Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, that is precisely why we needed a national climate adaptation strategy. However, I will mention that billions of dollars have been invested in infrastructure, and that work obviously has to occur with the provinces to identify where the work needs to be done. Our government is there to invest in infrastructure. We have been there to invest in infrastructure for a number of years, and we will continue to do so as per the throne speech.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the granular nature of the question, which is focused on the member's riding. My riding is also on a water body, on the St. Lawrence River. Actually, it is located where the St. Lawrence, the Ottawa River and the Rivière des Prairies converge. Of course, I know about projects in my area. I believe that in Windsor, work is being done with Transport Canada and Environment Canada. However, I would also draw attention to the fact that in the last budget, we committed to invest not only in physical infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and so on, but also in natural infrastructure. I am hoping that this money will help communities like the member's to withstand the effects of flooding caused by climate change.

Mr. Speaker, no one elected has served the City of Kirkland longer than John Meaney, who sadly left us last month. First elected to city council in 1975, John served as mayor from 1994 to 2013. All told, he led Kirkland from a town of about 7,500 into a populous and prosperous Montreal suburb of 21,000, doing so with an efficient decision-making style and practical common-sense approach. John Meaney was a proud Irish Montrealer born in the iconic downtown neighbourhood of Griffintown. In 2008, in a fitting honour, he was named Grand Marshall of Montreal's legendary St. Patrick's Day parade; and, in 2012, Montreal's Irishman of the Year. I ask members to join me in offering our sincerest condolences to John's wife Evelyn and daughters Sharon, Colleen and Laurie.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your new role, and I congratulate the member for Ottawa West—Nepean on her victory. To me, this debate is very much about the role of technology, not just now but throughout history, in allowing societies to be more productive and work in a safer way. I see the fact that we can use video conferencing as a way to continue to do our very important work but in a safer way. I think that all governments are encouraging employees, whether they work in offices or factories, to use technology, if they can, to work in a safer way. Would the member not agree that the advent of video conferencing technology has, in many ways, not only allowed us to work more safely but also expanded the privilege of members? We know that some members might be absent for personal reasons. Perhaps they are ill, or they have an ill family member. Now they could continue to participate, whereas before they could not come here to speak and vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to share the news with members of the House that one of my constituents, Rachel Watts, a fourth-year journalism student at Carleton University, is the recipient of this year's Fraser MacDougall Prize for best new Canadian voice in human rights reporting. This prestigious prize is awarded to an exceptional piece of student journalism with a human rights focus. Rachel's winning entry, entitled “Pandemic intensifies silent sorrow of Canada's asylum seekers”, was a truly compelling and insightful piece on a vital and timely issue. Rachel possesses a rare gift for the written word and an ability to capture a subject in a way that is capable of engaging public opinion and influencing public policy decisions. Indeed, this is the role and power of great journalism. Rachel Watts is clearly on the cusp of a promising and exciting career as a journalist. I just want to be clear that this statement is very much meant to be on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to describe a scenario that will likely come up at some point. Imagine an MP is exposed to the virus or contracts it even though he is double-vaccinated and has to stay home in quarantine. Is the fact that he is unable to vote because he is not given the opportunity to debate or vote remotely not akin to removing his privilege, given that a tool exists and it is not being given to him for reasons I fail to understand?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the private member's bill, Bill C-226, introduced by the member for Montcalm, whom I have always found to be an intelligent and respectful debater, even if we do not share the same vision for our Canadian federalism. He always makes his interventions about ideas, and that is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Bill C-226 asks the House to support an amendment to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act that would make the act not applicable in Quebec. It is important to mention that official bilingualism and multiculturalism in this country share the same origins. That is the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which did its work between 1963 and 1969. The commissioners believed, in fact, that official bilingualism and multiculturalism could be mutually reinforcing, and they were so very right. Through its multicultural policy adopted in 1971, the federal government recognized diversity as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and as a pillar of our value system. However, it was also made clear that the advancement of multiculturalism throughout Canada had to be made in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada. Built not only on the contributions of indigenous peoples and the two official language communities, French and English, the fabric of Canada owes much to the contributions of the many ethnocultural communities and new immigrants who have come to make a life in this country over the span of decades. By way of background, the Canadian multiculturalism policy was enshrined in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988, and all provincial and territorial governments are subject to its application, including Quebec. The act, which is now 33 years