44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, the federal government would do well to follow Quebec's lead in many areas, and pharmacare is one of them.
When the Liberals are ready to bring in their own pharmacare plan, I would invite them to follow the model I referred to at the beginning of my speech, namely child care, and let Quebec continue to manage its own affairs, which means giving Quebec its fair share of the funding. I am not talking about the federal government being an ATM, because it is our own money. That part is important.
My colleague mentioned the luxury tax. Perhaps I said it too quickly, but the point I wanted to make is that we obviously agree on the principle. We want to see a luxury tax. However, every precaution must be taken to ensure that it does not affect the aerospace industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal. It is one of our flagship industries, and any delays could pose risks.
I will conclude by saying that incentives for electric vehicles are a good idea, especially since these vehicles are currently still a lot more expensive than gas-powered vehicles. These measures must be maintained and managed in a smart way.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I personally knew one of the people who died in the storm a few weeks ago. Given the climate impacts we experienced in Quebec and also here in Ottawa, I would like to ask my colleague what positive impact this budget will have on preventive environmental measures. What is my colleague's opinion?
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for her fantastic question. I proposed a few solutions earlier.
For example, we talked about green financing. It is quite a challenge to get pension fund managers to give a clear answer about where our money is invested so we can ensure that it is not going into fossil fuels. It can take a long time to find out that information. I recently asked that question, and it was not easy to get an answer. Transparency is one of the solutions.
The Bloc Québécois and Green Party members are not the only ones advocating for environmental protection. So is the general public. That proves that it is important. Instead of subsidizing fossil fuels, let us invest in the transition.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.
He spoke about the Quebec model and pharmacare, but Quebec has a hybrid system, one that is both public and private. That means many workers pay a fortune for supplemental coverage.
Does my colleague not agree with the Union des consommateurs du Québec, the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ that we should have a universal public pharmacare system?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 1:39:57 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has a minute to respond.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is certainly not very much time. I thank my colleague for his question. I think he, too, would agree that Quebec is a model to follow in many areas.
I never claimed that Quebec's pharmacare system was perfect. Our day care system is not perfect either. There is a shortage of spaces and so on. However, it can serve as a base model for reference.
What sets me apart from my colleague is that I respect the jurisdictions of Quebec's national government, the National Assembly, located in Quebec City. Health falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.
We are not against making improvements. However, let us make those improvements while respecting jurisdictions and transferring the money to those who are responsible for managing those jurisdictions.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I begin by acknowledging that I speak today virtually from the traditional territory of the WSANEC nation. I raise my hands, and in the language of the traditional peoples of this land I say Hych'ka Siem.
I am speaking today at report stage of Bill C-19. I cannot help but reflect on the debate we just had on the application of time allocation to this bill. I would like to point out to the House and put on the record that, of course, I voted no to ending debate in the fashion that has become entirely too routine under the current government and the Conservative government before it. Having been used routinely under the administration of Stephen Harper and now under the current government, it is unlikely to ever return to what it was before 2011, which is to say that the House will suffer a permanent loss of normal, democratic debate under our standing orders for bill after bill.
In this case, Bill C-19 was tabled for first reading following the April 7 budget. It was tabled for first reading April 28. That is not that long ago in the life of this Parliament. This is not like Bill C-8, the fall economic statement bill. That was tabled in December 2021 and only passed in the last few weeks in this place. Bill C-19 has been dealt with quickly and sharply. It went to committee for reports, and it is already, and this is an important point that I wish to make, in prestudy before the finance committee in the other place.
The question of delay in handling this bill and allowing for proper debate at this stage is rather wrong-footed by the fact that, even though we will finish with it very soon in any case, despite the obstructive activities by the official opposition, there was ample time to get it properly debated at report stage and third reading and sent to the other place, where prestudy has already begun. It is a significant bill. For those who may be observing our deliberations today, let me just point out that this bill is hundreds of pages. It is an omnibus bill. It is not an illegitimate omnibus bill, as it deals with all the measures that were flagged in budget 2022 on April 7. It is not one that has extraneous measures crammed into it, which would make it an illegitimate omnibus bill.
This legislation is lengthy. There are 32 separate divisions, with hundreds of pages and over 502 sections. I cannot propose for a second to think that I could comment on all of them, even those with which I agree. However, the scope is enormous. We deal with everything in this legislation from safe drinking water in first nations communities, which of course nobody would want to have anything but speed apply to, to something called the “lunar gateway” and Criminal Code offences related to an agreement we have with the United States for events that may take place on the moon, as I understand it, to changes in the Criminal Code that raise some civil liberties concerns. They are in division 21 and would extend jail time up to two years for people who are denying the Holocaust, for which there is no defence. It is appalling and will now have a criminal sanction of up to two years in jail.
