44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 14, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I know those are big numbers, but in the grand scheme of the federal government's budget, $600 million rounded up is zero. Recovering $600 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to a problem as big as tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Not to mention that the government actually encourages it. I asked the Minister of National Revenue about KPMG. In the U.S., charges have been laid for tax evasion and avoidance schemes, but, in Canada, there has been no investigation, no digging and no desire to make the truth or any information at all known to the public. The government actually seems to be doing its utmost to prevent an investigation.
This despite the fact that the minister legally has the power and the right to investigate. On behalf of the Government of Canada, the Minister of National Revenue is basically telling corporations that want to steal from Canadian taxpayers to go right ahead and help themselves.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, would my colleague go so far as to say that this economic statement is futile?
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, is it futile? It is not nearly as futile as what the Minister of Health said.
Then again, there was an opportunity here. In fact, a budget is presented every year, in March, and there are updates and implementation bills, like the one before us today. The government has the opportunity to put forward more measures, to implement them quickly, but also to present them to the public. When we are dealing with a budgetary or quasi-budgetary exercise like the one we are debating today, the public pays more attention, journalists pay more attention.
The fact that this opportunity was completely wasted and this statement mostly recycles old items shows just how tired and uninspired this government is.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 4:51:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 22, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate not be further adjourned.
42 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by talking about a meeting I had a few minutes ago before I entered the House. It was with two remarkable young people in Canada, Shay Larkin and Andrei Marti. They are two kids who represent Kids For a Cure from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. They are here on Parliament Hill with their mothers, Marsha Larkin and Annelise Brown. Our rules do not permit me to say they are in the gallery, so I will not do that, but this is—
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 4:52:11 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to say, as a type 1 dad, that it is good to have them in the gallery.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your help in circumventing the rules. That is very kind and much appreciated.
They are here for a cure and for more funding so we can get the cure for juvenile diabetes. This is extremely important and we welcome their presence on Parliament Hill. This is a sign of the kinds of investments that need to be made, but they are, sadly, not being made through the fall economic update.
There are a number of things in the update that I think we can all support. First is the NDP drive for years to take the interest off apprenticeship and student loans. The NDP has pushed on this for years. Members will recall that when COVID hit back in 2020, on March 13 I was pleased to rise in the parliamentary press gallery to push the government, along with my NDP caucus colleagues, to remove the interest on student loans and to freeze repayment during the COVID pandemic.
To the government's credit, it did move in that regard, but it had not taken the move that so many student groups and students across the country, as well as the NDP caucus, the member for Burnaby South and I, had been pushing for years: that the government should not be profiting anymore from student loans. This is the debt that students undertake in this country for apprenticeship and student loans to gain the skills that will contribute to a vital economy in this country. The government should not be profiting from that, and it is something the NDP has been pressuring this Parliament and the government on for many years. We have finally achieved it, and the interest on the federal portion of student and apprenticeship loans will be eliminated. That is a welcome action, subject to the NDP pushing this consistently and constantly in Parliament.
Also, the government finally took action on what has been a profound loss on behalf of Canadians, and that is the massive amounts of money made by large corporations and the ultrarich in Canada that is taken overseas. The member for Burnaby South, who is our leader, and the NDP caucus have been calling for years for the government to put in place fair tax rules so that everybody pays their fair share. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that it was $25 billion a year under the former Harper government and is now over $30 billion a year. That is money that could be spent on so many other things, but instead it goes to overseas tax havens and tax loopholes.
For Shay, Andrei and their parents, imagine the investments we could make to find a cure for juvenile diabetes. Instead of having $30 billion going offshore, we could have substantial investments in our health care system and in research. This would make a big difference in finding a cure. It would make a big difference in the quality of our health care system. It is $30 billion that is lost, and this is a minimum. As we know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which always admits there is a certain margin, the conservative figure, meaning a modest underestimate of the final amount of money that goes to overseas tax havens and tax loopholes, is now over $30 billion a year.