old, provides the framework for federal responsibilities and activities designed to bring Canadians closer together and promote mutual respect and appreciation among Canadians of different backgrounds. The act has been central in creating harmonious relations among Canadians of different backgrounds, and it has helped strengthen the country's social fabric. Quebec is the only province in Canada that promotes interculturalism as an approach to integration and cross-cultural understanding. Broadly speaking, Quebec's vision and policy of interculturalism propose a model of integration that aims to ensure the continuity of the francophone identity and culture, while still respecting minority cultures, that is, diversity, and the contributions they make to modern Quebec society. In 1990, a policy statement on immigration and integration entitled “Let's Build Quebec Together” set the parameters of Quebec's policy of interculturalism. Developed by the Ministry of Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion of Quebec, the document reaffirms that interculturalism and adapting institutions to the values of diversity and reasonable accommodation are key parts of Quebec's approach to integration. As the Prime Minister often says, “we are strong not in spite of our differences, but because of them.” As many scholars and academics have noted, linguistic duality is at the heart of our Canadian values of inclusiveness and diversity. Accommodating two languages has fostered greater openness in Canadian society toward other cultures. The Official Languages Act and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act go hand in hand in defining the values that Canada represents on the world stage. In 2021, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Canada's multiculturalism policy, which was introduced in the House of Commons by former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This will be an opportunity to remember who we are and what unites us. It is important and, indeed, crucial to note that multiculturalism and interculturalism are not incompatible. They are not really opposites. One does not exclude the other. Both attach great importance to integrating and respecting common civic and democratic values, and both have been invaluable to Canada's social fabric since the 1970s. I would add that Canada's federal multiculturalism policy is flexible enough to allow for the two concepts, multiculturalism and interculturalism, to coexist. It is very important for the Government of Canada that Canadians in all provinces and territories act in accordance with the country's core values, such as openness to diversity, inclusion and respect for others. In that regard, multiculturalism, like our official languages, is often perceived to be a fundamental social pillar that the government is committed to defending and promoting. Bill C-226 reminds us that Quebeckers form a nation and therefore possess all the tools and power needed to define their identity and protect three common and essential values, namely, the protection of the French language, the separation of church and state and gender equality. For those reasons, the member for Montcalm is suggesting that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act should not apply to Quebec. However, if we analyze the federal legislation carefully, we see that those three principles hold a very important, and even fundamental, place in it. First, the application of the act does not exclude the protection of the French language. Immigrant heritage languages cannot be enhanced, as suggested in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, without strengthening the status and use of both official languages. What is more, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, while ensuring those freedoms are not endangered. Second, because of this interpretation of pluralism, which is based on reasonable accommodation, the federal government has the ability to maintain the neutrality of the state, since it does not favour majority religious beliefs over minority ones. The Multiculturalism Act repeatedly points to gender equality as a fundamental principle of Canadian society. Exempting Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, as called for in Bill C-226, could have major consequences. It would reduce access to the multiculturalism funding program by Quebec's ethnocultural and religious communities. Exempting Quebec from the Multiculturalism Act would also compromise the federal government's ability to promote a consistent shared set of national values and support the overall objectives of the act. Passage of this bill will most certainly lead to discussions about competing anti-multiculturalism ideologies across the country, which is hardly desirable. This bill is also an attempt to undermine the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Quebec, given that section 17 of the charter officially refers to multiculturalism as a Canadian value. The bill is actually trying to do this without invoking the section 33 notwithstanding clause, which requires an official request by the province. I would note that the Government of Quebec has made no such request. I will conclude by reminding the House that the position put forward by Bill C-226 is not supported by all Quebeckers and all Quebec governments. In 2017, the Quebec government published an official document that outlines its vision of itself within Canada. The document, entitled “Policy on Québec Affirmation and Canadian Relations”, remains current and has been endorsed by two successive governments. It states, “Québec has been able to grow and develop its national identity within the Canadian federal framework.” This clearly implies that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is not impeding Quebec or its development in any way. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act makes Canada a stronger, more united and more inclusive country, and it must be protected. Whichever way we cut it, we are a country of minorities. This reality, and the awareness of this reality, is what gives us, as Canadians, our wise perspective, a perspective that in my view is the recipe for success in the postmodern world. It is what keeps us from the—

