SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 84

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2022 02:00PM
  • Jun/8/22 8:55:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, my colleague focused on employment insurance. The government has made invested a lot in reforming EI. With unemployment at its lowest since 1976, I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the investments we have made in training workers and helping them re-enter the workforce.
50 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 8:56:10 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, what worries me is that we are in the midst of a crisis, during which the government took action quickly. During this crisis, we saw the flaws in the EI system. However, the government is telling us that unemployment is down so it can wait a little longer to reform the system. We cannot afford to wait any longer. Clearly, training is necessary. It might be a good idea to increase training budgets so that workers can update, recertify and develop their skills. However, that work must be entrusted to the provinces, because it falls under their jurisdiction. In Quebec, this responsibility should be given to the labour market partners commission, a unique commission that engages in social dialogue.
121 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 8:57:13 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. The Standing Committee on Finance found that the government and the Minister of Finance did not show the necessary willingness to reform EI. Does my colleague have a theory to explain why she is right about the government and about what, exactly, happened with this budget bill?
56 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 8:58:16 p.m.
  • Watch
I congratulate the member for speaking in French. It was great. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
22 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 8:58:23 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, I want to add that it was a pleasure to work with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA. I miss him. I congratulate him on his French and hope he will return to the committee, even if his colleague from Joliette wants to keep him on the Standing Committee on Finance. He asked a very good question, but I am not sure whether I can answer him properly. The Standing Committee on Finance decided to assign some sections of this omnibus bill to other committees to make use of their expertise. EI reform falls under the purview of the HUMA committee, and therefore the Minister of Employment. In spite of that, I had a hard time convincing the HUMA committee to study these issues. I was originally told that the Standing Committee on Finance would study them, but HUMA wanted to contribute. The minister will present a reform because she committed to doing so in a bill she is to introduce in the fall regarding the board of appeal. In my view, these issues should be examined at the HUMA committee.
199 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:00:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, I too would like to recognize the members on the Standing Committee on Finance. I see the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, the member for Joliette and the member for Elmwood—Transcona. It was a huge task. Before this bill, we did have some great measures to help seniors with an increase to the guaranteed income supplement, and in this legislation, the Canada housing allowance did have a supplement added to it. However, Canada still has some very great problems. We have problems with money laundering. We have problems with tax evasion. At a time of very high inflation, we also have a problem with excess profits. At a time when so many people are struggling and when we know that ongoing poverty costs our country much more, we need to make significant investments to address this situation. I wonder if my hon. colleague can maybe inform the House of some of the measures she thinks were missing in this opportunity that could have levelled the playing field and addressed those serious financial inequalities that exist in Canadian society, not only for hard-working members of her constituency but right across this country.
199 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:01:34 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, a number of measures can affect equal opportunity: strong public services, key social programs and, most importantly, a fair redistribution of wealth. What is glaringly absent from the most recent budget are efforts to crack down on tax avoidance and tax havens. This is a battle that my colleague from Joliette has been fighting for years, a battle that must one day be settled here. Given that we have the capacity to fight, it comes down to political will. Things cannot go on like this. I do not subscribe to the dogma that the rich must be made to pay for the poor. I believe that we need to have fair taxation to make sure that people cannot legally run off with bags of money while others are left behind. We need to address this issue. It should be a priority.
144 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:02:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the excellent speech by my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville. I have to say that this has really affected me. When I was young, I remember seeing the signs at election time asking who had stolen money from the unemployed. Movements like the Sans-Chemise coalition spoke out election after election, reminding us that workers were always worse off after EI reforms, especially the poorest and the oldest ones. What is more, the government was going to dip into the EI fund to finance far different priorities. I do not know if my colleague can give me a little hope today, but what good could new EI reforms do us after everything we have seen over the past 30 years?
132 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:03:42 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. There have been no reforms, just the opposite of reforms really and the gutting of employment insurance. The government has hollowed out a social safety net program, reducing it to a mere insurance program that is essentially funded by workers and employers. The government even pillaged the fund to erase deficits and make cuts. Reforming employment insurance means fixing what was done and making sure it will never be done again. Most importantly, it means guaranteeing stronger, more equitable rights for everyone.
88 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:04:38 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, I would like very much if the member could provide some clearer thoughts in regard to something that goes beyond EI. We have some of the lowest unemployment rates in generations. The federal government is providing more opportunities for people to gain employment through educational programs such as apprenticeship and through programs we support in our community colleges and our universities. Does she see that as a good thing?
71 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:05:14 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, with respect to training, I did not see anything in the budget about climate change, the environment or the just transition we need for workers. That is a gaping hole. With respect to employment insurance and existing training programs, I completely agree. However, I would ask the federal government to transfer money to the provinces because this falls under provincial jurisdiction, as I said earlier. I applaud the work being done right now to have employers contribute a portion of their payroll to cover—
87 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:05:56 p.m.
