SoVote

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Dec/16/21 1:14:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard. The ask in Bill C-2 is $7.4 billion, and the bill is being rushed through the House, with little time at committee to deal with another $7.4 billion expenditure. A lot of these types of situations have happened over the last couple of years, since the pandemic started. I recall that back in early 2021, there was a $52-billion spending bill, and the government wanted Parliament's approval in literally four hours, with little opportunity for oversight and little opportunity to provide any sort of transparency or accountability on that spending. Now, here with Bill C-2, we are being asked to approve $7.4 billion. I want to focus on a couple of points today. Number one is who is left out in Bill C-2. I think it is very important that we recognize who is being left out in the bill. Second, I want to focus on the issue of accountability, transparency and oversight, which are severely lacking in the bill. The member for Carleton asked finance department officials where this money was coming from, and all we heard were crickets. He suggested that maybe there is a money tree in this country that the government is picking money from, but there was no answer. These are the types of questions we could deal with if we had more time. I am really fortunate to come from the riding of Barrie—Innisfil, which is also known as “Terminal 4”. There are a lot of Pearson airport employees and airline, travel and tourism employees who live in my riding. Many of them have felt anxiety not just over the past 18 months in trying to pick up the pieces of their lives as the travel and tourism industry has been decimated, but also over the fact that in the last couple of days, we have seen advisories from the Government of Canada on travel. They are really curbing back some of the decisions that Canadians have made to travel over the holidays, to travel internationally to warm destinations, which typically Canadians do, or to travel to simply visit family in the United States. A lot of that is not happening, and it is having a serious impact on our travel and tourism industry, particularly the airline sector, which we know has been hard hit over the course of the last 21 months, and those in the travel adviser business, such as travel agents, many of whom have been left out over the course of the last 21 months from many of the benefits the government has provided for relief. Now they are being left behind again. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism say that they will have to apply just like everybody else, but from the discussions I have had with the Association of Canadian Independent Travel Advisors, applying simply does not work. These people did not qualify because many of them are independent travel advisers. They do not have brick-and-mortar properties and do not have storefronts. They work out of their homes. However, they provide $2.4 billion in revenue, at least they did in 2019 before the pandemic hit. Many of the 12,000 independent travel advisers in this country, like Heather Kearns and Charlene Caldwell from my riding, did not qualify for any of the pandemic benefits. As a result, they have seen a drop, like a drop off a cliff, in their businesses. Oftentimes, they are paid for bookings when those trips happen, so members can imagine what it would be like if we booked travel and that travel got cancelled and clawed back, or if we did not get paid for anything we thought we would be booking. It has been an awfully difficult 20 months for travel advisers, and it is going to continue that way. What Bill C-2 does not address directly is the demand from the Association of Canadian Independent Travel Advisors, which is for some sort of bridge financing to make it much easier for them to access government programs. I think that is a failure of Bill C-2. The other thing, which we have heard about from seniors, is the GIS clawback. Many seniors are suffering right now. There is an affordability crisis going on this country, and the cost of home heating, gas, groceries and hydro is disproportionately affecting seniors not just in my riding but right across this country. Many seniors thought to apply for the CERB, and as a result of receiving it, they are now finding out there are GIS clawbacks. The government does address this, but not until May 2022, so many of those seniors will continue to suffer as a result of the affordability and “just inflation” crisis that is going on right now. Those are a couple of what I think are serious faults in this piece of legislation. Over the last couple of days, I have heard, as I expect many colleagues in the House have, from travel advisers and other people in the travel and tourism industry about how worried they are over the latest travel advisories, particularly at a time when Canada will be seeing its busiest period of travel. Many of those travel advisers will simply lose more income, so we should have broader supports available in Bill C-2 for the travel and tourism industry. They are not addressed in this piece of legislation, and those independent travel advisers will be severely impacted by this. The other thing we want to see in Bill C-2, and this to me is extremely troubling, is the level of accountability and transparency that was requested by members of the Conservative Party at the finance committee, in particular for oversight. A FINTRAC report was done, and I will remind Canadians that FINTRAC stands for the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. Its job is to monitor literally every financial transaction that happens in this country. It issued a report, and it was not until an ATIP request made by Mr. Ken Rubin, who is an Ottawa researcher, was received that the extent, scope and scale of the CERB fraud occurring in this country was known. What the Conservatives were looking for, as part of the amendments to Bill C-2 that were not included in the latest iteration of the bill, was an audit, based on the FINTRAC report, by the Auditor General, a review of some of the CRA actions that have gone on to investigate this simply to pursue the fraudsters. I will provide some examples of what was in the FINTRAC report, and why this is so disturbing and should be disturbing to Canadians, given the scale, scope and amount of fraud. Who was involved in the fraud is also important. This report was first published in 2020 by FINTRAC. Do members know how many investigations have been done by the Canada Revenue Agency since? It is zero in 21 months. That in and of itself is disturbing. What the Conservatives were trying to do was bring amendments to the bill so we could investigate that on behalf of Canadians, or at least allow the agencies responsible for investigations to look into the issue of fraud. The FINTRAC report is an interesting read, and I encourage everybody to read it. I will certainly post it on some of my social media sites. There is a great summary in it, but a lot of the information is redacted. I know my time is short, so I will quickly summarize some of the challenges that went on with FINTRAC and why it was important that they be investigated. It states: Reporting Entities indicated that criminal organizations, using stolen IDs and individuals recruited via social media, are operating "CERB scams" in certain cities.... This was in 2020, so it is in the present tense. It continues: ...prepaid cards are loaded with CERB benefits and other laundered funds. Reporting Entities indicated that clients who do not meet the CERB eligibility requirements, or who are fully employed, still apply for, and receive CERB benefits.... A Reporting Entity noted that scammers are using stolen personal identifying information to apply online for CERB/GST refunds and arranging for funds to be deposited onto prepaid/reloadable cards. We also heard about the gangs and criminal organizations that were using the CERB to fund the purchase of guns. This is critically important to Canadians. The government shovelled billions of dollars out the door with no oversight, accountability or transparency. We as Conservatives think it is important to investigate this. There is one other thing I will say. The other day at the ethics committee I asked for members to consider a motion to look into the over $600 billion in pandemic spending that has not been accounted for by the government. That motion was rejected at committee by the Liberal members. We need to get to the bottom of this so that Canadians have confidence and trust in the government and to make sure we understand where the money is going. It is disappointing to see that amendments on accountability and transparency were not part of the amendments accepted for Bill C-2, and it is difficult to understand why.

