SoVote

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mar/21/22 4:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the amazing member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. We are here today to talk about an NDP motion that really addresses the key issue of where the bar of dignity is in this country we all belong to. What we are seeing across this country is more and more people falling below it. Members may ask what I mean by the bar of dignity. To me, it means that one has the ability to look after themselves, to have a roof over their head, to be able to feed themselves, to be able to afford the medication they need and to be able to access those basic things that we all deserve to be a part of because we are all Canadians and because we live in a wealthy country that should be looking after all the people who live in it. Right now, we are in another government, another federal government, which passes hands between the Liberals and Conservatives, that continues to take that bar of dignity and lower it and lower it. We have heard from some of our Liberal friends here today that there are some great economic outcomes. There are more jobs and there are more opportunities. However, when we talk to everyday people who are living through that experience right now, what we see very clearly is that a lot of those folks are working three or four of those jobs trying to make ends meet. We are talking about families who do not get to spend time together as a family because both working parents have to juggle all of those factors. We need to look at this in what we are seeing people do and see where their needs are. I cannot help but touch on housing. In my riding of North Island—Powell River, we have seen a huge increase in the cost of living. That is largely based around a housing market that has exploded. Parts of my riding, some of the most rural and remote communities, have seen the cost of housing go up between 60% and 80%. That means that people who are living within those communities cannot afford to purchase within their own community. It has also had a huge impact on people who were renting homes. With the market exploding this way, we are seeing a lot of people who own houses that they usually rent out are selling those houses because they are making a lot of money in doing so. This means more and more people are unhoused. Just the other day, we had a gentleman walk into our office. My staff were quick to tell me when I came back. It was a gentleman who lives on disability. He has been living in his apartment for many, many years and has just been told that he has to leave because a new person bought the home that has the rental unit he lives in. His reality, and it is the truth because I have heard it from so many people across my riding, is there is nowhere else for him to go. There is no affordable unit for him. When I hear that the government is giving money to private corporations that are charging rents that are 30% to 120% higher than the market rate, it just tells us this is not a project or program that the government is taking seriously. It is not about making sure the people who are unhoused, who are struggling, who do not know how they are going to live from day to day are going to be able to have an affordable home to live in. It is about priorities, and that is what this motion is about in this House. It is about saying that the people who work hard every day deserve to be treated with dignity. I think about these challenges. I have talked to a lot of professionals who have lost their rental units simply because they have been sold from underneath them. They are now living in trailers hoping that trailer parks will not just stay open during the normal summer, spring and fall months, but that they will stay open the whole year, just so they have somewhere safe to live. I also think about the many seniors who had the GIS clawed back. They were contacting our office. They are very grateful they are seeing those dollars come back to them, but in a lot of cases, they have already lost their home and have already lost where they live. Now, because the cost of living is going up so much and because the cost of rentals are going up so much, they have nowhere to live. Just the other day I was at Kwesa Place, which is a place in Campbell River that provides showers and laundry facilities for those who are unhoused. When I was there, I met a lot of folks who are just struggling to get by, who are really challenged for multiple reasons. One of the things that was most startling to me was that inside that space they have a project they are working on. They are building wooden structures that people would be able to pull, either on their own or with a bike, that they can live in, because there is nowhere else for them to live. I really respect solutions. I really respect when communities come together, look at some of these issues and create solutions, but this tells me we are still not seeing a federal government that sees the right to housing as a basic human right. The government is saying that it is okay for people to scrounge around to make a few thousand dollars and build a wooden box to live in, so they do not get cold in a rainstorm. As such, I appreciate what Kwesa Place is doing. I really appreciate the warmth it brings and how it helps people be able to wash their laundry, but I want the bar of dignity in this country to be higher. That is what this motion is about. I have also had some conversation with food banks in my riding. We have talked about the huge numbers of people who are coming through and continue to come through. They are people who have never had to use the food bank before. People who are working hard every day and making a decent income are having to come to the food banks because they cannot afford not to. Why is the government continuing to allow the bar of dignity for Canadians to go so far down? What I find the most frustrating is that often in these big moments of discussion about how to make the world a better place, I see people fighting one another and people mad because one group of people has one right and another group of people has another right. I think it is important for all of us, as Canadians, to come together and ask what the real issue is here. The real issue here is that wealth is being held by very few in this country, and every year we are seeing their piece of the pie grow larger and everybody else's grow smaller, so I really encourage Canadians to stop fighting about their small piece of the pie and other people's small pieces of the pie. Let us start talking about what really needs to happen, which is leadership from the federal government to say that, if someone is going to make enormous profits, they need to step up and pay their fair share. I can tell members that the people in my riding, whether they work in the fishing industry, the logging industry, or in education or tourism, are paying their fair share every single day. They care about their communities every single day, but there are those in this country who are not paying their fair share. I just want to let my constituents know that in 2021, Scotiabank had a net profit of over $10 billion. It paid $4.3 billion of those billions of dollars in dividends to the shareholders, and at the same time it increased its customers' banking fees. Then we saw that BMO made a net profit of $7.7 billion and paid out over $2.7 billion in dividends, while increasing the fees for its customers' bank accounts. We can look at Loblaws, owned by the very wealthy Weston family, which made a net profit of $1.9 billion. They paid $484 million in dividends to their shareholders. However, they refused to increase the wages of their workers. They refused to supplement those frontline workers who have been working on the front line during this pandemic and who continue to work on the front line. They are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Really, today we are here to talk about fairness, to take up that space and make this country a little fairer. Let us look at this motion. It would direct the Liberals to fulfill their campaign promise. This is perhaps a bit of a new thing for them, but something I am really hopeful they will follow through with. They said they would implement a 3% surtax on banks and insurance companies with net profits over $1 billion. We also want to see it extended to oil companies and large grocery chains with net profits over $1 billion because it is time for a government in this country to finally stand up, stop protecting excess corporate profits and start saying the bar of dignity in this country needs to be higher. We should not have seniors at the bottom grovelling for the things they need, when they built this country. We should not be asking families to put groceries back on the shelves because they cannot afford them. Hopefully we will see some action on this.