  • Watch
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.
9 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:06:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, let me say up front that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland. It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, and today it is to speak on the ways the 2022 federal budget is failing Canadian, as we consider Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. The number one issue facing Canadians is the cost of living. We have heard that time and time again. As summer approaches, perhaps the first summer without some sort of the COVID restrictions that we have seen the past couple of years, Canadians are looking forward to enjoying the aspects of life that are so great about Canadian summers, whether they are the warm weather; the longer days; our beautiful parks, beaches and trails; bike rides with the family; or the Blue Jays playing at the Rogers Centre. Instead, Canadians are stressing out about paying their bills. They are worried that they really cannot afford that summer road trip with gas prices over two dollars per litre across the country, and for that picnic in the park, the groceries are going to be at least 9.7% more and probably higher. The price of food, the price of gas, the price of home heating and the cost of life are what I hear about every single day from constituents in Flamborough—Glanbrook. This is especially true for people in rural parts of my riding. They need to drive to get to work and school, to engage in social activities and to get to medical appointments, and the price at the pumps is leaving them feeling that they are going in reverse, which is why a budget with no plan to address the cost of living is really no plan at all. The federal government took in $39 billion more in additional revenue because inflation swelled its coffers, but it did not return any of that to Canadians struggling to get by. Instead, it piled on an additional $50 billion in inflationary spending. What is worse is that the NDP-Liberal coalition has rejected any reasonable common sense suggestions we made to bring relief to Canadians. In March, the government rejected our motion to pause the GST at the pumps on the eve of a carbon tax increase and the excise tax increases that were going to take effect on April 1, which were certainly going to do harm to seniors, families, small businesses and everyone. Just yesterday, our motion to provide relief to Canadians in several practical ways was also rejected by the Liberals and the NDP. We proposed two things that would have brought immediate relief at the pumps: a temporary suspension of the GST on gas and diesel, and a suspension of the carbon tax. These would be things that would actually be tangible in combatting high gas prices, which is what Canadians want and what people in Flamborough—Glanbrook are asking me about every day. They cannot make ends meet, and that is not surprising when the price of gas is, as we said, over two dollars a litre and the price of food is up 10% or more. It is the highest rate of food inflation we have seen since 1981, so obviously making ends meet is getting harder and harder. I want to share a few stories of conversations I have had with constituents in the past couple of months because I think these are the very real and concerning cost-of-living issues Canadians are facing. Sal is a constituent in the Stoney Creek Mountain community in my riding, and he tells me his single-income family is having a lot of trouble. In his words, they are having “serious financial struggles as the cost of living is exceedingly high”. Heinz is a senior living on a fixed income in West Flamborough. He shares with me his home heating bill every single month. He is always shocked and dismayed, and he questions the amount of tax, including carbon tax, on that bill. As a senior on a fixed income, he finds it to be a monthly challenge to his budget. There is also Gerrit, who lives in Mount Hope in my riding. He commutes to work, and he could not believe the increase in the carbon tax on April 1 at a time when gas prices were already going up. He notes that this cost of fuel is really a challenge for him and his household as they commute to work every day. These are just a few examples of the very real concerns from the lives of ordinary Canadians. That is why it is puzzling to me that the Liberals did not use the windfall in revenue the government received from rising inflation to address the cost-of-living crisis Canadians are facing. Maybe they could use some of the pragmatic suggestions we have proposed. Instead, the 2022 federal budget includes another $50 billion, as I have said, in uncontrolled spending. If we add that up, that can only be paid by higher taxes in future years. The size of the federal government, we know, has grown 25% since before the pandemic, yet one cannot get a passport in a timely fashion. As the member for Calgary Forest Lawn articulated earlier this evening, one cannot get other government services or IRCC either, so that really begs the question. The government’s lack of concern about the cost of living contrasts with our neighbours to the south where U.S. President Biden and treasury secretary Yellen have acknowledged that inflation is a real problem and they are acting. Here we have no plan. I also want to talk about another issue I am hearing about from my constituents in Flamborough-Glanbrook. I have had a number of conversations about the the tariffs on fertilizer. It is a frustration for farmers in my riding who have done all the right things. They ordered their fertilizer over the fall or winter. They work hard as stewards of the land, yet they were slapped with a punitive tariff on fertilizer just at the time when they are looking to plant their crops for this year's season. In fact, I met with family farmers who run a grain operation in Glanbrook a month ago. They took time from their very busy planting season to discuss this issue. They had pencilled it all out. On handwritten pages, they showed me their calculations, and I was astonished. Their fertilizer costs grew from $900 per tonne in 2018 to over $2,300 this year. On top of that, they showed me their gas prices, their diesel prices and their propane costs. They are all up, so the economics of their operation are increasingly out of whack. These are the people who produce our food. They assure the food security of our nation, as well as our world. Yes, I understand and support the need to combat Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We are doing that in many ways, but we cannot do that on the backs of our farmers. Canada is the only G7 country to apply a