1569 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Dec/16/21 1:24:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, the member talked a bit about accountability and transparency, and I want to tell him about a business in my riding that accessed the wage subsidy to lock out its boilermaker workers. It is Cessco steel. It locked out its workers, received the wage subsidy and used the wage subsidy to pay for scab labour. We have asked the government to fix this loophole in the program time and time again. We have asked the government to review the process so this cannot happen again. However, to date, the government has ignored us. I am wondering whether the member thinks we could have done so much better in implementing these programs. If the government had listened to the opposition when we told it about holes in some of the programs, Canadians would have been kept safer and we would have had a much better program rollout.

148 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Dec/16/21 1:25:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting point, although I am not fully aware of the details of that particular case. More broadly, the government, in its haste to get this money out the door, should have been considering oversight. It should have been considering accountability and transparency as well. It should have been putting in place measures allowing investigative bodies and jurisdictions that have authority, such as the CRA and others, to investigate more quickly where this money had gone. As I said in my speech, the CRA has not yet investigated this, despite the fact that FINTRAC has identified thousands of cases of fraud with the CERB. No charges have been laid at this point. This speaks to the will of the government to really investigate this. Is it just going to turn a bind eye to it? We need to get to the bottom of this, and the amendments we proposed for Bill C-2 would have certainly helped in that regard.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/16/21 1:26:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I have heard the Conservatives talk a lot about affordability and making sure that Canadians can continue to afford the goods and services they require these days. However, yesterday a concurrence motion was brought before the House to start the debate and discussion on Canada's first national tax on non-resident foreign owners of vacant land or underused housing. Why would the Conservative Party have voted against that when it is clear that a measure like this is going to help improve the affordability situation?