1672 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 4:35:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would not want to see false impressions being given when we have seen over the last number of years a progressive government that has focused special taxes on some of the wealthiest in Canada, right from the first budget up to legislation that we just passed. Recognizing that the member made reference to the cost of housing, we now have an annual tax for individuals who are purchasing condos and so forth, in places such as Vancouver and our other big cities, and using them purely as an investment as opposed to a residence. That is a special annual tax that will be applied to very wealthy people. There are different ways we can approach this. I would suggest to the member that what she said has been noted, and I appreciate the comments, but I would ask her if she could provide her thoughts on this: When you make reference to banks, we need to be fair. Many of the shareholders of the banks are pension funds and so forth, so it is not only individuals per se.

182 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/21/22 4:36:30 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that I do not participate. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

21 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/21/22 4:36:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate that the member rises almost every time, after almost every single speech in this House, to ask yet another question. I want to remind the member that it is not the opposition's job to make the government feel better about the inaction of its steps. What I really would like to see is fairness and a bar of dignity. As the great Shania Twain says, “That don't impress me much”.

80 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Mar/21/22 4:37:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her very refreshing speech. It is good to hear people propose progressive, tangible ideas. The Liberal Party had already promised a 3% surtax during the election campaign. The NDP's motion today expands the application of that surtax to oil companies and big box stores. Could my colleague explain this decision to expand the surtax to those two sectors?

69 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/21/22 4:37:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for that thoughtful question. I really appreciate it because one of the things I think is really important in this conversation is that the federal government has the tools in place to measure where wealth is extreme and where profits are coming in at high amounts. The reality is we know that people living in Canada, everyday people, are seeing poverty grow. They are making decisions that I think Canada does not want them making. This is why we brought forward these additions. These are for folks who have been making a profit in excess of $1 billion. It is only fair that when one is making an excess of profit that we open up those doors and make sure that no one is left behind. Unfortunately, we have systems that continuously leave some people behind. They think that crumbs, a little extra here and there, will make a difference. We need to see that bar of dignity rise. That is why we proposed this motion.

174 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Mar/21/22 4:39:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while big box stores, big banks and big oil companies are making record profits, over half of Canadians are struggling to keep up with the cost of living. I have heard Conservatives in this House imply that extreme wealth inequality is inevitable, but consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have made choices that got us here. Can the member speak to the responsibility of the current government to own up to what it has done, what got us here, and to take action now?