I think it is worth considering the scope of this bill, because it covers so many different measures, including ones I support, like the application of Magnitsky sanctions and being able to act to further sanction Vladimir Putin's cronies in order to apply pressure so that we get to peace talks as quickly as possible in the horrific and illegal war that is now occurring in Ukraine. However, we have a lot in this bill to discuss, and I put it to the House that the application of time allocation that just occurred in this place is inappropriate.
There are things that I would like to discuss in more detail. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc who spoke ahead of me. The employment insurance regime needs a lot more review. We have some measures in this bill that are good, but we have not begun to get to the work that needs to be done to consider, in particular, people in regions of the country where it is harder to find employment and people in seasonal industries where their employer makes the decision to lay them off seasonally and bring them back. Workers in those categories need to know that they can count on their insurance employment benefits, or what we used to call “unemployment insurance”. It is past time that we do a full review to make sure that unemployment insurance—employment insurance, as it is now known—is available to Canadians who have paid into it and who need it.
I want to turn some attention, in the time I have today, to the luxury tax, and I am thankful that the Liberal Party's allocation of speeches has allowed me to speak to this bill.
I initially liked the sound of a luxury tax. It sounds like we are striking for equity and fairness against the notion that there is the 1% and then the 99%, who are, relatively speaking, less represented and do not use resources to the same extent, obviously, as the 1%. However, I have come to the conclusion, somewhat reluctantly, that the luxury tax is more about pandering in public relations than about really dealing with income inequality in this country.
This luxury tax would not deal with income inequality. What the luxury tax would do is apply a tax on any car or aircraft that costs more than $100,000 or boats that cost more than $250,000. It is an additional tax on the cost of buying the luxury items, at the point of sale.
In reflecting on this, I looked at the work the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done. When looking at the luxury tax, we find that it would bring in $170 million in 2024-25. That $170 million is a lot of money, but in the context of the federal budget, it is sort of spilled corn flakes at the morning breakfast table. It would not bring in substantial money. It would take a lot of Finance Canada's time, both in application and at the point of sale. It would also add to a lot of people's transactional costs to even establish this tax.
The PBO also found that while it would bring to the Government of Canada an additional $170 million, it would reduce the sales in those categories by $600 million. I do not think it adds up that applying this tax is worth the financial cost to the Government of Canada and the economy of Canada, given that we would lose $600 million in sales, particularly in the case of boats and airplanes, and luxury cars too if they were made in Canada. They provide Canadian jobs and a positive impact to the Canadian economy and the communities where those luxury items are made.
Far more important would be to adjust the personal income tax rate. At this point in Canada, once a person is making over $216,511, the personal income tax rate is the same. It is 33%. That is our highest tax bracket. We certainly would do more to address income inequality were we to create a higher personal income tax bracket for people making, say, over $500,000 a year. I remind colleagues in this place that when the United States experienced its highest levels of economic growth and economic activity post-war, its highest personal income tax bracket was well over 90%.
We should also be looking very immediately at excess corporate profits. A tax on excess corporate profits, as the PBO has found, could bring in $7.9 billion a year. I contrast that with this so-called luxury tax. It is $170 million going into our fiscal resources versus a tax on excess corporate profits that would bring in just under $8 billion. We should not be chasing the spilled corn flakes. We should be going after where the 1% hides their wealth and where the 1% earns so much more than the average working Canadian, who has to hold down several jobs to cover rent and food.
With those final thoughts, I close my remarks on Bill C-19.
1437 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the former leader of the Green Party would not support the principles of a luxury tax, for two reasons.
Number one, there is financial inequality in the country. We know that; it is around the world. It might be somewhat small, but it is significant. The $150 million in additional revenue is a significant amount.
Second, if we follow through the logic the member is espousing, one would ultimately be able to say that we should reduce consumption taxes in order to somehow see more production and give a break on people's tax points. I tend to disagree with that logic, believing that a consumption tax is a very effective way of ensuring, especially if there are rebates, that there is a fairer sense of income equality.
I am wondering if the member might want to reflect on why she would oppose a luxury tax when I suspect the vast majority of Canadians would support that.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sure that in devising this luxury tax the current government and its political leadership were looking to something they knew most Canadians would support, which is the idea of a luxury tax. What I am saying is that the way this is constructed, it is merely pandering to the idea that the government is tackling income inequality without actually doing it.