88 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Dec/16/21 1:27:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, certainly affordability is a critical issue, and nowhere more than in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil, where young people and seniors are being priced out of the housing market. There is definitely a need to look into this. In fact, several of our proposals in the latest election campaign addressed the issue of affordability so we could look at foreign ownership and make sure we are doing all we can to make housing affordable in this country. We will continue to push on affordability. The number one issue I hear about is housing attainability and affordability, and it is coupled with the fact that now we are seeing inflation at 18- or 19-year highs. Things are becoming increasingly unaffordable for Canadians, and a lot of that has to do with the policies of the government.

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC)

Dec/16/21 1:28:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend very closely as he spoke today about a particular section of our economy: the independent travel advisers. I know that a number of people on this side of the House, and I expect on the other side, have heard from those people. Primarily it is women who work from home. They have been lost in government assistance. These people do not get paid until a trip is taken, which might be months down the road, but there is nothing in Bill C-2 to help them. From listening to them, I know they feel they were almost deliberately cut out of it. I wonder if my friend has any comments about that.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Dec/16/21 1:28:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I spent a lot of my time talking about independent travel advisers and there is a reason for that. I spent a tremendous amount of time dealing with the national organization and local travel advisers. They do feel left out and they have been left out. Many of them have not been able to access some of the benefits. This is a $2.4-billion industry and 12,000 people are independent travel advisers. We cannot just cast them aside. We have to make sure they are supported. They have not been supported, and we will continue to be a voice, not just in this place but anywhere we go, to support them across this country.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Dec/16/21 1:29:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be following the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil, who spoke so eloquently about the struggles that independent travel advisers are having. I have met with many of them as well. Absolutely, they do feel left out of what the government is doing. The government is essentially proposing in Bill C-2 that we give it all the money it needs right now and it will worry about accountability and transparency later on. I think the member went through some of the FINTRAC issues that were reported and the fraud issues that have been mounting. I will return to FINTRAC in a moment to read off some of its other concerns. We, on this side of the House, supported Canadians who were banned from returning to work because of various health restrictions. We opposed the Liberals giving COVID cheques to prisoners, organized criminals, suspected fraudsters, and corporations paying out bonuses and dividends to executives. We did not support paying people not to work while the economy was open and there were a half-million vacant jobs. I remember my province of Alberta did reopen briefly. I was just speaking with a hotelier who said that they can only reopen their kitchen three days a week because they cannot find staff. They are cleaning rooms all day long and until all hours because they just cannot find enough people to work during those key morning hours when they are trying to turn over a room for their next guest. Having a major hotel kitchen being open three days a week is not a way to run a business. It is going to lose business. People simply will not travel. The hotels are also losing out on the income needed to keep paying people for their work. It is a struggle on both sides, for employees and employers but we, on the Conservative side, are there for them. I think the principle we should remind ourselves of is that, if a provincial government or a federal government takes away someone's ability to earn a living, it owes them compensation. I would call that a regulatory taking. It took something away from a person through no fault of their own so it should compensate that person, but that compensation should not extend to periods where the person chose not to work; made a choice. As well, if a person is engaging in criminal activity, of course that person should not be getting government benefits to facilitate their criminal enterprise. We want help for tourism and hospitality companies hit by travel restrictions, but we oppose legislation like this that opens the floodgates to do whatever the government thinks necessary. This is $7.4 billion of new spending on top of all the other spending it has been doing. The House has already heard from two of my colleagues already who said that they tried to fix this at committee. We offered ideas to improve things. We set out four conditions that we thought would drastically improve this bill. I was here during the last Parliament and we saw the government go out of its way to rush bills through the House and only come back later on to fix the errors that were made. Typically, those errors resulted in billions of dollars of taxpayers' money either being spent unwisely or being impossible to spend because the program just did not work for the people for whom it was designed. All of those things typically get fixed at a House committee. That is where witnesses testify whether the programs will work the way they are identified and where federal officials come to actually explain the programs. We saw at the Standing Committee on Finance that there was a complete inability of officials to explain where the money was going to come from. I thought it was a very simple question, needing only a referral to the estimates. I have a Yiddish proverb, which I know many members expect. It is that, “Sins hide not in your sleep but in your dreams.” I remember the debate on a different bill in this House just a few days