85 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/21/22 4:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's question is really perceptive and thoughtful, because that is the reality. What we are seeing is consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments continue to make decisions, make laws and not fight the laws that grow the wealth of the wealthiest people in this country, and that leaves everybody else behind. As we go through these hard times, as we face challenges of inflation, and I am from B.C. so know how high the cost of gas is, we see that everyday workers, everyday people, and those who cannot work because they have health issues, cannot get ahead or even reach dignity. Therefore, the government has to take action.

113 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/21/22 4:40:27 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Housing. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

71 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Mar/21/22 4:40:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I truly believe that every member of Parliament is here for similar reasons. We want to do right by our community and we all have an overall goal of leaving Canada a better place than when we found it. I have always told people in my riding that the politics come into play because we have different ideas on how to achieve those very same ends. In the present climate in Canada, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are really suffering. There is a lot of struggle out there. This is one of those moments in time when they are really crying out for bold policy. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament to ask themselves why they are here and if they are actually making a difference in people's lives. I acknowledge that the motion before the House today, the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party of Canada, is non-binding on the government. What it does do is send a powerful message because if the House were to vote in favour of this motion it would send a signal to the cabinet. It would send a signal that most of the MPs in this place, representing the majority of Canadians, want to see a shift in government policy to level the playing field and to address the very real concerns of Canadians. What are we asking the government to do? We are essentially asking it to commit to a campaign promise and commit to a promise that was made in its budget. Excuse me if I sound a bit jaded. They sound like pretty simple things. However, I have been a member of the House since 2015, and I have a lot of unfortunate experience with Liberal promises that were left by the wayside. It is a government that once promised electoral reform and cynically left it in the dust. It is a government that has promised sincere action on climate change, yet invested billions of public taxpayer dollars into a pipeline. Imagine investing in fossil fuel infrastructure in this day and age when all of the evidence of climate change surrounds us every day. What kind of a message is that sending to our children? By every metric, whether looking at housing, at fuel, at the cost of food or at wealth inequality, there are multiple failures to be found. I acknowledge that my friends on the Liberal side are, in their way, trying to bring policy to address some of those core concerns. I will acknowledge that. However, if we look at the evidence on the ground we see that they are failing. They are not properly addressing those very real concerns that Canadians have. In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, in one year we saw housing prices go up anywhere from 30% to 40%. That is simply unsustainable. When I have families in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, families with two incomes earning six figures, who are put on the street or given notice because the landlord sold their property to take advantage of the skyrocketing housing costs and, with their income level, they cannot find a place to rent, that is a real problem. That is an indictment on the current federal government's housing policy. The market is failing Canadians and, therefore, we must find non-market solutions to address this housing crisis. Regarding fuel prices, I acknowledge that is something out of our control. There is a war going on in Ukraine and oil is one of the most volatile energy sources on earth. It always will be. It always has been. However, when we see price increases in my riding going up to over two dollars a litre last week, that puts a real strain on family budgets. It increases the cost of everything, from building materials to the cost of food, pretty much everything that is transported by rail or by truck. Families need a break. If we look at wealth inequality, over the last two years we see Canadian families who have been having to deal with so much. We see that the richest people in Canada have increased their wealth by billions of dollars. That is not fair. Therefore, what are we asking the government to do with its promises that were made in the campaign and in the budget? We are proposing that it add a 3% surtax on banks and insurance companies with profits of over $1 billion. Just so that is clear for the residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, a company will have had to have made a profit of $1 billion before the tax would apply. It is simply not right when we have families struggling with the basic necessities of life to be seeing those record profits being made and they are at the other end. We are simply asking that we honour those promises, that we tax extreme wealth at the high end and that we reinvest that money into our communities, reinvest it into working families and reinvest it to make our communities resilient. I have listened to some of the debate today and Conservatives talk about addressing inflation through building more pipelines, giving a GST holiday to fuel or getting rid of the carbon tax. In my view, that is extremely short-sighted policy because it does nothing to address the inflationary pressures of climate change. It also ignores the fact that oil and gas are, as I said before, our most volatile energy sources. Speaking of the volatility of that as a fuel source, the inflationary pressures that will come to us from climate change are going to be measured in the trillions of dollars. If we think that fuel prices now are high, imagine what is going to happen when we have conflicts arising around the world because of the scarcity of water resources or the fact that agriculture has been devastated or that coastal cities are inundated because of rising flood waters. These have real economic costs. Forget the ecological argument; listen to the economic argument. How many future tax dollars are we prepared to spend to address these issues? We know they are going to drive up costs. To suggest in the House that we should build more pipelines and that we should have some kind of small short-sighted tax holiday is completely ignoring what the costs will be if we continue to use fossil fuels and continue to let climate change go on a runaway course. In the reinvestment in our communities, I will say what I would do in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have a few areas where that money could be reinvested, the opioids crisis for one. I have too many residents on the streets of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who are playing Russian roulette with their lives every time they buy toxic street drugs. We have a massive housing crisis. We need to reinvest those funds to make sure that people have the right to housing established clearly, and we need the government to step in and build those non-market units. As for pharmacare and dental care, if we want to help working families, why do we not help them with the unexpected budgetary costs they have with dental bills and pharmacare bills? However, when we have given the House the opportunity to vote on those measures, talking about coalitions here, what about the Liberal-Conservative coalition? They combined have voted against dental care. They voted against a wealth tax. They voted against pharmacare, all measures that are designed to help working families. Words are cheap, but luckily this place keeps the receipts. It is noted in Hansard and in the way both those parties have voted. I want to make that very clear. We could also invest in bigger health transfers. I know my Bloc colleagues have talked repeatedly about provincial demands for more federal health transfers, and I know that has been a demand of all provinces. Surely the last two years have shown us how strained our health care systems have been. This is a real opportunity for us to reinvest those excess profits to build a system we can all be proud of, the system we know we can have in Canada where no one is left behind, to honour the vision of the people who built it in the first place. I will end by saying that I hope all of my colleagues in the House will find it in themselves to vote for this motion and to signal to the people of Canada that they are serious about enacting the bold policies that we need.