Given that context, what would the government do? Would the government step up and curb that? The member for Burnaby South called for an excess profits tax, such as we had in the Second World War. During COVID, this was something the NDP repeatedly raised. In the Second World War, at the height of crisis, an excess profits tax was put in place that allowed companies that were benefiting from increased profits to pay their fair share in contributing to the war effort.
As a result of that, Canadians were able to play such an important role in bringing an end to the massive hatred and genocide that was engendered by Nazism and fascism in Europe. That was absolutely fundamental.
The NDP have called for an excess profits tax. The NDP have called for a windfall profits tax, as we have seen oil and gas companies making windfall profits. The big grocery giant chains have been making windfall profits with inflation, raising their prices far beyond, which has engendered the term “greedflation”. That is a result of the fact that we have companies now profiting from inflation by jacking up their prices even more than what the inflation figures would actually justify. That greedflation has promoted and forced incredible hardship on Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.
We called for an excess profits tax. We called for a windfall profits tax. Ultimately, Liberals stepped up in this fall economic statement. They stepped up. Again, the figure is over $30 billion a year. Given the hardship that Canadians are facing and the importance of putting in place investments that will make a difference in their lives, in this corner of the House, the NDP have been fighting hard.
We have succeeded in getting dental care in place, and we know now that families will be able to pay for their children's dental work for kids 12 and under. Next year it will be youth 18 and under, seniors and people with disabilities. We forced a rental supplement that will be paid out to well over a million Canadians who are struggling to pay for their rent right now, and we forced a doubling of the GST to make sure that over 12 million Canadians who have lower incomes will actually have the wherewithal to put food on the table. These are all things that we forced.
We believe that our role is to continue to push Parliament and the government to provide supports to Canadians who are really struggling at this tough time. To do that, we need to make sure we close the loopholes and stop the hemorrhaging of tax dollars by big corporations and the ultrarich's overseas tax havens. As I mentioned, the figure is $30 billion.
I am asking a rhetorical question, but what percentage would colleagues think a responsible government, in a time of crisis, would actually start to curb that hemorrhaging of money to overseas tax havens, those windfall profits, those excess profits? What percentage would it be?
Mr. Speaker, if it were you or I running our household expenditures, I do not think we would be talking in the single digits. I think we would be talking about the idea that we all need to contribute, at this critical time, to the effort to provide Canadians with supports, including those for seniors and people with disabilities. The disability benefit and all of those things need to be put in place. At $30 billion, one would want to take a substantial proportion of that because that is money that could be helping Canadians but is being taken from Canadians and taken overseas.
Did the government take 20%? No, it did not. Did it take 15%? No, it did not. Did it take even 10%? That would be a very modest amount of money, which should be paid into public coffers to help all of us, the commonwealth in this country.
The fact is that Canadians pay their taxes assiduously, honestly, with integrity every year. Small businesses file their tax returns. People with disabilities file their tax returns. Families file their tax returns. People file their tax returns. They pay their fair share to provide that support that all Canadians can hopefully benefit from. Big corporations and the ultrarich do not do this.
One would think that 10% would be a relatively small amount but the government did not even go there. It did not go to 9%, 8%, 7%, 6% or even 5%, 4% or 3%. The sum total of the government's attempt to curb massive overseas tax evasion, windfall profits by the banks and big corporations, is a tax that will bring in about 2% of that amount. It applies to banks and life insurance groups, and that is it. It is 2%.
There is a real problem with Bill C-32. Yes, there is the NDP influence. New Democrats pushed proposals that would make a difference in the lives of Canadian students, and there are the other elements that we brought to bear over the course of the last few weeks, including the doubling of the GST credit, ensuring dental care and ensuring rental supports. All of those things do make a difference.
However, above all, this fall economic statement is a lost opportunity. It is a lost opportunity for Shay and Andrei and all of those activists in Kids for a Cure, who are looking for support for Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. It is a lost opportunity for those seniors who are struggling to make ends meet and really need support for an increase in their pensions. It is a lost opportunity when we compare, as far as student loans are concerned, the significant measures taken by the Biden administration in the United States to what we see here. Eliminating interest is an important NDP initiative, but it falls far short of what is actually needed.