I think it is critical, when we talk about $170 million being a lot of money, as the parliamentary secretary just did, to realize it is not a lot of money compared to the billions the government continues to insist we waste on the climate-killing Trans Mountain pipeline. There are places where we should stop spending money, and supporting fossil fuels is an urgent cancellation. We have to urgently cancel the fossil fuel subsidies, instead of pretending we are dealing with income inequality through a luxury tax.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is perhaps one of the most experienced in the entire Parliament, which is surprising given her relative youth. Given that experience, would she agree with me that often times it is in lengthy debates that legislation gets improved, that we find issues and make laws better for Canadians.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am deeply indebted to the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for suggesting I have relative youth. I turned 68 this week, and I find his comments absolutely charming.
However, I will say that he is right. The purpose of the Parliament of Canada is to study and respectfully debate in a civil and collaborative effort to improve legislation. It is the case that I sympathize with the Liberal House management that some or most legislation is being needlessly obstructed by the official opposition, but in this the member is absolutely correct that the point of debate is to improve legislation.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things the budget does have is its EV vehicle incentive extensions of $5,000 per vehicle. My concern is that the United States is offering $7,500, so we are out of sync regarding that type of incentive. This is also at a time when the Liberals had originally left Canadian vehicles off the list. I wonder if she has any thoughts on that.
We want to see that increase so we can do what we normally do in the auto industry, which is to merge the standards and harmonization closer together, because right now Joe Biden is providing more of an incentive to buy Canadian vehicles than our own Prime Minister. What I would rather see is an opening for used vehicles for battery and a lower entry into the market so more people can access this based upon income.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor West is absolutely right. We are not doing enough to promote electric vehicles. One of the things we should do is regulate to ensure that not too far in the future the purchase of internal combustion engine vehicles becomes illegal, we move sharply to electric vehicles and provide more supports to Canadians who want to buy them.
However, the biggest gap in this area in the federal budget 2022 is the absence of a national goal for a fully integrated electricity grid between Manitoba and Ontario, and between Quebec and the Maritimes. We lack the ability to move renewable energy across borders.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today on a serious and sober note. I am here to ring the alarm bells. Our future prosperity is at risk. I am expressing this concern not out of some sense of blind partisanship but rather out of a sense of duty to my country, which I love, but which I also fear for.
As has been said by the Prime Minister, the finance minister, the associate finance minister, many members across the aisle and experts across our country, one of the keys to our national prosperity is economic growth.
Economic growth allows parents to pay for their children's education. It allows teenagers to get their first job and buy their first car. It allows single mothers the opportunity to not have three or four jobs but one. It allows workers the opportunity at a promotion. It allows young people to buy a house for the first time. It allows employers to create jobs. It allows hard-working families to pay off their ever-mounting credit card bills.
In short, many of the conditions for the pursuit of happiness are preceded by economic growth. Economic growth gives Canadians hope. In contrast, the economy we are currently experiencing, which may very well go to a seventies-style stagflation, is of lower wages and fewer economic opportunities for families and individuals. It creates mental health issues across our country as people struggle with the financial consequences of declining economic growth. It sows the seeds of division in our society, so instead of uniting, we are dividing, as we have seen from our Prime Minister.
For all of these and many other reasons, it is indisputable that economic growth is absolutely critical to Canada's future. However, I am ringing those proverbial alarm bells because Canada is poised for slow, if not zero, economic growth for many months or even years to come.
Sadly, the reasons are starting to become structural within our economy. One of the key drivers is a struggle to be competitive and a leader in economic productivity. Canada is falling behind the rest of the world. We are increasingly less productive than many of our peers in the G7 and the G20.
We are also struggling with innovation. Although we have brilliant people from coast to coast to coast, we are failing to bring new innovation and products to market. We are struggling as a country to be a leading innovator in the world.
The last issue I will discuss is a little more subjective. We are facing a declining morale and an increasing mental health crisis. We are not seeing a winning attitude going forward, which all starts at the top with the federal leadership of this country.
Let us explore these areas one by one. Productivity has been an issue, unfortunately, that has dogged the Canadian economy for decades. However, the problem has become particularly acute over the last few years. One of the ways economists measure the productivity of a country is in the amount of contribution per worker per hour. Canada is among the lowest in the OECD countries. We are at $50 per hour per worker. When we contrast that to those of the United States, Switzerland and Ireland, they are all considerably above that number.