ago. I mentioned that usually with government legislation there is a difference between what the bill says and the intentions that the government has behind the bill. The two are usually completely separated from each other. The sins in this bill are that there is not enough accountability and transparency for the taxpayers who are being asked to shoulder a huge bill to get our country back on track. The member who spoke previously talked about FINTRAC, so let me just continue reading off some of its summary concerns. “Reporting entities indicated that clients have applied for and received CERB despite not living in Canada and they appear to be residing in a 'jurisdiction of concern'.” We are paying for people outside Canada to get taxpayers' money that we really have no way of verifying whether they should be getting any of these funds and they are outside Canada. It is difficult for me to explain at the doors, through emails and on phone calls to taxpayers as to why they are subsidizing people outside of the country. “Reporting Entities noted that clients received multiple CERB deposits over a one-week period/made multiple applications for CERB benefits using one or multiple identities/conducted transactions to cash CERB cheques at multiple locations.” In any normal situation, this would be considered fraud. It would be something that we would be very concerned about and we would be looking for opportunities to restrain, constrain and stop it at the earliest of opportunities. “Reporting Entities indicated that clients who appeared to be engaged in illegal or suspicious financial activity are also in receipt of CERB payments and employment income.” Last, “Reporting Entities indicated that clients appeared to receive CERB payments while also receiving income from their business and/or are receiving CEBA while also engaged in suspicious or fraudulent activity.” This is an indictment. The member who spoke previous to me started down this path. We rely on FINTRAC. I used to be a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, and I have had in-camera briefings where FINTRAC explains this. It is an amazing service that it provides to the Government of Canada to ensure that we do due diligence when we hand out benefits. Benefits must go to the people who are most in need of them, and it saps trust in government when it simply says it is going to open the floodgates and everyone will figure it out after the fact. There is an Auditor General's report that has come out regarding border controls with the testing of individuals at the border and then following up with them as to whether they have actually quarantined. It is a damning report. I know you, Madam Speaker, have served on that committee before and you enjoy Auditor General reports, likely as much as I do. It is a damning report that in a situation where the government set up a program such as for cash payments that go out to people who need them, there is always a small group of people who will engage in fraud. The system should be designed to ensure that does not happen, so that taxpayers and citizens trust the system and trust that the government has a handle on this situation and that it will pursue those who abuse the system. It is reasonable for taxpayers and citizens to expect that we do this. We have spent a prodigious amount of money and we are being asked to approve even more spending in this bill. We have proposed amendments that would drastically improve this bill to ensure we have that accountability and transparency mechanism. We just saw a fall economic statement that called for even more spending. There is more revenue and more spending going down, and in my riding residents are asking who is going to pay for all of these bills. At the end of the day, this pandemic will end. I always tell people that this will end. I do not know when; I am not a doctor or a scientist. It will end and, at some point, these bills will come due. We are going to have to be rolling over some of this debt. Who is going to pay for all of this spending? We are well over a trillion dollars in debt. I am reminded of John Diefenbaker. I was talking to my caucus and it reminded me of a quote from the 1960s when the great Diefenbaker was in this House debating with a Liberal, Pickersgill, on the other side and describing at the time some of their financial measures. The fall economic statement reminds me of this. He said that it is like homeopathic soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that died of starvation. I cannot imagine a better description of what I see there. Diefenbaker said it 50 or 60 years ago and nothing has really changed with the Liberal government. It is the same thing all over again. There are vast amounts of spending and very little in constraints and controls. I can bring up another example. A PBO report came out just today on the icebreaker program. Two icebreakers were supposed to cost $1.3 billion back in 2013. That cost now has ballooned to $7.25 billion. They are not getting more icebreakers; they are just getting the two. It is cost controls and project management. The current government has been in power for six years, and this is entirely on it. The Liberals cannot blame anybody else. In 2015, they were handed excellent books with balanced budgets. We repeatedly told the Liberals to get ready for a disastrous situation or a downturn. We could never have predicted that there would be a pandemic like this, that would be a drastic downturn in the nation's finances, where people would be told to stay at home. They would be prohibited from working so they would lose their livelihoods. In that situation it is absolutely legitimate for the government to step in and support people. Some would take advantage of it unfairly and we would have to follow up and make sure that fraudulent benefits were repaid to the taxpayer. In situations like that, I understand that we should support people. However, taxpayers are asking themselves, “When is it enough?” They are asking when government will actually provide the transparency and the accountability that is expected when it borrows on the nation's credit card that all taxpayers are responsible for. Like I said in my proverb, “Sins hide not in your sleep but in your dreams.” The government is dreaming that either the fall economic statement or a bill like this will restore trust in government.