Last spring, in the budget, the NDP forced significant investments in housing so that they start to build the housing required to make sure that every Canadian has a roof over their head at night and has that right to housing, and we are going to see the product of that in the coming year or two. However, we still have a long way to go. This fall economic statement is, again, a lost opportunity because there is not that increase in investments that could have made such a difference.
It is a lost opportunity when it comes to taking the GST off home heating. Members will recall that just a few weeks ago, on a Conservative opposition day, we proposed an amendment that would have taken the GST off of home heating. To the surprise of all of us, because in 2019 the Conservatives campaigned on taking the GST off home heating, when the NDP made that proposal for the amendment, they said no, which kind of flies in the face of it. When they make commitments on the campaign trail, they should keep them in the House of Commons. The Conservatives chose not to keep that commitment in the House of Commons. Therefore, this was another lost opportunity in the fall economic statement.
Above all, the issue of tax fairness in this country is becoming a huge and growing problem. We have needs to be met. We have an infrastructure deficit. We have Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. We really need to have a tax system that ensures that everybody pays their fair share. We know that regular families do. We know that seniors do. We know that people with disabilities do and students do. They file their tax returns. They pay what they owe. We grumble sometimes when we do that, but we understand that there is something better and that is why we make those contributions.
We want to build a better country. We want a country where everybody can benefit and where nobody is left behind. We want to build a country where there is housing for everybody.
The member of Parliament for Nunavut has been an incredible campaigner and incredibly outspoken on the dearth of housing in Nunavut and the housing crisis up there. For a fraction of that $30 billion that goes offshore every year, we could be providing supports so that the people of Nunavut actually get the housing they deserve. These would be supports for housing for people right across the country and indigenous-led housing developments right across the country because, in so many first nations communities, housing is simply not there. We can provide housing for everybody in this country.
We can provide supports for everybody, including a disability benefit, which the NDP campaigned on. We continue to push the government to actually establish that benefit, and not just talk about but put in place, so it starts helping people today, including people with disabilities.
As members know, as we have seen the growing food bank lineups across the country, more than half of those people who are lining up are people with disabilities. We can provide those benefits now with tax fairness. We have the wherewithal to make those investments in housing and to make those investments to ensure that people get a basic level of income to allow them to live in dignity. We can provide the supports for our health care system so that we can ensure we are moving to an even better health care system.
The architect of our health care system, Tommy Douglas, always believed that it was the funding that was so essential. What we have seen under previous governments, both Conservative and now the current Liberal government, is an erosion of that funding, which has led to a deterioration of our public health care system, an institution that Canadians hold dear. We have to make sure that we are reinvesting in health care, and that includes reinvesting in research, which brings me back to Shay Larkin and Andrei Marti, who are here on the Hill to talk about more money for research to find a cure for juvenile diabetes.
There are many other advocates who come to the Hill who need funding, and sometimes remarkably small amounts compared with the $30 billion that we blow away every year to overseas tax havens to help the ultrarich and big corporations increase their profits. However, often for a very small fraction of that money, we could have breakthrough cures for a whole range of diseases.
We can do that in this country. We should be able to do that in this country. We should be able to provide the funding to renew our infrastructure across the country. We should be able to find the funding to ensure that we can provide post-secondary education and apprenticeship training in the whole range of areas where we have skills shortages. We should be able to do all of those things, but that starts with tax fairness. Other countries have put in place windfall taxes and excess profits taxes. They have closed loopholes. They have ensured that they actually cut off that flow of money out of their country, which is really, in a sense, the theft of taxpayers' money.
The money that we keep as a commonwealth, that we put together collectively to ensure the health and well-being of all of our citizens, should be used properly. It is not supposed to be on a beach in the Bahamas. That money is supposed to be helping that senior in Smithers, British Columbia. That money is supposed to be helping in Iqaluit with the dearth of affordable housing that we have. It is supposed to be funding the Nanaimo infrastructure that we are seeing. It is supposed to be funding, in New Westminster—Burnaby, supports for the Royal Columbian Hospital and Douglas College. These are all the things we can achieve when we have fair taxes.