Mr. Speaker, whether we are taking a walk in the park or a hike in the woods, green spaces improve our well-being and mental health and provide an escape from everyday life. Our forests also offer numerous environmental benefits, like improving biodiversity and capturing carbon. Can the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House of the progress our government has made in its ambitious commitment to plant two billion trees over the next 10 years?

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, a Canadian radio icon, Terry DiMonte, signed off the CHOM airwaves for the last time, after a stellar 40-year-plus career as a broadcaster that began in Churchill, Manitoba and led him back to his native Montreal, where he spent nearly three decades greeting morning listeners with friendly repartee, good humour, comforting words at difficult moments in the city's history, and great music and musical anecdotes. Montrealers, on Friday, listened misty-eyed, and that includes me, to an outpouring of love and appreciation for Terry from radio colleagues and musician friends like Jann Arden and Chris de Burgh, not to mention from the Prime Minister, who, in an extraordinary on-air conversation with Terry, reminisced about their long-standing friendship, interwoven with distinctly Montreal stories. We thank Terry for shaping our sense of ourselves as Montrealers. Best wishes to you and your beloved, Jessica. May life treat you well, our dear friend.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with a few questions, especially about Conservatives taking real, practical actions. First of all, why now? Why did the Conservatives not propose this in, say, 2012, when they were drafting and gazetting the waste-water systems effluent regulations? Were they guilty of an oversight at that time? Second, why did the member not introduce his private member's bill in 2015, after he was no longer the Speaker? Third, why four years later, when the member was the leader of his party, did he not include this proposal in the 2019—