1840 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/16/21 1:39:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of it when Conservatives say that they handed over the books with a balanced budget. Yes, if we did not mind the slashing of services to veterans, and the selling off of shares of GM at bargain prices, all just so that they could supposedly have a balanced budget going into an election. Nonetheless, what surprises me even more is how short term the memory appears to be with this member. He is not new here, he was here in the previous Parliament. The member is fully aware that he and all Conservative members voted for all of that spending through unanimous consent motions. He could have stood up or shouted from his seated position. All it would have taken was a simple “No.” Then the money would not have been spent. He had the power to do that. Why did he not do it?

155 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Dec/16/21 1:40:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, at the time the government said it was an emergency, and we on this side of the House agreed it was an emergency. It was a worldwide pandemic. Three days before the WHO announced that it was a worldwide emergency pandemic, the minister of health at the time said it was low risk, there was nothing going on and we should not worry about it. I remember, it was Easter weekend, and we were all asked to vote on the spending. We said yes, it was an emergency. I even said it in my speech, that when the government takes from Canadians the ability to earn a living, a regulatory taking, it should then step in and compensate them for it. However, at a certain point, the emergency has to end. The understanding was always that the government would follow up with transparency and accountability, account for the money, hold people accountable and stop giving it to criminal organizations.

161 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Dec/16/21 1:41:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, my colleague made much of the need to stop spending. Obviously, Parliament does not print money. However, in Quebec and in Canada, we are currently going through a major crisis, a housing crisis. We talked about it for a whole day last week in response to a motion moved by the Conservatives. In Quebec, 450,000 households spend more than 30% of their income on housing. What we are currently seeing is that the market is not doing its job. It is not managing to control the price of houses or rents to give the most vulnerable people in Canada a place to live. Every housing organization in Quebec, including FRAPU, the Réseau québécois des OSBL, and tenants' associations, unanimously agrees that the government needs to invest heavily to put an end to the housing crisis for once and for all. Does my colleague agree?