Are there good things in the fall economic statement? Yes, and the NDP is proud to have pushed for those things and succeeded in getting them. However, does this fall economic statement fall short of what is needed? Absolutely, and there is a need for tax fairness that goes far beyond taking 2% of what is going to overseas tax havens. We can do that. One day there will be an NDP government in this country. When there is, we will see the kind of fair tax system that can make such a difference for all Canadians.
2644 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby can speak to one of the comments that was made by a Conservative colleague, the member for Simcoe North, earlier. He said, “we do not have a student debt problem in this country.” I would argue that we do have a problem when it comes to education in this country. The problem is that more and more is being expected of young people now when it comes to education. However, more importantly, it is expected that they will bear the financial burden of it.
Four or five decades ago, one could get a publicly funded high school education and have a meaningful career afterwards that provided for oneself and one's family. Nowadays, a bachelor's degree is not even enough. People are expected to get a master's degree and further post-secondary degrees. However, it is all being done on the backs of their having to pay for it. Whereas, when it was my parents and their friends who were getting educated in high school, they could leave high school and get a good job, and they did not have to pay for it because the public system paid for it.
Does the member not agree that we do have a problem when it comes to education in this country and that we should be pushing for more government support to give people the quality of education needed to get meaningful employment afterwards?
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree, but first the government needs to take action on tax fairness. It cannot continue to hide in its shell and refuse to take action, with this hemorrhaging of tax dollars going overseas. It needs to take the steps. The NDP has laid out what it needs to do. All it needs to do is follow NDP leadership, and we will have those resources to start to renew the education sector.
It hurts the families tremendously, but it hurts many of the families because young people cannot go into those chosen professions. They cannot go $100,000 into debt or $120,000 into debt, so it means we end up losing the youth who go through the programs, have huge debt loads afterward, and end up basically having a mortgage on a future that takes 10 or 15 years to pay down. In my case, that is how long it took.
It also means we have skill shortages in every crucial area across the country. We are feeling it most acutely in the health care field, with the shortages of nurses and doctors. That is related to student debt.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 5:14:21 p.m.
- Watch
My public service announcement for this evening will be that the quicker we ask questions and the quicker we can answer them, the more people can participate in these great debates we are having. Those last two were very long.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the fall economic statement there is a specific line item for Lytton, British Columbia, in my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. In June of this year, the Government of Canada made a special announcement, in which it put forward $77 million for the rebuild of Lytton. In the fall economic statement, the government extends the payment periods over five years and transfers the funds from the Pacific economic development agency to Infrastructure Canada.
In the consultations the NDP had with its coalition partners, was there any mention of the specific case of Lytton, and does the NDP agree that Lytton, British Columbia should get the money up front for the rebuild versus having it doled out over a five-year period?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue of Lytton, what is most important is what works for the people of Lytton. That means a staged rebuilding of that community, which I know the member feels very strongly about, and so do I. It is also an indication, and this is important, about the reality of climate change.
Lytton is not the only community that has been destroyed by the reality of climate change as it continues to increase in its severity, whether we are talking about hurricanes in Atlantic Canada, flooding across the country, the atmospheric rivers that have poured down and cut the Lower Mainland of British Columbia off from the rest of the country, or the heat bombs that killed, as the member knows, in that tragic summer, over 600 people in the Lower Mainland, including 60 in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby.
As a House, each member of Parliament needs to contend with the fact that climate change is a reality. We have to act accordingly. That means ending oil and gas subsidies, and it means putting money into clean energy so we can make the just transition to ensure we are preparing for this challenge of confronting climate change.
206 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a question that my colleague from Mirabel got a few minutes ago about the $600 million to fight tax evasion.
That seems like fantastic, wonderful news. However, for the past two years, many of us have been asking the Minister of National Revenue about the billion dollars the government invested to fight tax evasion and tax havens. How much did we get back? We know that Quebec managed to recoup more than Canada did from tax evaders.
