SoVote

Mar/21/22 5:51:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague touched upon grocery outlets and big-box stores, as did her colleague for Winnipeg Centre who spoke before her. One of the things that we are studying right now at the agriculture committee, and which was brought up today, is that sometimes retailers are unfair to suppliers in terms of their expectations and some of the additional costs. That has given rise to the idea of a grocery code of conduct. The member for Sarnia-Lambton actually read out a passage where, with the CP Rail strike and the fact that there could be disruptions, the retailer was still expecting the producer to provide the product with basically no recognition that there could be a disruption. My question is twofold for the member opposite. Would she support the idea of a grocery code of conduct to try to create a regulatory environment for larger chains, to have some type of recourse available to producers? Vis-à-vis the CP Rail strike, does the member think that at some point the government will have to move in to protect collective interests and maintain rail services across the country?

192 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton

Mar/21/22 5:52:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the NDP is a party that clearly stands in support of workers' rights to bargain collectively. We do not support legislating workers back to work. We are very much in solidarity with rail workers, including CP workers right now. It is shameful to see governments, both Liberal and Conservative, that claim to stand up for working people abuse the fundamental right of workers to bargain collectively and legislate them back to work, and we certainly will be fighting any attempts to do so. More broadly, it is clear that what we need from government is to rein in corporate Canada, including the big grocery stores that have made incredible profits throughout this pandemic. We know they have not supported their workers in the most fundamental ways, including health and safety. We know that certainly their profits have not been reflected in lower prices for consumers, and really, we need to see the Liberals stop favouring their friends in corporate Canada and stand up for Canadian workers and consumers. We certainly believe the government has the power to do that. We are still waiting.

190 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/21/22 5:54:10 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

11 words

Kelowna
Lake

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Mar/21/22 5:54:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the infrastructure bank and how, five years in, there still has not been a single project that has been completed. I am wondering if she could go into a bit more detail about the failures of the infrastructure bank, what kind of projects it should be working on and how it has been really costly and ineffective.

62 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

Mar/21/22 5:54:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that more and more Canadians are tuning in to the fact that one of our Crown corporations that was created to meet the infrastructure crisis across the country is simply not delivering. It has turned into a corporate welfare model pushing disastrous PPP projects with a for-profit agenda, and ultimately the result is that we have not seen one project brought to completion. This is unacceptable from a public entity or Crown corporation that is sitting on money that is ours as Canadians, an entity that we desperately need to do the work of meeting Canada's infrastructure needs, particularly in the face of the climate crisis. That is why I am proud of my private member's bill, Bill C-245, which I hope MPs will support, which would allow us to reform the bank so that it works in support of Canadians and Canadian communities in the fight against climate change.

159 words

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

Mar/21/22 5:55:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and the NDP for this fantastic initiative, because it is worth discussing. I come from an entrepreneurial background. All my life, I have heard it said that small businesses and self-employed workers are the backbone of the economy. In my riding, there are a lot of small and medium-sized businesses that are driving the economy. I would like my colleague to give me some insights into how we can deal with large corporations, which often receive subsidies and then engage in tax avoidance. In the post-pandemic era, how can we urgently find a way to recoup this money?

108 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton

Mar/21/22 5:57:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say the first step is to support our motion. We based our motion on the recently published report about Canada's reputation as a great place for tax evasion. That is appalling, it is unfair, and it calls for urgent action. Obviously, we need to see action on multiple fronts to recoup money from big corporations that profited from the pandemic crisis, as my colleague said. That money then needs to be reallocated to help workers, Quebeckers, Canadians and our communities. That is clearly not something the Liberals are doing right now.