tariff directly on imported fertilizer from Russia, and it is a large one at that, at 35%. Conservatives have called on the government to exempt farmer and suppliers who ordered fertilizer before or on March 2. However, the minister of agriculture told the agriculture committee that the government would neither exempt these orders nor offer compensation to farmers to offset the costs of these tariffs. Yesterday, the Liberals and NDP voted down our motion on affordability, which included a provision to eliminate the fertilizer tariffs. I know my time in winding down, so I want to conclude with a conversation I had a few Fridays ago with Darlene. Darlene is a senior living in the Upper Stoney Creek community in my riding. She was incredibly frustrated and concerned because she could no long make ends meet on her fixed income with the cost of groceries. In fact, other costs that were unforeseen included some medications that she needed to take that were certainly exacerbating the problem, as well as just running her household. She unfortunately had to make the decision to sell her house and move in with her daughter. How sad is it that a senior who worked all her life and contributed to this country, while living in a modest home in a modest neighbourhood, could not make ends meet? She questioned what the government is doing to help her and all Canadians dealing with this affordability crisis. This is the question that Darlene has for the government: Does it understand? Does it know that cost of living is the number one issue facing Canadians? If so, why is fixing it not the number one priority in the budget and for the government?
1502 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:15:35 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, the member referred to the United States and compared it to Canada. He says that he wants the government to deal with inflation and then referred to how the United States is doing something, yet Canada's inflation rate is less than the United States. We can look at what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has done in managing our economy. Our debt-to-GDP ratio shows we are doing well compared to the United States. We can take a look at job creation. We are at 115% of pre-COVID jobs, those being the jobs we lost because of the coronavirus. We are at 115%, while the United States is still less than 100% in terms of recovery of jobs. If the member does that comparison, I suggest it would show that we do have a plan and that plan is working. Would he not agree?
152 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:16:36 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, as a new member in the House, I am always impressed with the number of interjections by the member for Winnipeg North and the sense of humour that he often adds to his questions. The member cited a number of different metrics. Whether the cost of inflation is a couple of points higher in the United States, I do not think that answers Darlene's question. I do not think that answers Sal's question, Gerrit's question or Heinz's question. Despite the debt-to-GDP and the number of jobs, they are still dealing with that daily struggle of the price at the pumps. They are still dealing with that daily struggle of the prices at the grocery store. If we want to talk about employment, we know the labour shortages are exacerbating the inflation crisis in the country, so I would not agree that we are on the right path.
155 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:17:40 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook is this. How can he remain so calm when dealing with issues as fundamental as the dignity of our seniors? These individuals are in distress right now because they cannot make ends meet. The government is not doing anything, nor has it done anything over the past year, except one small gesture for a certain category of seniors. It has created two classes of seniors and refuses to give additional income to those aged 65 to 74. It is shocking. How can my colleague remain so calm when discussing this issue?
102 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:18:21 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, maybe I will be a bit more animated in my response because we should not be calm about this. That is the generation that built our country and made it strong. We are doing a disservice to them when they have to struggle. Some have to sell their houses and move in with their children, and Darlene is not the only example. I have heard this from others. My parents are seniors, and I hear directly from them. There was your point about the two categories of seniors that have been created. That should not be. It was, in my view, politics to offer $500 on the eve of an election to seniors over the age of 75. I knocked on doors in the last election and seniors who receive that said it is unacceptable. They asked why are they getting it and not others. They donated it, in fact—
153 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:19:24 p.m.
  • Watch
I would remind the hon. member to ensure that he addresses his questions and comments through the Chair. We have time for a brief question. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
33 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:19:34 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook spoke a bit about carbon pricing. This is an interest of mine, particularly because the experts say that there are really two approaches to driving down emissions: either a market-based carbon pricing approach, which is more efficient and less expensive, or a regulatory approach, which is less efficient and more expensive. The Conservative Party, in the last election, supported a carbon pricing approach, albeit a bit of a strange approach, under the leadership of the member for Durham. I am curious if my colleague can tell me where the Conservative Party currently stands on using market-based carbon pricing approaches to address the climate crisis.
114 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/8/22 9:20:29 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, I enjoy my work with the hon. member on the transport committee. Conservatives did support a carbon pricing scheme in the last election. I served on the board of directors for the Royal Botanical Gardens, which is responsible for many sensitive and important ecological lands within the greater Hamilton area. The environment is important to me, and I take that question seriously. Our point is that at a time of inflation, at a time when Canadians are struggling, why are we increasing the carbon tax?
87 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border