153 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/16/21 1:42:40 p.m.
Watch

I urge members to be mindful of the volume of their voice for the sake of the interpreters. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

24 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Dec/16/21 1:42:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and the energy with which he asked it. I agree that there is a housing crisis in our country. The average price of a home in Canada has now increased to $720,850. Even in my region, in Calgary, prices no longer have any connection to the salaries people can earn in the communities that I represent. From November 2021 to now, the increase was 19.6%. I think that the problem is that government spending is too high and it is not slowing down. The mortgage rate is less than 1% at some banks. It is too easy to get too much money, and that is causing home prices to increase in Canada.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/16/21 1:43:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Conservatives, and certainly the New Democrats, have talked a lot about travel agents and those who have been left behind by the government, abandoned when the government shut down the Canada emergency response benefit. There are many Canadians who have not been getting the support they need. Could my colleague speak about what the Conservatives would offer for those travel agents and those who have not been getting support? Clearly they are getting nothing right now. It is disproportionately women who are travel agents, who are staying at home, and who are going to be greatly impacted by the failure of the Liberal government that has abandoned them.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Dec/16/21 1:44:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. I have spoken to many travel agents in my riding, primarily women. Usually it is either their second job, or one of two part-time jobs. They are being excluded. The simplest solution is make them eligible for the same government programs for which larger corporations are eligible.

55 words

All Topics

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

Dec/16/21 1:45:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill and to go through our concerns about being asked to approve another $7 billion-plus. I will be splitting my time with my friend, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I appreciate his contributions and look forward to his speech. We often hear the Liberals say that they have a plan for the economy, but I think we all know that means a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats sitting around a table and coming up with yet another government program on which they can spend money. We are being asked to scrutinize legislation that asks for over $7 billion in additional funding. We have said many times in this place that the printing of money, the $400 billion, is causing massive inflation problems right across the country. It is causing the price of pretty much everything to go up, making things more expensive, such as every day goods, hurting those who are living off their pay cheques and struggling to get by every day. As we all know, every time a new plan is constructed, it eventually fails. Then we have the government saying that something is going wrong and it needs to come up with another program to fix the program it just had. It is like going to the doctor for high blood pressure and the doctor prescribes a pill. Then it is dry mouth and the doctor prescribes another pill. After that, it is high blood pressure again and that is another pill. The list goes on. It is the exact same issue we are dealing with here. In this case, the government is talking about a new day care program, a program that, on its merits, looks like it will be deficit financed well into the future. It is a program that is going to cause significant issues for parents trying to access already limited spaces. What the government does, as we all know when it comes into the marketplace, is it eviscerates competition. It creates an uneven playing field with other operators. We are talking about people who operate day cares from their basements, which are regulated but are provided in that neighbourhood home. The government, by putting in dollars and distorting the price, causes those spaces that would otherwise be provided in the free market to go away, causing more problems and more wait-lists. If people think day care is expensive now, wait until the government gets its hands on it fully. It seems the government has two speeds: big government and bigger government. The day care is one, but we are talking about the expansion of a number of these programs. We have said all along, as my friends have already pointed out, that when the government was telling people to stay home and businesses to close because we were dealing with the pandemic, and no one really knew what was going on, they deserved to be compensated, and we supported those programs. There were some problems with those programs, such as the wage subsidy, the rent program and many others, that we in the opposition brought to the government's attention. In some cases, changes were made and in some cases they were not made. A number of businesses were not able to qualify for these programs despite attention being given to these programs. We are now finding out that possibly CERB money was given to organized crime potentially contributing to the already growing crime problem in some of our major cities. That deserves a level of scrutiny. That deserves responsibility by parliamentarians to do our job to find out what is going on, what is working and what is not working with this program. As we know, the government does not have divine resources. The only thing the government has is the taxes we pay and if the government borrows money, it puts us in debt. If it prints money, it is the back door to taxing people. It is taxing savings and making the savings of many in the working class worth less. As was pointed out many times in the House, those who are sitting in big mansions or on massive assets have seen their wealth grow. However, there are those people who are struggling to get by, struggling to find a house, struggling to even get into the housing market, struggling to pay their bills or even just going to the grocery store and realizing their cart is not as full as it used to be but the price at the till is the same. That is because the government has thrown all this money up into atmosphere and refuses to change course. During the height of the pandemic, the first thing the government did was to try to seize absolute power to tax and spend on whatever it wanted for two years into the future.