Is that $600 million really good news, or is it just more smoke and mirrors to try to convince people that the government is going to recover money from the right pockets?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is ridiculous to talk about $600 million when we are losing $30 billion. That is 2%.
We have been talking about tax havens, the Panama papers, the Bahamas papers and the Paradise papers for years. Thousands of Canadians are mentioned. Even today, if we were to ask the government, how many of them it has gone after, how many have been forced to pay back the money they owe Canadians, we would find that the answer is not one of them.
The Conservatives completely failed in that regard, and the Liberals are doing the same.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I want to first give the member a special “welcome back”. I missed him while he was away.
I also appreciate that he shared the important policy initiatives that could have been covered in the fall economic statement, including with respect to addressing housing in Nunavut.
I want to ask the member this. Does he agree that any economic policy that comes out of any government needs to focus on the people and not just on numbers? I am thinking specifically about the lack of comprehensive EI reform and the good work the NDP does to protect workers.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut. I enjoy working with her tremendously. She is such a fighter for the people of Nunavut and has made such a difference.
If the government would step up when it comes to funding housing, and particularly funding northern housing, we would be making even more progress. That is the reality. The New Democrats are the worker bees in the House of Commons. We work hard, as members know. One of the things we have laid out is how to get things done, solutions.
Certainly, when it comes to Nunavut and housing, the solutions are there. The member for Nunavut has laid them out. The government just has to follow the NDP leadership. Fortunately, it did so when it came to dental care, the rental supplement and the doubling of the GST credit. Those are all welcome initiatives, but it needs to do more, such as with respect to the reform of employment insurance, so that when a person loses their job they have access to it. The member is right; that is absolutely fundamental. This needs to be another area where the government simply follows the NDP leadership.
Tragically, the Conservatives do not see the need for employment insurance, so it could get worse. We are suggesting that the Liberals make things better by following the NDP leadership and putting in place what we suggest, to ensure we have employment insurance when Canadians need it, when they lose their job.
248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, standing in the name of the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Without commenting on the merits of the amendments proposed at the committee stage, I would like to draw to the attention of members an amendment that raises some procedural difficulties.
The amendment in question would add subparagraph 136(1)(d)(d.001) to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is found in the new clause 4.1 of the bill. The amendment would seek to protect termination and severance pay in the case of a bankruptcy. This amendment, in my view, seeks to expand the scope and principle of the bill as set at second reading stage. Moreover, the amendment is a new concept that was not contemplated in the bill at second reading and therefore should be removed from the bill for consideration at report stage and third reading stage.
When the member for Elmwood—Transcona proposed the amendment, the chair of the committee ruled it inadmissible. For the benefit of members who do not sit on the finance committee, I will quote the ruling. It states:
My ruling is that Bill C-228 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide for the solvency of pension funds in case of bankruptcy. The amendment seeks to create new categories of payments to specific former employees that would have to be paid by a bankrupt, which is not envisioned by the bill.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair and for the above stated reason, the amendment brings a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
A majority of the members on the finance committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair and then proceeded to vote to adopt the amendment, which is now found in the bill as reprinted by the House on November 3.
I submit that the ruling of the chair of the finance committee was correct and that our procedures must be respected. As a result, the proper course of action to address this matter is to order a reprint of the bill without the offending amendment.
431 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
We will have a look at that, do some research on it and come back to the House as quickly as is practical.
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and share some thoughts on a very important piece of legislation.
Over the years we have talked about things the government can do to make a difference in the lives of Canadians, whether we are talking legislative changes or budgetary measures.
What we have before us is a hybrid. We have legislative measures that have significant budgetary impacts on houses and homes across all regions of our country. It is a piece of legislation that I would like to think all members, upon reviewing and taking into consideration all the benefits within it, should be voting in favour of.
I was somewhat disappointed by the Conservative Party's amendment. I believe it does not give any merit to the legislation, and I would suggest it is just not necessary.
I would like to think that when we talk about what takes place here in Ottawa, from a government perspective, from the perspective of members of the Liberal caucus, it is about making an economy that works for all Canadians. That is a priority that we all take very seriously.