1456 words

All Topics

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 4:50:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of sitting beside my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on the flight last night and talking about one part of the motion, which is the creation of a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. In the budget last year, we provided funding to set up a beneficial ownership registry for federally incorporated companies. In our platform this past election, we campaigned on a homebuyers' bill of rights to have such a registry for property. Unfortunately, provincially regulated companies would not be covered by that, and land ownership is provincially regulated. I was wondering if the member could speak a bit more on the third part of that motion, on creating a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry, if that is for property or for companies, and what he sees as the federal government's role in working with the provinces so they adopt similar measures.

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Mar/21/22 4:51:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my friend is a fellow British Columbian, he would know our provincial NDP government has enacted such a policy. It does cover the area of provincial jurisdiction, so I would like to see the federal government move ahead with this. I referenced promises that were made. One of my colleagues, earlier in an intervention, and I believe it was the member for Victoria, pointed out that key promise was missing from the mandate letters of two ministers. I would encourage the member to speak to the ministers to ensure it is still on the table, because it is something we very much want to see the federal government move ahead on to establish that transparency within the areas it has clear jurisdiction over.

126 words

All Topics

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Mar/21/22 4:52:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague did lament the fact that somehow some of the parties in the House are not supporting NDP motions or initiatives. The problem is that, whenever the NDP brings forward a motion, it always has poison pills in it that force us, as Conservatives, to vote against these motions. For example, on this motion we are debating today, I believe there is a consensus in the House to support a beneficial ownership registry. We all support that. However, of course the NDP plugs in taxes and more taxes that all trickle down to the consumer. I am going to ask my colleague from British Columbia why it is that the NDP has this proclivity to undermine its own policy initiatives by adding things it knows we will not and cannot support. It seems counterintuitive that if it wants something to come through that it would do that.

150 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Mar/21/22 4:54:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it quite funny that Conservatives would regard a tax on profits of over $1 billion to be a “poison pill”. I would love for the Conservative candidate in the next election in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to explain to voters how that is a poison pill. The argument that companies are just going to simply pass these on to consumers is simplistic and does not reflect reality. Conservatives need to ask themselves why they continuously vote against measures that are trying to level the playing field and ensure that working families can get ahead.