96 words

All Topics

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

Mar/21/22 5:58:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, some want to talk about contrast, so they will probably get a bit of contrast now. Listening to the member from Thompson can get fairly depressing for those who are following the debate. I suggest there is a great deal of variation from the truth in what we have been listening to. At the end of the day, I would like to share with members a better sense of the reality that has been taking place over the last six years. They should not have fear: It is nowhere near as bad as the member from Thompson has tried to portray. I understand why the member from Thompson said those things. It is because in some ways, the NDP has that attitude. It is an attitude of superiority about all social issues. If someone does not believe them, just ask one of them and they will reaffirm it. I will cite one very short example. The member made reference to infrastructure. She criticized the Government of Canada, saying that in the last six years, we have not done anything on infrastructure, and she cited an example. I would challenge any member to show me a government that has invested more in infrastructure in Canada in the the last 50 years than this government has done in the last five years. We have invested historic amounts of money in our infrastructure, and that is in every region of our country. That is what I mean in terms of a bit of variation. The member also made reference to the infrastructure bank, saying it has not completed anything. Well, the infrastructure bank is relatively new and has to review and approve projects first, let alone get some of them completed. To try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada, over the last number of years, has not done anything on infrastructure is just wrong. Let me continue with the motion we have before us. The motion tries to give a false impression that we in the Liberal Party, in particular the Government of Canada, do not understand the issue of income inequality and have not made any policy decisions to address that issue. It was interesting. My colleague and friend from Kingston posed a question to the member for Winnipeg Centre. I thought it was a good question. The member was criticizing the Government of Canada because we are apparently in the pockets of big corporations. I must say, to both the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member from Thompson, that this is not the case. I will tell members that when I sat inside the Manitoba legislature, it was not once, not twice, but I believe five or six times that the New Democratic government in Manitoba reduced corporate taxes. That was the provincial NDP, and there is a difference. The NDP at the provincial level has been in government, and every one of those governments often reflected the opposite of what the NDP will preach in the House of Commons. Corporations do play a very important role in our society, but some try to give a false impression that we are in the pockets of corporations. I can tell colleagues that former NDP premiers Gary Doer and Greg Selinger, based on what I have heard, were more in the pockets of corporations than this government is. In fact, taking a look at our election laws, there are limitations on what a corporation can give, which is nothing. It is individuals who can give. Members take shots at the big banks. I am no friend of the big banks; I would like to see banks pay more too. However, they try to give an impression that with big banks, we mean a handful of elite, wealthy people, which is not the case. If we look at it, we will find that these big banks and the people they are paying dividends to often are unions. They are people who have invested in banks because there is a relatively high rate of return. I believe it is an exceptionally high rate of return during the pandemic, and this is something the government is looking into. The good news is that the budget is not too far away. The 2022-23 budget is just on the horizon, and I know members are very keenly waiting to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who has done a phenomenal job in bringing us through this pandemic on a number of fronts. We will have the opportunity in the House to present to Canadians a budget that we can all be proud of, a budget that will reflect a lot of the discussions that have taken place, whether it was with constituents and members of Parliament, who were used as a vehicle to communicate priority issues, or the many stakeholders. This government, particularly the Prime Minister, has made it very clear to all members, at least within the Liberal caucus, that we want individual members of Parliament to bring constituents' interests and thoughts to Ottawa, not vice versa. As a result, when the 2022-23 budget is unveiled, we will see a budget for all Canadians in all regions of our country that will have an impact and that will see a better equalization of income, something we have seen from day one. Need I remind members that one of the first pieces of legislation we brought forward was reducing the tax rate for Canada's middle class? A good portion of that reduction, the money to facilitate that reduction, was a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. If that is not directly what New Democrats are hoping to accomplish with this motion, I do not know what is. I would remind members in the chamber that the Conservatives voted against the tax cuts for the middle class and, surprisingly, New Democrats voted against the additional tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. We are the only party from day one, since we have been in government, that has consistently come up with financial initiatives, legislative initiatives and policy decisions to ensure that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it have advanced their interests. We have gone beyond that. When we talk about putting money in the pockets of people in need, one only needs to look at some of the other initiatives we have taken, such as the Canada child benefit program, a program that, shortly after becoming government in 2015, we retooled and changed. Millionaires no longer qualified. Instead, we put more money toward those who had a higher need. Not only did we reorganize it in that sense, we also put in hundreds of millions of additional dollars to ensure this program would be there for families in all regions of Canada. That made a difference in a very real and tangible way. All one needs to do is look at children in poverty. I have cited this in the past. Well over $9 million a month comes to Winnipeg North as a direct result. I can say, to the best of my knowledge, that there are no billionaires in Winnipeg North. Over $9 million a month, and probably over $10 million but I do not know that for a fact, is coming from Ottawa to support children because of a policy change that was made a number of years ago under this administration. Hundreds of children in Winnipeg North have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result. I