support measures to support Canadians and small business, but not the reckless, uncontrolled spending without a plan for our grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, with respect to debt, there are hard choices that have to be made. I am not averse to debt, but this budget does not contain a plan that inspires confidence to invest among our small and medium-sized business owners. What kinds of carrying costs are they going to be facing in the future on the basis of the unfocused spending? There are, by some counts, 270 measures of spending in this budget. The member acknowledged my support for infrastructure spending. I agree with that. Let us take broadband, for instance, with $1 billion spread over several years. One billion dollars for something so necessary, in a $500 billion budget, is 0.2%. I am a numbers guy, and that helps me bring perspective to this. There are many, many spending measures and they are not prioritized properly.

Madam Speaker, in principle, going after tax loopholes and tax havens are efforts that I would support. The member mentioned the diversity in income and the diversity in how this pandemic has affected different sectors of our economy. That is what I referred to in my speech. I have great fears about inflation coming. Those members of our society who have assets and who have low debt will profit. They will continue to do well in this scenario where costs and asset returns outstrip wages. It is the members of our society who are working for wages, trying to buy their first houses and trying to get into this economy that I have the greatest fears for when inflation inevitably follows uncontrolled spending.

Madam Speaker, I will not answer with my own words, but I can reference the report yesterday from Yves Giroux, in which he cites that very concern: With this spending, we are not positioned to take on another crisis. As the previous speaker pointed out, our debt servicing costs top $40 billion. That is almost 10% now of the highest budget in history, which was just announced. That is what is in our future unless we bring some balance and a plan for our financial outlook to this country.

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but wonder that two and a half years, and 100 hours of mediated time, would not cause a thought process that perhaps action should be required a bit sooner in our critical infrastructure sectors. Is this really the only way that disputes can be resolved in sectors that are so important to the country? Do we have to let it go this long? I have spent 20 years in other sectors where mother nature dictates an annual cycle, and we have found other ways. I just wonder if the minister could comment. Is this really the only way that we can get to a point that respects both the workers' rights and the rights of the employer?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated that, because interest rates are low, Canada can afford this massive debt and enormous endless deficits. She seems oblivious to the fact that interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Finance Minister Paul Martin stated, “The debt and the deficit are not inventions of ideology. They are facts of arithmetic. The quicksand of compound interest is real." Future generations, who will have to pay off this massive debt, want to know if Paul Martin was wrong, or if it is the current minister who is wrong.

With regard to all contracts awarded by the government since November 1, 2019, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to (i) a foreign firm, (ii) an individual, (iii) a business, (iv) another entity with a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) what is the total value of the contracts in (a); (c) for each contract in (a), what is the (i) name of the vendor, (ii) country of the vendor's mailing address, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) summary or description of goods or services provided; and (d) for each contract in (a), was the contract awarded competitively or sole-sourced?

Mr. Speaker, I noted that, with great care, the hon. colleague from Surrey Centre characterized this budget as having something for everyone. In fact, I believe there are 270 spending measures in it. Would he not agree that this budget should more appropriately be a plan for Canada's recovery so that the debt on our kids and grandkids is not so large, rather than an election budget for finding money for everyone?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a metaphor that our colleague from Edmonton Manning introduced. He described Bill C-24 as another “fixer-upper” piece of legislation. I have personally lived in fixer-uppers and my family has embarked on a renovation project, to continue with that metaphor, but we did so with a budget. Can my colleague comment on whether a budget document, properly presented to the House and passed by it, might help the government in presenting future legislation that would not require so many fixes?

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Mark Sinyor, a renowned psychiatrist, has stated with regard to MAID that “in medicine we quantify the harms of new treatments before deciding whether it is acceptable to use them.... The process that the Senate and the House of Commons propose to facilitate the provision of MAID for mental illness really reflects a sunset on the scientific method and usual medical standards. That should worry us all.” So much for following medical and scientific advice. Does this not worry the Minister of Justice?

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague speaks with such an even and measured tone and yet with such power and eloquence. It seems that the current government has a habit of picking and choosing when it wants to follow science, when it wants to follow medicine, when it wants to adopt United Nations resolutions and when it does not. I am going to quote an article from a week ago, reported by the CBC, citing the renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Sinyor: The United Nations Office of the Commissioner of Human Rights, for example, recently put out a statement condemning the practice [of MAID] for those with disabilities on the grounds that it will lead to a devaluing of their lives. How is that consistent with following United Nations directives? How is that consistent with following science and medicine?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the excellent work of the relatively new director general for the DFO for the Central and Arctic Region, Dr. David Nanang, and his team. My riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington is the proud home of the world's largest freshwater commercial fishing harbour. To sustain such a renewable aquaculture resource requires an understanding of science, responsiveness and infrastructure, and I am pleased to say that David exemplifies this understanding of all three. Dr. Nanang personally led his team to our area last fall. He even hopped onto a fishing tug to witness the challenge that the entrance to the Wheatley Harbour could be. I thank Dr. Nanang and his excellent EA Cindy Scale, with a special shout-out to Thomas Hoggarth, the regional director for ecosystems management, who walked into a room of angry residents and now has them engaged in a resolution process for which they are most appreciative. I thank them all.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not echo my colleague's invitation to the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to cross over and come to the bright side. I do appreciate his welcoming comments to me when I joined the House just over a year ago. My hon. colleague mentioned trade with Africa. Could he expand on some of the benefits and dual purposes of an expansion in that area? I know that all three of us share a heart for others around the world, so I wonder if he could expand on that, as it is similar to our long-standing relationship with Great Britain.

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal by the big telecom companies of a CRTC order that could significantly lower wholesale Internet rates. This means that the Supreme Court now joins the Federal Court in rejecting these appeals. All eyes are now on the last remaining appeal, which is in front of the CRTC. This issue is, of course, vitally important for almost all Canadians, as wholesale rates effectively determine what everyone pays for Internet access, regardless of provider. In my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, affordable and reliable Internet is critical to our future. This has only been accelerated by remote working and learning and our need to access government programs. For remote communities such as Pelee Island, it can be their only lifeline. Internet users in my riding demand the immediate implementation of federal measures to deliver affordable Internet and wireless services.

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal by the big telecom companies of a CRTC order that could significantly lower wholesale Internet rates. This means that the Supreme Court now joins the Federal Court in rejecting these appeals. All eyes are now on the last remaining appeal, which is in front of the CRTC. This issue is, of course, vitally important to almost all Canadians, as wholesale rates effectively determine what everyone pays for Internet access regardless of provider. In my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, affordable and reliable Internet is critical to our future. This has only been accelerated by remote working and learning, and our need to access government programs. For remote communities such as Pelee Island, it can be their only lifeline. Internet users in my riding demand the immediate implementation of federal measures to deliver affordable Internet and wireless services.

Madam Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague mention Canada's present unemployment rate and I have heard the Minister of Finance claim that our jobs are returning at a faster percentage rate than in our neighbour to the south. I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment, given that we still have such relatively high unemployment. This is simply mathematics based on the past unemployment rate, is it not?