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with a few questions, especially about Conservatives taking real, practical actions. First of all, why now? Why did the Conservatives not propose this in, say, 2012, when they were drafting and gazetting the waste-water systems effluent regulations? Were they guilty of an oversight at that time? Second, why did the member not introduce his private member's bill in 2015, after he was no longer Speaker. Third, why, four years later, when the member was leader of his party, did he not include this proposal in the 2019 Conservative election platform? The Fisheries Act already prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances, including sewage, into fish-bearing waters, unless expressly allowed by regulation. The fact is that the Harper government's waste-water regulations gave a de facto exemption to municipalities under the Fisheries Act to deposit a deleterious substance, namely waste water, into fish-bearing waters. This exemption was not carte blanche, however. It came with limits on how much of a regulated substance can be released into the environment. The waste-water regulations also impose deadlines on municipalities for building and upgrading their systems to meet the standards of secondary treatment, a biological process that can remove up to 95% of contaminants. By way of background, six billion cubic metres of waste water are discharged into marine and freshwater ecosystems in Canada every year. Of this amount, approximately 72% is treated to the level of at least secondary treatment, 25% is under-treated and the remaining 3% is untreated, coming from continuous discharges in communities without a waste-water plant, from releases from combined sewer systems where waste water and storm water flow together in the same pipe and can overflow during heavy rainfalls, from spills due to equipment failure and negligence, and finally, from occasional planned releases deemed necessary to allow for system construction or maintenance. I would be remiss if I did not point out the Harper government's bungling of the 2015 waste-water release in Montreal, which caught the government off guard in the middle of an election campaign. The planned release was needed to allow maintenance on a key interceptor in the city's waste-water system. It should be noted that Montreal has a single massive waste-water plant, the largest in North America and the third largest in the world, providing primary and secondary waste-water treatment. The city is introducing ozonation, which will allow it to achieve tertiary treatment by 2023, at which time the city will have the largest ozone waste-water plant in the world. A belt of sewers runs around the island. The whole system is on a slope from west to east, with the treatment plant located at the eastern tip of the island. Gravity draws sewage from all around the island to the plant, reducing the need for energy-consuming pumping stations along the route. There are no alternative waste-water plants on the island, no safety valves, as it were. If the plant gets damaged, that's a huge problem for the city and communities downstream. In 2015, the city applied to the province for a permit for a planned release and obtained Quebec's authorization to do so. The city also contacted Environment Canada twice, in September 2014 and September 2015, but, as I understand it, was met with radio silence. The Conservative government only realized there was an issue when the story hit the headlines, in Canada and internationally, at which point it cleverly punted the matter until after the election. On November 9, 2015, the new Liberal government issued a ministerial order under section 37 of the Fisheries Act to require Montreal to make adjustments to its initial release plan. These adjustments were based on the recommendations of an expert panel. It should be noted that the Liberal government did not authorize the release, even though the province had. Section 37 of the act, while not giving the federal government the power to authorize a release like Montreal's, allows the minister to “require any modifications or additions to the work, undertaking or activity or any modifications to any plans, specifications, procedures or schedules relating to it that the Minister considers necessary in the circumstances”. That is what the new minister, the member for Ottawa Centre, did. She ordered changes to the plan to minimize impacts based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Environment and Climate Change Canada is holding consultations with a view to making improvements to the temporary bypass provisions in sections 43 to 49 of the waste-water systems effluent regulations. Currently under the regulations, a bypass authorization for a release of untreated waste water can only be given for maintenance work that is being done at a waste-water plant, that is, at a final point of discharge, not at other points along the system. The objective of upcoming amendments to the regulations is to allow the government to provide bypass authorizations for work being done beyond the plant itself, thereby creating a regulatory framework that would encourage better planning of emergency releases such as the one that occurred in Montreal. Enter Bill C-269, which seeks to make it an offence to proceed with any releases of raw sewage into fish-bearing waters. It sounds great, but as is often the case with private members' bills, they are not drafted with the benefit of appropriate expertise and are often designed more for political effect than to achieve a constructive objective. If passed, Bill C-269 could have serious unintended consequences for the environment. First, the proposed prohibition would apply to waste water that is already treated to a high standard. This is because even effluents that are subject to advanced levels of treatment still contain contaminants from raw sewage that have not been separated and removed, as required by the bill. Therefore, all communities across Canada would be in potential violation of the proposed law, notwithstanding their high degree of waste-water treatment in most cases. In effect, they would have to shut down their waste-water plants. Second, the definition of raw sewage in Bill C-269 is ambiguous and likely to include more than just effluent from human or domestic sources. The bill's definition could include industrial, commercial and institutional effluents that contain low or manageable levels of such sewage. The bill could therefore interfere with the development and implementation of regulations to control industrial effluents. For example, the bill could impede the ongoing process of updating the pulp and paper regulations, a process aimed at, among other things, capturing facilities producing non-traditional products from wood and other plant material, and also aimed at lowering current effluent limits as well as adding limits for additional substances. Third, the bill would exempt the north, where, to all intents and purposes, the Fisheries Act prohibition against depositing deleterious substances into fish-bearing waters applies wholesale, absent the existence of a bilateral agreement with the federal government for creating an equivalent regulatory framework to the waste-water systems effluent regulations. This means that whatever pollution safeguards and monitoring mechanisms exist today in the north by virtue of a bilateral agreement with the federal government would be thrown into question if this bill passes. There are many examples of how proposed measures like those in Bill C-269 that are intuitively appealing at first glance are, upon deeper reflection, clearly not the best way forward for either the environment or human health. As a case in point, I would like to refer to the late Dr. David Schindler's work at the Experimental Lakes Area, a real-life freshwater laboratory that garnered a great deal of national attention a few years back when the Harper government tried to close it down. The conventional wisdom at one point was that nitrogen from waste water was likely causing algal blooms in lakes, suggesting the need for multi-billion dollar investments to alter waste-water treatment plants. However, a 37-year real-time, real-life experiment at the Experimental Lakes Area found that this was not the case and that the culprit was rather phosphorous. This subsequently led to the elimination of phosphates in detergents and avoided massively expensive yet futile investments to upgrade waste-water treatment plants across the country to deal with nitrogen. In the end, I regret to say that, in reality, this bill may well be more a public relations exercise on a subject that deserves much more serious and well-informed attention.