823 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Dec/16/21 1:55:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

That was another Bill C-2.

6 words

All Topics

Mr. Jamie Schmale

Dec/16/21 1:55:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

That was another Bill C-2. I thank my friend from Barrie—Innisfil for reminding me of that. It was an opportunity for the government to try to seize absolute power, to take the opposition right out of the equation and put all the power into the executive branch. Thankfully, opposition members stood up to that as did Canadians in general. We saw a portion of the initial $400 billion go to the CERB, the wage subsidy and other programs, actual supports. We saw some of it go into the housing market, but we also saw a pretty big chunk go into basically a slush fund of Liberal spending on things that had nothing to do with COVID, but were couched in that language of COVID, adding to the problem we are at now. The fact is that businesses, especially the small ones, are struggling at this exact moment. They are struggling to deal with rising prices and labour shortages. Unfortunately it is not going to get much better. Reports have shown that Canadians are going to spend upward of $1,000 or even more on groceries compared to last year as the spending continues. We are not even talking about how we are going to service the debt into the near future. We are not talking about the billions of dollars that could have been used for a number of programs, but instead they are being used to pay interest, to service the debt. While we are paying the interest, we are still adding on, so we are struggling to keep our heads above water. We need to try to expand the economy and we do that by keeping taxes low and the rules, regulations and red tape at a reasonable level. We let the market take charge and allow businesses to do what they do best, which is create jobs, opportunity and wealth for our communities; create paycheques for those working in the businesses, which then create more businesses and expanding opportunities. If we want to help the disenfranchised, we do that by expanding the economy. When we impose rules, regulations and red tape, we contract the economy. Then we have more intervention by government, and around and around we go. As we mentioned many times, we would like to see more fiscal responsibility by the government, yes, helping those sectors that are being told they are unable to operate, specifically the travel and tourism sector, but also looking at programs where we can expand the economy, where we can build things here in our country. In Ontario, it has been tough. We have some of the highest electricity rates in North America thanks to the Ontario Liberals. What did that do to the once manufacturing engine of Canada? It decimated the manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, a lot of those people who left Queen's Park came to Ottawa and are on that same path. In some cases, we paid their moving expenses. We need to start doing the opposite. We need to start encouraging investment, encouraging the brain power to come and grow here, create jobs, opportunity and wealth. We need lower taxes, less government and more freedom.

531 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/16/21 1:55:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, I found that speech very fascinating. On the one hand, the member was completely able to understand and see how an economy could expand and contract. Toward the end of his speech, he specifically talked about that and how government could take certain measures to expand and contract the economy. However, at the beginning of his speech, he spoke about child care and he made a point of only saying that it would be contributing to a deficit rather than assessing that perhaps by putting more people into the workforce, we could expand our economy in the exact same way by the definitions he used. Why are the Conservatives able to talk about expanding and contracting an economy whenever it serves their purpose, but when it is about investing and infusing opportunity for people in our economy, they are completely unable to do that?

146 words

All Topics

Mr. Jamie Schmale

Dec/16/21 1:56:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Madam Speaker, clearly the member across the way did not listen to a word I said. As was pointed out, the only speed the government has is big government and bigger government. The cost of the child care program, which the Liberal government is going across the country trying to get signed, is going to be deficit financed, putting the cost on the backs of the kids who are entering child care. Not only that, we can look at other jurisdictions where this has been tried. Of course, the only solution is more government. If we talk about any other solution that does not involve more government, the Liberals close their ears. It is absolutely amazing. If we look at other jurisdictions in the country and elsewhere where this has been tried, there are massive waiting lists when government takes over child care. We need to expand the opportunities for all, allow government to have its place, allow the private sector to have a place, not eviscerate the private sector and expect the government to figure it all out.

179 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 19