That is the reason, when we take a look at the fall economic statement, I want the people I represent and indeed all Canadians to see clearly what it is all about. I want them to see that we have a government, a Liberal caucus, that understands the hardship that Canadians are having to play today.
I have often made reference to the issue of inflation. Even when I made comparisons to other nations, it is not good enough that Canada's inflation is lower than that of countries like the U.S.A., England and many European nations.
Canadians want us to respond in a way that is going to be favourable to addressing what is happening here in Canada, whether it was the budgetary announcement made by the Minister of Finance months ago or, more recently, the fall economic statement that was issued just prior to the week we spent in our constituencies or doing constituency work, wherever we might have been.
Inflation is a serious issue. I am concerned about the price of margarine, and of groceries in general, and the impact it has, especially when the holiday season is around the corner. Many will go out and have to purchase all sorts of items, as Canadians from coast to coast to coast recognize and celebrate the holiday season.
For many it is going to be that much more costly. I understand the impact. That is why I started off by saying members should take a look at what the Government of Canada has been doing since the presentation of the budget, since the presentation of a series of legislative actions that are designed to support Canadians during this difficult time.
Yes, we had a worldwide pandemic, and we have a war that is taking place in Europe. Both of them combined have had a profound impact on the issue of inflation.
When we talk about what we can do, we look for leadership and ideas from within the House. I have made reference to it before, and I will continue to do so, whether it is today or into the future.
We have a Prime Minister who wants members of Parliament to look at what is happening in our constituencies and bring that to the floor of the House of Commons, into the standing committees and into our caucus discussions to have those discussions among ministers. I believe, whether in the budget of 2022 or the fall economic statement, we will find those consultations, those reports and those comments. I know I have been canvassed on numerous occasions from different departments, and I am somewhat of an opinionated person. That is hard to believe, but I can tell members the thoughts and ideas I share originate quite often in the constituency I represent.
I look at the many different leadership roles that are played within this chamber. We had the Minister of Finance answer some questions today. That is something I have also made reference to. If members had been listening to the answers, they might feel a little more comfortable in knowing this legislation would go a long way in meeting the needs of our constituents. Then, there is always some free advice provided on the issue of leadership, which I truly believe we have seen consistently, virtually from day one, with this Prime Minister and the government, whether it was with the tax break for Canada's middle class back in 2015, the tax increase for Canada's wealthiest 1%, or the growth of social programs.
There was the GIS and the Canada child benefit, and the supports for small businesses, seniors, people with disabilities, students and many others all the way through the pandemic. Yes, we did spend a great deal of money, and we listen to the Conservatives today criticizing the government by asking why we borrowed so much, yet they voted in good part for the money we borrowed, which they now criticize.
There has been inconsistency coming from the Conservative bench. They stand up, speaker after speaker, often just to criticize the government, and that is fine. That is their role, I guess, but there is a need to hold the official opposition to account for some of the things it does. When it comes to financial matters, and that is what we are talking about today and have been talking about them for a long time, we have been talking about the issue of inflation.
The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, in one of his very first economic statements, and I remember it well, because he was talking about inflation, talked about how the Government of Canada needs to do something on inflation, and he shared his idea. Do members remember it? I remember it well. It was that one of the ways to fight inflation was to invest in cryptocurrency and Bitcoin. The Minister of Finance gave a fairly good articulation of the impact of the advice provided by the leader of Canada's official opposition party. It was somewhat ill-advised, I would suggest.
We think of our seniors, and the Conservatives criticize us and say we are not doing enough for seniors, which is not true. They say that, yet if those seniors they cite had followed the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party, depending on how much they invested, they would have lost anywhere from 30% to 60%, and even higher than that. A senior who had invested $10,000 following the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party would have been lucky if they had $4,000 left from that $10,000 in their savings.
I think it is valid when the Minister of Finance asks the leader where the apology is. Where is the withdrawal? I do not quite understand it. Did the leader of the Conservative Party actually invest in cryptocurrency? Let us get a show of hands. How many of the Conservative members of Parliament followed the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party and bought cryptocurrency? If we canvass the House, we are not seeing any hands. They might be a little embarrassed to raise their hands.