Madam Speaker, the climate change challenge has often been compared to the moon shot of the 1960s. The moon shot involved a redoubling of resolve after a difficult and halting start to the space race in the United States. The moon shot was very much about targeting a seemingly out-of-reach objective on a seemingly impossible timeline: namely, reaching the moon before the end of the decade of the 1960s. By all accounts, the scientists and engineers who came together to achieve this astounding historic feat that was the moon landing came up against tremendous technological challenges, brick walls that no doubt appeared insurmountable, especially on a tight timeline. NASA scientists were up against a target for which they were held to account by a president who created a public expectation of success with American national security and American pride on the line. The key words here are “public expectation of success”. That is what the net-zero emissions accountability act is all about: a public expectation of success backed by a legal mechanism aimed at holding successive federal governments to account for fulfilling that expectation. In the same way NASA scientists followed a critical path informed by experts for reaching their target, Bill C-12 will require the government to set greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets informed by experts, plans for achieving those targets informed by experts, regular reporting by the government on its progress in achieving its targets, regular assessments by the government on the effectiveness of its measures for achieving its targets, and regular independent analysis by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development of the government's measures aimed at mitigating climate change, including those undertaken to achieve its most recent greenhouse gas emissions target as identified in the relevant assessment report. More specifically, the government's progress report must provide an update on the progress it has made toward achieving its relevant milestone GHG target and an update on the implementation of its climate plan: that is, the federal measures, sectoral strategies and federal government operations strategies aimed at reaching the relevant milestone target. These progress reports must be prepared no later than two years before the beginning of the relevant milestone year so that adjustments can be made to these measures and strategies. For its part, the assessment report must contain a summary of Canada's GHG emissions inventory, a statement on whether Canada has achieved its national GHG target for the milestone year and an assessment of how federal measures, sectoral strategies and federal government operations strategies described in the relevant emissions reduction plan contributed to Canada's efforts to achieve the national GHG target for that year. The strength of this framework is that it does not rely solely on the government's own assessment of its progress and the effectiveness of its climate action plan. It allows for multiple expert voices to weigh in, in a sense to write the government's report card on climate change. In other words, the government will not be grading itself. Incidentally, the space race achieved more than a target. It achieved a government-driven acceleration of technological progress and economic growth. Similarly, Bill C-12 is not only about meeting a life-saving target for the planet. It is ultimately about driving technological innovation and economic growth associated with the proliferation of the green products and services the world increasingly wants and needs. There is, however, one difference that I see between the moon shot and the present task at hand. In a sense, the moon shot was a closed system involving a singular locus of scientific activity and a well-defined technological focus, all within the purview of a dedicated government program that obviously involved numerous partnerships. The quest to meet targets around greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Canada is, in a sense, organizationally more complex, with more moving parts. Achieving net-zero emissions involves technological progress in many areas and simultaneous co-operative actions by many orders of government, where the degree of commitment to the goal of fighting climate change is not always shared equally across jurisdictions. Added to this is the fact that the federal government lacks exclusive jurisdiction and power in the matter. We are a federation, not a unitary state. Nonetheless, our government has been able to exercise meaningful leadership on climate change. We have been a government of firsts. Our government was the first federal government to put a national price on carbon and fight for the constitutional right to do so all the way to the Supreme Court. Our government was the first to develop a clean fuel standard. Our government was the first to have the courage to attempt to negotiate a pan-Canadian framework on climate change with the provinces and territories, and we were successful, thanks to the Prime Minister's political will and capital and the can-do determination of the member for Ottawa Centre, who was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at the time, but, governments change and can renege, and we have seen this happen. Our government was the first to provide financial incentives for the purchase of a zero-emission vehicle. Our government was also the first to require environmental assessments of large energy projects to factor in their GHG emissions. Our government was the first to set a net-zero emissions target, and our government is now the first to create a legal accountability framework for setting and achieving interim GHG targets on the way to net-zero emissions.