101 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/21/22 4:54:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from British Columbia on his speech. I acknowledge the high calibre of his work and the soundness of his comments. It is said that a nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. Personally, I do not disagree with a 3% surtax. However, the NDP's general comments about the “super-rich” bother me. I realize that they do exist, but when I hear this term, I feel it is an insult to some. Is this an ideological or an economic term?

97 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Mar/21/22 4:55:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will point my colleague to what we laid out in our platform. What it really came down to was a 1% tax on fortunes of over $10 million. If one is wealthy enough to own $10 million, that 1% tax on any wealth over and above that, we feel, is a small price to pay and one that is very affordable to people who are in that category. Having that money to reinvest in communities would make a massive difference to working families in my riding and I believe his as well.

95 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 4:56:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on the NDP opposition motion today. It is also a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. It is great to be back in Parliament and doing the work our constituents sent us here to do. It is always a privilege and honour to represent the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. The great folks in my riding are entrepreneurial, hard-working and quite passionate. I would like to add that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful friend and colleague for the amazing riding of Davenport in downtown Toronto. We speak about affordability, strengthening our middle class and helping those who are working very hard to join the middle class. Our government, since 2015, has put forward a number of measures that continue to pay dividends today. The first thing we did when we assumed power in 2015 was cut taxes for middle-class Canadians. It was literally billions of dollars a year, and in over six years we have probably returned over $20 billion in tax savings to hard-working middle-class Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We also increased taxes on those Canadians who are in the top 1%. This is something that was the right thing to do, and it showed our efforts to make sure that everyone paid their fair share. We also closed tax loopholes. As a finance committee member for my first five years in Parliament, I was very proud to work in that area. The Liberal government has continued to cut taxes for Canadians. I put forward an idea in our 2019 platform that called for the lifting of the basic personal exemption amount, to expeditiously keep it for middle-class Canadians and not give it to the wealthiest Canadians. That is exactly what we did. It is a great policy, with literally billions of dollars in tax cuts. When it is fully phased in, the first $15,000 of what every Canadian makes would not be taxed at the federal level. I believe that would be fully phased in next year, in 2023. Again, we are taking necessary steps to help put more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. This is something I believe in and something that our government believes in. At the same time, we are investing in Canadians. We have the Canada child benefit, which in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge benefits nearly 20,000 kids. It is over $60 million a year, from the last estimate we got, that goes directly into the pockets of hard-working families. It is tax-free and monthly. It is not sent to millionaires. It is sent to hard-working Canadians in my riding and from coast to coast to coast. We enhanced the Canada pension plan. This is something we worked together with the provinces on, and rightly so, to help Canadians so they could ensure their retirement. We know defined benefit pension plans are fading in the private sector quite quickly. We know that Canadians need to have a secure and dignified retirement. That is why we have undertaken a plethora of measures to help Canadians in their retirement. We made some commitments in our 2021 platform that we will be fulfilling. It is great to see our government continuing to aid seniors. One thing I am very excited about, and I know that over three million seniors are very excited about in Canada, including many thousands in my riding, is that effective this July, old age security will be increasing by 10%. That is nearly $800 a year in the pockets of seniors. That is something that would assist them, especially with affordability. With regard to today's opposition motion, we know affordability is of paramount concern to all families. I have three children at home. We go grocery shopping literally almost every day. We know what the cost of formula is, and we know what the costs of cereal and other necessities are for our kids and what they like to eat. Prices are elevated. Prices are higher. We all know that. We know it is having a real impact on the lives of many people in Canada. We know high inflation is also a global phenomenon. Rising prices are the result of unprecedented challenges in reopening the global economy. We have talked about the supply chain and its impacts. We could look at what the shortage of chips, which are used in almost every product in the world, has limited. It has limited vehicle production, and it is impacting used vehicle prices. It is something we need to be very aware of. That is why, as a government, we are not standing idly by. We are focused on supporting families and, again, growing and strengthening the middle class, which is the heart of the Canadian economy, and on improving the standard of living for Canadians. We are taking real action to support Canadian families and making life more affordable for them. This includes historic investments in early learning and child care. Because I am an economist, early learning and child care excites me. It increases the productive capacity of our economy. It is a supply side measure. That improves the standard of living for Canadians and makes our economy more productive. I am very happy to see that nine out of 10 provinces, and all of the territories if I am not mistaken, have signed on to agreements. I look forward to seeing, fingers crossed, an announcement between the federal government and the Province of Ontario on a child care deal sooner rather than later. My wife and I are putting our young daughter Leia in child care in September or October, so hopefully we will have that child care agreement in place. We know that it is the right thing to do. The $10-a-day regulated child care spaces for children under six years old are a nearly $30-billion investment over five years to help reduce child care costs across Canada. We have signed agreements with all of the provinces except Ontario, and we are working hard to help Ontario families like the ones in my region of Vaughan—Woodbridge. For those of my colleagues who may not know, child care costs in York Region are among the highest, if not the highest, in the country. I am one of 10 members from that area. We need this deal. This will literally save families thousands of dollars a year in after-tax money. This is not before tax, but after tax. Finance folks should think about the before-tax costs of child care when paying $1,500 to $2,000 a month for a child. It is quite expensive. The Canadian and Quebec governments have also signed an asymmetrical agreement to strengthen the early learning and child care system in that province, a system that already provides affordable services. Access to quality, affordable child care is not only an important economic policy, it is also a major social policy. It makes life more affordable for families with children. It enables mothers and fathers to work, increasing the workforce. It creates more labour force participation. That is a great thing for the economy. It also creates good, well-paying jobs for educators. It will give kids the best possible start in life. The Canada child benefit is another key part of our efforts to make life more affordable for Canadian families. This program helps 3.5 million families with children every year and puts more money into the pockets of nine in 10 Canadian families, compared to previous child benefit programs. The Canada child benefit has already lifted 435,000 children out of poverty. Payments are indexed yearly to keep up with the rising cost of living. We realize that COVID‑19 has made life harder for Canadian families, which is why, in 2021, the families that are eligible for the Canada child benefit received up to $1,200 extra during the pandemic for each child under the age of six. This was our way of directly giving more money back to Canadian families to help them deal with pandemic pressures. The government has also introduced a number of measures to help those who need it the most, some of which complement existing protection. Seniors, as I said at the beginning, will get a 10% increase in old age security payments starting in July for those aged 75 and older. That is almost $800 more for pensioners over the first year. We have to remember that old age security is indexed. That is wonderful. It is great to see, and it will help the 3.3 million seniors who will receive this 10% increase. This is the first permanent increase in old age security since 1973. I want to mention housing. The city of Vaughan in my riding, which is where I live, has the largest housing developers in the country. We are home to housing and infrastructure. There are so many builders in my riding that I think they control nearly the entire housing market in Ontario. I interact with them all the time. We need to get housing supply built. We need more homes for Canadians. These participants, the developers, builders or however we refer to them, are ready. They have the resources. They want to get the zoning bylaws passed more quickly and get the regulations reduced so that they can build more housing for Ontarians and all Canadians.