can talk about the substantial guaranteed annual income increase that was given shortly after the 2015 election. Once again, in Winnipeg North, as in every riding in this country, hundreds of seniors were lifted out of poverty as a direct result of a government policy. The Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, ministers and the caucus understood the importance of supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way, which lifted seniors out of poverty by the thousands. Those are the types of policies that matter and have been making a difference. If we look at some more recent things, we passed legislation to deal with the issue of housing. Here is a tax change that not only brings in more revenue for the Government of Canada but also has a positive spinoff on housing prices. We all know that there is a huge demand from abroad to invest in Canada. One of those investments we have seen over the years is in housing, such as condominiums. Whether it is in downtown Toronto, downtown Vancouver or municipalities throughout Canada, individuals are purchasing these properties. Many of them remain empty. I am quite surprised by the thousands of units, worth millions of dollars, that sit completely empty. Just a couple of months ago, we brought in legislation, which I believe the Conservatives voted against, that would ensure that the owners of those vacant properties being used in that sense would have to pay an annual tax. Members have talked about the increases to housing prices. A direct result of that policy change would have a positive impact in two ways. It would generate additional revenue, which is a good thing, because our current Minister of Housing likes to spend money, and we are all glad about that. He can use those millions of dollars that would be generated, because we understand how important the non-profit housing sector is. There are many among my caucus colleagues who talk about initiatives such as housing co-ops, investing in non-profit housing banks and other opportunities in housing. In fact, the minister is out extensively consulting on how the national government can continue to invest in housing. We understood the importance of housing, not just during the pandemic, but even prepandemic. That is why we brought in the first-ever national housing strategy. It was not just a piece of paper. It was supported by billions of dollars over a period of time. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing tens of thousands of units in every region of this country. I have witnessed first-hand the Minister of Housing come to Winnipeg, both physically and virtually for a number of different announcements. Yes, there is a need for us to do more on that front. We do not need to be told that. We understand that. That is the reason why we continue to look at ways in which we can enhance housing. We want it to be affordable, but let us recognize that it cannot just be Ottawa. When we talk about inflation or some of the issues that are of great concern to Canadians, we need to incorporate the idea that we need to work with provinces and municipalities. Many of my colleagues were mayors and councillors, and they understand the process of going through a municipality to get a house developed, built or even renovated. Municipalities have to play a role, and so do provinces, as provinces are often administering the non-profit housing units. Governments need to work together. For the first time in a long time, we have a national government that is spending historic amounts of money on housing. We have a federal government that wants to play a role, and we will play a role, and we will look for partners in order to make that happen. With regard to resolving the issue of tax fairness, we have now put through a budget that increases the basic personal exemption by thousands of dollars. What does that actually mean in a real sense? In a real sense, it means that individuals will not have to pay taxes on a larger percentage of their income. I could be a little out on this, but I think that by the end of 2023, it is going to be something in the neighbourhood of $15,000 that one would not have to pay federal tax on. Provinces will do what they do, but hopefully many of them will see what we are doing and follow suit. This would help greatly, and for those who are working so hard at the lower end, it enhances their opportunity to keep money in their pockets. When we see the actions that are taking place, whether five or six years ago when we brought in the tax break for the middle class and put in the extra tax for the wealthiest, or today with the annual tax for those people who are investing in homes in Canada, I like to think that we understand the imbalance that is there, and we are taking action to rectify it as much as we can. If we take a holistic approach to what this government has done over the last six or seven years, I would argue that we have seen a government that has done more to address income inequality than any other government in the last number of generations. We have seen this in the policy decisions that have been made, not only directly through taxation but also in the child care benefit. I believe Ontario is the only province that has not signed on, but hopefully it will. Who benefits the most under that program? Ultimately Canada as a nation does, but individuals are also going to be better empowered to go into the workforce and do the other things that are necessary, whether it is in the workforce or in volunteer work. Canadians are fantastic volunteers. One only needs to take a look at the pandemic. However, we are creating opportunities that were not there. We have seen how well the child care program worked in the province of Quebec, and it is nice that we live in a federal system with other provinces so that we could duplicate that idea it and turn it into a national program. In this way, people will be in a better position to be able to go to work, and we know that because we have seen the impact it has had in the province of Quebec. However, the importance of taxation has not been lost on us. What my constituents want is the same as what all our constituents want. They understand the need for taxes, but they want their taxes to be fair and they want their tax dollars to be spent wisely. These are the things that we as a government, through accountability and transparency, strive for every day. In fact, we have invested close to a billion dollars in additional financial resources for Canada revenue to look at ways in which some of these wealthier people in particular are getting away with not paying their fair share of taxes. We have given hundreds of millions of dollars to CRA to ensure that there is a sense of fair taxation across the country. I am very optimistic, given what we have seen from Canadians over the last couple of years, that our future is positive and that we have reason to be optimistic. I look forward to the 2022-23 budget, because I know it will be a true reflection of what Canadians want, and it will be something we can all be proud of.