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the exact quote the member is referring to. As far as the Minister of Canadian Heritage is concerned, when there are important announcements such as the budget or major steps when it comes to the environment, the entire Liberal caucus looks after delivering the message. There is nothing extraordinary about that. As members know, many members of cabinet have expertise in the environment. In fact, the Liberal caucus is very concerned about the issue.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I think it is a very good development that we have a government in the United States that is committed to environmental action. Obviously, it makes things much easier to be working with a like-minded government on a continental basis. In terms of zero-emission vehicles, the member may know, as I know the industry is very important to him and his riding, that the environment committee of the House of Commons just completed a study on zero-emission vehicles and made a number of recommendations. I believe one of them was very much in line with what the member just mentioned. We will see, going forward, how we can work with auto makers and battery makers to make Canada a leader in the area of zero-emission vehicles.

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's views and insight carry a lot of weight in this chamber. As the member knows, the bill will hopefully be passed at second reading and make its way to the environment committee, where amendments will no doubt be tabled and we can have discussion about the points the member has raised. However, it is important to acknowledge that there is much room for expert advice in this bill, and this is key. It is important that we do rely on expert advice and indeed that any consultative body be not just a diverse group of individuals who represent the country the way this House does. We need also some expertise to move forward, so I appreciate the member's point.

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the official opposition on the budget for the last few days, and it is difficult to ascertain, at least for me, if they are Keynesians or proponents of Reaganomics. They say that they support the emergency measures our government quickly put in place when the pandemic broke, programs that helped so many Canadians, families and businesses, but at the same time they decry the deficit while saying they would not eliminate it, nor do they specify what kind of deficit they could live with and for how long. International experts are urging governments around the world to stay the course, to maintain the stimulus, urging all governments to learn from the 2008 financial crisis. As we know, governments put the brakes on too soon back then and it took about 10 years for economies to recover. The government’s economic plan is working. The Bank of Canada predicts our economy will grow by 6.5% this year, an upward revision of its forecast of 4% back in January. What is more, the bank’s optimism outstrips the government’s, which expects the economy to grow by 5.8% in 2021. We hear a great deal from the opposition about how the government's stimulus, which obviously is contributing to the debt, is hurting future generations. However, let us not forget that a deep recession hobbles the career prospects of those about to enter the job market, not to mention of those already in the job market who have lost their jobs. This career drag can last a lifetime, and when a career gets off to a slow start, this could delay people starting a family. It could also mean lower lifetime contributions to an RRSP, which then translates into a lower future retirement income stream. Our government is investing in the future at a time when interest rates are low. These investments, including in early learning and child care, will make Canada more productive, more competitive internationally and more prosperous. I will come back to child care in a moment. The returns from investing in the future will be high, and what better time to invest in high future returns than when the cost of capital is low? That is business 101. Incidentally, we can also expect a better quality of life because, in addition to child care, the government is also investing in the green economy. I would like to take a moment to bring some perspective to the deficit and debt. At the end of World War II, which preceded a period of great technological innovation and historic economic expansion, the deficit-to-GDP ratio was 21%. For 2020-21, the deficit will be $346 billion or 16.1% of GDP. This is below what was predicted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who forecast a deficit of $382.6 billion, and below what the government itself predicted in the fall economic statement, namely a deficit of $381.6 billion or 17.5% of GDP. The difference between today’s deficit and the one the Conservatives left us in 1993-94 is that today’s is not structural. In other words, it is not based on long-term commitments that are politically difficult to reverse. Unlike the 1993-94 deficit, today’s will begin to fade quickly. The deficit will drop in 2021-22, to 6.4% of GDP, and then to 2.3% of GDP in 2022-23. What this means is that in 2022-23, the deficit-to-GDP ratio will be one-third of what it was at the end of the Mulroney government. Some perspective is in order on the debt as well. At the end of World War II, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 100%. The debt-to-GDP ratio in 1993-94 was 71.9%. By contrast, the debt-to-GDP ratio for 2020-21 will be 49%, rising to 51.2% next year, and then declining as the economy grows and the pandemic eases. It is worth noting that Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This includes combined net debt of all three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. Now, let us turn to inflation. The member for Carleton spoke a great deal about monetary policy and inflation in his budget day speech. First, let us be clear, the government does not control monetary policy. Everyone knows that. Those who suggest that quantitative easing is Liberal government policy are being disingenuous, and it is disingenuous bordering on fearmongering to suggest that the Bank of Canada’s quantitative easing will bring Canada to the brink of German 1930s-style hyperinflation. The budget forecasts inflation of 2.2% in 2021, 2% in 2022 and 2.1% in 2023, which is closer to a risk of deflation, I would think. The Bank of Canada, for its part, predicts inflation will ease back to 2% over the second half of 2021 and remain there on a sustained basis. The risk of inflation is low because the money supply does not work the same way as it did in the past. The Conservatives have not caught up with that fact. Today, for example, quantitative easing involves encouraging banks to extend credit, which increases capacity and supply, and that works against inflation. Judging from what members of the official opposition are saying, the Bank of Canada should have kept money tight, yet at the same time they agree that deficits were needed to support Canadians in a time of crisis, so what would a combination of emergency deficits and tight money look like? Well, it would look a lot like the 1980s, a lot like the era of Reaganomics: namely, deficits with skyrocketing interest rates. What would that have done to Canadians struggling through the worst of the pandemic, lining up at their financial institutions for mortgage relief and loan extensions for their businesses? It would have meant disaster. Unfortunately, that appears to be the economic prescription of the party opposite: Reaganomics 101, to the detriment of the middle class. I would like to turn to productivity growth and international competitiveness. Namely, I would like to turn to child care. Over the last 40 years, the rising number of women in the workforce has accounted for about a third of Canada’s real GDP per capita growth. Experts agree that our prosperity will depend on greater equality between women and men. RBC Economics has estimated that adding more women to the workforce could boost Canada’s GDP by as much as 4% and even offset expected economic declines associated with an aging population. Any measure that would help increase women’s participation in the workforce would have a beneficial effect on the economy. Canada’s strength and beauty lie in its federative structure. It creates a sort of laboratory where each province can implement programs that take its regional values and priorities into account, often with the federal government’s support. If one province has a good idea, the others can follow suit. Quebec’s child care program is a good example of this type of cross-pollination, if you will. For many years, it was thought that the $7-a-day child care program was a luxury paid for through equalization payments. Thanks to an analysis performed in 2013 by renowned Quebec economist Pierre Fortin, in collaboration with Luc Godbout and Suzie St-Cerny, we now know that this is not true. I will quickly summarize the findings of the analysis, which confirms the merits of the Quebec experience that inspired the proposals in the recent budget. According to Professor Fortin, the $7-a-day child care program allowed Quebec to increase the participation of women in workforce. In 1996, before the program was implemented, women's participation rate was 2.5% lower than the Canadian average. Fifteen years later, it was 2.5% higher. Professor Fortin’s analysis estimated that, in 2008, approximately 70,000 working mothers were able to work specifically because of the $7-a-day child care program. It is also estimated that this influx of women into the workforce resulted in an increase of approximately $5.1 billion in Quebec’s GDP that same year. Overall, the program had a positive effect that led to a $919-million budget surplus in 2008 for the Quebec and federal governments, thanks to an increase in individual and corporate income tax, as well as a reduction in government transfer payments in the form of tax credits and deductions for child care expenses. In short, both the economy and taxpayers will benefit from a child care program based on the Quebec model. This is a progressive budget in terms of social justice that will also benefit Canada’s economy.

Madam Speaker, I did not say that inflation is not a problem. What I said was that the current policies are not risking inflation above what really is the target for the Bank of Canada. Yes, house prices are going up, but from what I have read, one of the reasons for this is the new entrants into the market. Those are new families buying homes. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said last week, the problem when it comes to housing prices, as it is always a question of supply and demand, is the supply of housing. It will be important to increase the supply of housing. I believe that once the pandemic is over and the pace of home construction picks up, the supply will expand.