547 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:00:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yesterday, in London, I stood with hundreds of my neighbours, friends and community members to remember the lost members of the Afzaal family: Salman, Talat, Madiha and Yumna.
Young Muslim leaders spoke about the change they need to see from us. They are charging us to act. We have become accustomed to memorializing the losses of men killed in prayer, of women killed crossing the street because they are wearing the hijab and of children killed because we refused to let go of our biases, our insecurities and our fears. We have a responsibility to do better. Islamophobia is structural, and we must review the structures that put our community in harm's way to stop the violence, the microaggressions and the hate.
We must take a stand against the dehumanization of Muslims and of all those who are targeted because of their religion, the colour of their skin, what they wear, their culture, their language, their sexuality or their gender. This is our only path forward. This is a time for courage, for human rights and for love. This is a time for action.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:01:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, many Canadians are working in support of the human rights of the Palestinian people and for the peaceful resolution of the issues.
I would like to recognize and thank Burhan Shahrouri, Jamal Hamed, Dr. Habib Khoury and Rula Sharida of Association of Palestinian Arab Canadians; Thomas Woodley of CJPME; Councillor Yousef Barakat of Canada Arab Forum of British Columbia; Rashad Saleh and Nabil Nassar of Arab Palestine Association of Ontario; Corey Balsam of the Independent Jewish Voices Canada; Dr. Mohamad Abu Awad and Dr. Tarek Khalefih of Canadian Palestinian Professional Foundation; and Mousa Zaidan of the Coalition of Canadian Palestinian Organizations.
I once again call for Canada to recognize the sovereign state of Palestine.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight Quebec's disability awareness week, which is being held from June 1 to 7. The theme this year is “Give 100%”.
In Quebec, more than one million people have a significant, persistent disability. People with disabilities represent 16% of the population aged 15 and over. These people can and want to give 100% of themselves to society. Whether at school, at work, in the arts, in culture, or elsewhere, there is room for people with disabilities, and they must have the opportunity to develop their full potential. This is why it is important to give them all the tools they need, in order to offer them an accessible and inclusive environment.
I applaud all the organizations, such as Quebec's Regroupement pour la concertation des personnes handicapées, that have been working for years to build a more inclusive world.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:03:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on May 21, severe thunderstorms caused major damage in several communities in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I spoke with several families following the storm. Trees fell on homes, roofs were completely destroyed, silos collapsed, and farms that took generations to build were destroyed in less than five minutes, as were businesses. In spite of all this destruction, I want to commend residents for their courage. I want to thank all the people who helped their neighbours.
That is what it is all about. In times of crisis, neighbours helping neighbours strengthens that sense of community. I thank the first responders, the hydro crews, the volunteers, the farmers who took their neighbours' animals to care for them and everyone who pitched in. Their commitment to their community cannot go unnoticed.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:04:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to rise today to inform the House that this past Friday, June 3, under an expansive Manitoba sky and with the sun beaming down on family and friends, our colleague and my dear friend, the member for Kenora declared “I do” to Ms. Danaka Howden, a stunning bride and an even more beautiful person. I am also relieved to inform the House that, despite his many obvious flaws, Danaka replied with an “I do” as well.
I was honoured to be asked by the member for Kenora and Danaka to officiate the ceremony, and so it was particularly special and a bit tearful for me when I was able to pronounce these two amazing people husband and wife. At the reception following the ceremony, there were a number of speeches, including remarks delivered by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry that left the guests and the happy couple in stitches.
Sheldon and Crystal Howden, and Joe and Charlene Melillo all beamed proudly with joy as they welcomed the couple into their families. It was a wonderful day to launch these two on their life-long adventure, soon to be filled with many little Melillos.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the House to join me in congratulating two very special people: the member and Mrs. for Kenora.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:06:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the Afzaal family: Salman, Madiha, Yumna and Talat. Their lives were taken away by a cruel act of terrorism motivated by Islamophobia. The lives of Fayez Afzaal, whose parents, sister and grandmother were killed, and the close-knit Muslim community in London, Ontario, were forever changed.
Today, as Canada marks the first anniversary of this tragedy, I want to recognize the relentless work of the National Council of Canadian Muslims on the Hill to advocate for greater action on Islamophobia. It is because of their advocacy that we announced the creation of a special representative on combatting Islamophobia. NCCM is calling on us to do more to address violence and hate motivated by Islamophobia in every corner of Canada.
I want to say to the Muslim community that we are here for them. Let us double down and fight Islamophobia in all of its forms, and work toward a Canada that is fair, inclusive and just for all.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