2550 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Mar/21/22 6:19:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's motion is slightly different from the Liberal government's election promise made during the last campaign. The motion adds oil companies and big box stores to the list. Can the member explain why the Liberal government does not support this motion? Is it because they want to protect oil companies?

55 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/21/22 6:19:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the different election platforms over the last three elections, we will find that a vast majority of the promises and commitments that were made have actually been kept, with a good percentage of them still in progress. We cannot simply click our heels and implement everything that was said through three different platforms. Some of it is in progress. Most of it, or a good portion of it, has actually been fulfilled. There are some, which are very rare, that we were not able to move forward on, and I would be more than happy to sit down with the hon. member, or any other member, on why we could not move forward on the issue of electoral reform. It is somewhat unfortunate, but there was a reality at the time that prevented us from doing so.

145 words

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

Mar/21/22 6:20:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is very interesting to listen to this colleague, who spends a lot of time in the House speaking. In fact, I would not be surprised if he does not have one of the highest speaking times of all the members here. Perhaps I should send him my congratulations for that role he takes in his party. What I found concerning about his very long speech, which was amplified, and he does not need a mike in this place, is this discussion on the variation of truth. I want to remind the member that this is really a motion that talks largely about a commitment that they made in the last election. We are just encouraging them to do it quickly, to get it done efficiently, and to focus on the people who are hurting. I wonder if this member actually talks to the people who cannot afford their food, who cannot afford their medication, who do not know how they are going to feed their children and who do not know if they are going to be able to afford gas to get to work. Does he talk to those workers who are paying these huge amounts every single day? I am just asking for a friend.

212 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/21/22 6:22:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I am not a New Democrat, but I can tell members, and anyone else who is listening, that I am very much in contact with people. I believe in the importance of being grassroots-oriented, in terms of talking with people. In fact, for 30 years now, with the pandemic being an exception, every Saturday, for example, I would be at the local McDonald's, where we would deal with dozens of people and constituents on a wide variety of topics, much of it dealing with poverty. I am in constant contact, now in virtual meetings or Zoom meetings. I do not necessarily need to be lectured about the importance of talking with real people. I have been doing that for over 30 years, and I take a great sense of pride in ensuring that many of the policies that we have been bringing in are a reflection of Liberal members of Parliament, in good part, communicating with constituents and bringing them to the table so that we can help people in all strata of our society.

182 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 6:23:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, like the member for North Island—Powell River, I will thank the member for the fact that he is usually on his feet here and he is usually talking a lot of important sense. Some hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to finish my question to the member, if the member for North Island—Powell River could stop heckling me in the background. My question is simple. My colleague did a great job highlighting some of the government programs around affordability, the measures that the government has undertaken. This motion, at its core, is about affordability. I had the opportunity to look at the text of the member for Abbotsford's opposition day motion for tomorrow. It is also on affordability. I live in a rural area. I know my colleague is from an urban area in Manitoba. I think inner-city busing right now is an important element for vulnerable individuals. I know that, ultimately, the Government of Canada has to work with provinces and territories in that regard. I do not know where Premier Stefanson might be on this, but would my hon. colleague agree that inner-city busing for individuals who are vulnerable would be something the government could and should look at in the days ahead to support those who are vulnerable?

229 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/21/22 6:24:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is something the Government of Canada has been doing for the last number of years. Just prior to the pandemic, the Prime Minister was actually in Winnipeg at the Winnipeg transit garage where we had announced supports for public transit. Over the last number of years, we have seen a national government take an interest in busing and in public transport. Earlier today in question period, the minister was asked about CP Rail. At the end of the day, we are talking about huge investments to assist in facilitating transportation. Whether it is inner cities or rural communities, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars and I suspect we will continue to see these types of investments. For me, it was really nice to see money being allocated to things such as building bus shacks, which helps a lot of inner cities and so forth.

149 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/21/22 6:25:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North knows just how much I enjoy listening to him and, in some respects, he knows that he inspires me, especially when he leads the charge against NDP misinformation. I am going to talk about the tax cut for the middle class that the government made in its first term, because the Liberals do not understand the marginal tax rate. They lowered taxes by 1.5% for people who fall into the $49,000 to $98,000 tax bracket today. What does that mean? I did a quick calculation. Currently, the middle-class tax cut for a family with two incomes of $50,000 would be $29. I checked the Société de transport de Montréal website and that amount of money is not enough to buy 10 subway tickets. A family with two incomes of $150,000, or total family income of $300,000, will get a $1,470 tax cut thanks to the Liberals, or 50 times the amount received by a family with two incomes of $50,000. Given these calculations, does my colleague still believe that a family with an income of $300,000 is part of the middle class? Does he not agree, as he himself admitted, that they should have thought about this before and perhaps increased the basic exemption in their first term rather than in their third term?

236 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/21/22 6:27:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems in questions and answers is that the Speaker is not going to let me give a full, detailed answer. Suffice it to say that what members need to recognize is that, when we brought in these measures of the special tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest and the tax break for the middle class, it actually came along, at the end of the day, with the reform of the Canada child benefit program, and that enhanced disposable income for many individuals. I am sure my friend would have liked to see that and he would have no doubt supported it had he been here.

110 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/21/22 6:27:55 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:28 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

79 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/21/22 6:28:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we would certainly like to see a recorded vote.

11 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/21/22 6:28:49 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, March 22, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

28 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/21/22 6:29:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:43 p.m.

27 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 42