Madam Speaker, the TMX is well on its way. That decision has been made, so it has been dealt with. There are people who work in the oil industry in Alberta and other places. Many are without jobs. They are suffering and that is creating social problems in certain parts of the country. In terms of a profiteering tax, over a number of years the government has brought in measures to reduce home speculation and so on. Anyway, we are on it.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member's speech, and not just his, but the discourse coming from the Conservative Party, I find that things zigzag a bit. We hear, for example, that we should not be running deficits, then they will say it is okay to run a deficit for a while, but they do not tell us for how long and what the ideal deficit should be. Then, when we talk about the benefits that have saved families, individuals and businesses, the Conservatives support them. It gets a bit confusing. We have heard about the fact that we are not manufacturing vaccines at home, yet this budget includes some funding to build up the biopharmaceuticals sector. Of course, that is going to cost money. It is not going to reduce the deficit, so what I am wondering is whether the member is in favour of that kind of spending. Does he think the budget is good from that perspective, or does he think that we need to cut back somewhere else in order to make these expenditures on biomanufacturing capacity possible?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “The Road Ahead: Encouraging the Production and Purchase of Zero-Emission Vehicles in Canada”. This study, which is extremely relevant in today's context where we are making the transition to a greener economy, was proposed by the member for Repentigny. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. I would also like to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-204, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, on March 31, McGill University celebrated the 200th anniversary of its founding. This historic institution of higher learning has been central to Canada's intellectual, cultural, political, social and economic development. McGill's greatest strength has always been its people. Trailblazers such as Madeleine Parent, Maude Abbott and Ernest Rutherford have inspired generations of students. The university's faculties, including medicine, law, the arts, education, engineering, agricultural sciences and social work, have contributed immeasurably to the progress of society. Today, McGill University has some 39,700 students, including more than 27,000 undergraduate students, more than 10,000 postgraduate students, and nearly 2,000 residents, fellows and postdoctoral scholars. As a McGill alumnus and proud representative in Parliament of the university's Macdonald Campus, I wish McGill continued great success in its world-class educational mission.

Madam Speaker, over the past year, we have all recognized the importance of being active and getting outside, in accordance with health guidelines, of course. Canadians are starting to think about the kinds of investments that could contribute to a strong and sustainable economic recovery. I was pleased to learn that the federal government will be making a significant investment in what is referred to as active transportation. Could the Minister of Infrastructure tell us more about how the government plans to help expand networks of community pathways across the country?

Madam Speaker, the last time I spoke to this bill was in 2020, and I am resuming where I left off at that time. The CPPIB's investments have been consistently drawing above-average rates of return. The fund, combining both the base CPP and additional CPP accounts, achieved 10-year and five-year annualized net real returns of 10.5% and 9.6%, respectively. The CPP fund is now at $556.7 billion and the chief actuary, during her last independent review, confirmed that the plan continues to be sustainable for the next 75 years at current contribution rates. This means that Canadians can have confidence that the CPP will be there for them when they retire. Let us take a closer look at Bill C-231. This legislation proposes to amend the investment policies, standards and procedures established by the board of directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to ensure that no investments can be made or held in entities that have performed acts or carried out work contrary to ethical business practices or have violated human rights, labour or environmental laws. The bill's intent is certainly noble and laudable, but I believe that it needs to be examined carefully to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. For instance, by prescribing certain investment policies, will this bill conflict with the independent governance of the board? It is worth repeating that this independent governance is an important element of the board's success and effectiveness. While the board is accountable to federal and provincial finance ministers, it operates at arm's length from these levels of government. The board's investment decisions are not influenced by political direction, regional, social or economic issues, or any non-investment objectives whatsoever. This bill could set a precedent and lead to further calls to restrict the board's activities. Such a change would certainly threaten the board's independence, but could also threaten the long-term viability of the Canada pension plan. I would also like to point out that the bill does not set an objective standard with which the CPPIB can comply. The bill would introduce a legal requirement to prohibit investment in entities that undertake unethical business practices, without defining this term. This lack of specificity could open investment decisions up to challenges or litigation from stakeholders. Additionally, we need to consider whether the bill would create an uneven playing field at the investor level and at the company level. At the investor level, it would be unfair to target only the CPPIB since its competitors, such as other Canadian and foreign pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and major institutional investors, would not be constrained by these rules. Finally, an amendment such as the one proposed in this bill would require the consent of seven out of 10 provinces, having at least two-thirds of the population of all provinces, in order to come into effect. The CPPIB explains rather transparently on its own website the policies, resources and strategies it applies to account for environmental, social and governance factors in its investment decisions, as well as the measures it takes as an asset owner. In fact, the CPPIB recently published an update to its sustainable investment policy that reflects its growing conviction of the importance of accounting for environmental, social and governance risks and possibilities within an increasingly competitive commercial business environment. The CPPIB is an active member of the Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures, a founding signatory of the Principles for Responsible Investment network and a partner of the OECD project on long-term investment by institutional investors. The government is committed to strengthening public pensions and improving the quality of life for seniors now and for generations to come. This includes enhancing the Canada pension plan, which will raise the maximum CPP retirement benefit by up to 50% over time. The enhancement represents a major strengthening of one of the three pillars of Canada's retirement income system, along with the old age security program and voluntary tax-assisted private savings. It will significantly increase retirement security for Canadian families, particularly middle-income families and families without workplace pension plan coverage. In closing, I would like to note that Canada's seniors worked hard to support their families, build strong communities and contribute to the growth of our economy. Although many people plan on closing the professional chapter of their lives, especially low-income seniors, retirement can be an intimidating prospect that comes with the risk of financial insecurity and a feeling of isolation. Thanks to the measures that the government has put in place since 2015, we are helping seniors keep more money in their pockets, receive the CPP benefits to which they are entitled and remain active in their community. We know that the funds in the Canada pension plan are in good hands and that the plan is actuarially sound for several generations to come. The CPPIB should be allowed to continue to fulfill its mandate free of interference. I therefore encourage hon. members to carefully consider the bill before them.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has lost a passionate and tireless advocate for our most vital resource, fresh water. Dr. David Schindler was not only a world-renowned limnologist who, in 1991, won the prestigious Stockholm Water Prize; he was also responsible for fundamental shifts in North American environmental policy through his pioneering field work, most famously at the Experimental Lakes Area, which he co-founded. Dr. Schindler was in many ways a public intellectual. He made ecology accessible in the manner of Rachel Carson. His research sounded the alarm on acid rain and led to the banning of high-phosphorus laundry detergent. Dr. Schindler's work on the impacts of the oil sands on the Athabasca River watershed inspired a study by the House of Commons environment committee on the issue and led to changes in the way water quality is monitored in the watershed. I ask members to join me in offering our deepest condolences to Dr. Schindler's wife Suzanne, daughters Eva and Rachel, and son Daniel.