1600 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/21/22 5:06:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I asked a question earlier about gas prices and I did not really get a good answer from the government. I want to understand just whether the government thinks gas prices in an ideal world would be higher, lower or at the same level. I thought that one of the intentions of the government's policy around the carbon tax, around imposing a tax on things that produce carbon, was to intentionally increase the price of gas. I know that the member will tell me that we rebate portions of it. He might even say all of it, but that does not really answer the core question. I would like to know this. Does the government wish to see gas prices be higher, lower or at the same level they are now?

134 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/21/22 5:07:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that WTI and WCS refinery margins are not controlled by the government. There is a market for that. We obviously want to see Canadian energy used as much as possible. We want to see Canadian energy exported as much as possible. I think we earn about $200 billion Canadian a year from energy exports. Over 800,000 people are employed in the energy industry here in Canada. I am proud of those workers who go to work every day and work in that resource industry. It is going to be part of our future for years to come.

105 words

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ)

Mar/21/22 5:08:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Charlevoix is a major tourist area, and all the tourism companies are looking for workers right now. Charlevoix sometimes relies on immigrants or students to fill labour shortages, but there are fewer and fewer of them around. Companies cannot find enough workers to replace those who are retiring. Retired workers are willing to keep working, but they have no incentive to do so. The situation is urgent. Does my colleague agree that, in this act and in future decisions, the government should immediately guarantee sufficiently significant incentives to persuade seniors who would like to return to work to do so?

102 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 42