Madam Speaker, the term “force of nature” does not apply to many people. Wolf Solkin was a force of nature: an extraordinary individual who lived an extraordinary life that intersected with history. Born in the Soviet Union, a child of the Great Depression, a World War II combat officer with the Algonquin Regiment, a social worker, property developer, and hotel manager, Wolf left us this month just shy of his 98th birthday. Wolf's love of a just cause was unrelenting to the very end. At Ste. Anne's Hospital, he was a tireless advocate for the rights and dignity of his fellow veterans. He launched an internal newspaper called the Veteran's Voice and, armed with his iPad, employed the written word to amplify and defend the interests of his cohort at the hospital. I ask members of the House to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to Wolf's wife, Louise, and sons David and Andrew.

Mr. Speaker, today I have a petition to present in memory of Wyatt Thomas Smith. It is signed by 25 individuals. The petitioners are asking the government to declare the overdose crisis a national public emergency and take steps to end overdose deaths and overdose injuries by collaborating with the provinces and territories to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian overdose action plan that considers reforms that other countries have used. They ask us to ensure that this emergency is taken seriously, with adequately funded programming and supports.

Madam Speaker, we need the study on this motion because it is time we gave formal and comprehensive attention to the protection and management of our most precious resource, our fresh water. Clearly, this government has begun to do just that. The recent throne speech reiterated the government's commitment to creating a coordinating and research mechanism called the Canada water agency. Consultations are well under way to inform the shape of this new entity. The throne speech also committed to creating a national water strategy. The House owes it to itself to be part of the conversation around these important initiatives. The proposed study would make the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development the locus of Parliament's engagement on both initiatives. The committee is the ideal and rightful forum for an in-depth conversation on current and future federal policies and initiatives involving fresh water. I know there are concerns in some quarters. These concerns have been expressed by my Bloc colleagues, notably the members for Repentigny, Jonquière and Lac-Saint-Jean. There is concern that an active federal interest in fresh water risks impinging on provincial jurisdiction, but this is not the case, neither in terms of the recent throne speech commitments nor in terms of the spirit of this proposed study. First, the Canada water agency would not be a regulation-making body. Its purpose would be to explore fresh water issues for the purpose of information sharing with stakeholders, which includes various federal departments, provincial governments, academic institutions, private sector companies and international bodies. Second, the federal government has clearly proven it is open, where appropriate, to involving provinces in fresh water management, even where there is a clear federal constitutional responsibility. For example, in regard to the 2012 federal waste-water system effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, these do not apply in Quebec, since equivalent waste-water regulations are in effect in that province. Moreover, there are currently bilateral waste-water administrative agreements between the federal government and the provinces of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. I compare the water domain to the free market in economics. I do not mean this in the sense of water being a private good. It is not and should never be. I mean that, like the economic free market, there is a large number of actors, too large to inventory, working simultaneously toward the objective of optimally protecting and managing this vital resource. These efforts are, in a way, guided by an invisible hand working for a common good and not by central government planning or direction. That is the boon, but it is also the challenge. Just like with the free market, some measure of coordination is always needed, so too is it in respect to fresh water. Finally, when we speak of a national water strategy, we are really speaking of a federal water strategy, not an invasion of jurisdiction by a national government intent on implementing a uniform vision for water. We are speaking of a long-overdue attempt to rationalize disparate, and too often disjointed, elements of water policy in federal jurisdiction. Canada is a water nation worthy of a focused discussion in Parliament on the clear and rapidly emerging issue of water security at a time of galloping climate change, rapid industrial development and sustained global population growth. I thank all members who participated in the debate on this motion.