Today, the Conservatives are quoting the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the very same governor the leader of the Conservative Party said he would fire. One day he is going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but today they are quoting the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Do they support the institution of the Bank of Canada? Other prime ministers have, including Stephen Harper.
These are the types of things we should all be concerned about. It is about contrast. If we listened to some of the Conservative members' speeches, what did they say? They said that when it comes to the government's legislation to forgive the interest, to get rid of the interest on student loans, they took exception to it. We had a member who stood up and said it was a dumb idea. That is the essence of what he was saying.
Are we to understand that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support students and does not understand the impact that interest is having on student loans? This is a great way to support students in every region of our country, especially now, when they have to deal with inflation. The Conservatives do not support that.
The Conservatives say that not all the funding the Liberals spent went toward the pandemic. Of course it did not. Why? We have record amounts of dollars going toward health care. We are talking about additional hundreds of millions of dollars. Is the Conservative Party now saying that the money should not be spent, even though it and the Bloc will say we need to spend more and give more money? On the one hand the Conservatives say to give more money, but then they criticize us because we spent more money that was not related to the pandemic.
Let us talk about the issue of health care. Canadians should be very concerned about the Conservative Party. I believe a vast majority of Canadians understand and want to see national leadership on the health care file.
The member for Avalon brought forward a resolution dealing with long-term care, because he is right in his assertion that the federal government has a role to play. We have the Canada Health Act. There is a role. I am concerned that the Conservative Party is not much better than the Bloc when it comes to health care.
That is unfortunate for people like me and many others who reflect what Canadians want, which is a national government that has an interest in health care. That is why we negotiated agreements with the different provinces and territories. That is why we are recognizing long-term care. That is why we are investing in mental health. That is why we are looking at ways to save on pharmaceutical costs.
We understand that health care is important to Canadians and the federal government has a role to play. We are not just an ATM. In fact, if we go back to the seventies, we would find that there was an agreement that took cash out of the system in favour of tax point shifts, which premiers actually wanted.
Now we have a government that continues to support health care, because it is the right thing to do. It is what Canadians want us to do. However, they should be concerned by the Conservative Party of Canada. We could fast-forward and take a look at child care. Again, there are hundreds of millions going into the billions of dollars. Yes, I agree, that is a lot of money. However, we are investing in Canadians.
We recognize that bringing in a national child care program is costly, and it was not directly pandemic-related. However, Canadians would benefit by it, and it has been proven. All one needs to do is to take a look at the province of Quebec, which initiated the idea. Much like other issues on health care, one province brings it forward and the national government takes the idea and expands it so that it benefits all Canadians. We are seeing the same thing here with child care.
Canadians need to be aware. The Conservative Party of Canada does not want it. It is going to get rid of it. These are the types of differences between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. We could even go to more recent things. Let us look at the dental legislation that we passed. We are saying, as a government, that we want to be able to support those who are 12 years and younger by providing some dental insurance. That is going to be money in the pockets of individuals, and it would assist them in getting dental work for children.
Do members realize that one of the biggest reasons for admissions into our hospitals today from a child's perspective is due to dental work? Indirectly, we are actually helping provinces on the health care file. By investing in dental care, there will be fewer children going into our hospitals. That is not to mention that it is the right thing to do. However, it is another initiative that the Conservative Party voted against. It is hard to believe, but Conservatives do not support children under the age of 12 receiving that.
There are more direct grants that I have not had time to talk about. I have not even talked about some of the other benefits, whether it is the doubling of first-time homebuyers tax credit or the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. I love that program. I could speak for half an hour plus just on that one program and how our communities would benefit. If I had leave from the chamber I would do just that, but I am already being told to wind up. I cannot believe it.
There is the anti-flipping tax. This is incredible. If members want to talk about housing-relating issues, this is in the legislation. We should be passing this. There are increases for taxes on banks. That is something that is critically important. There is a doubling of so many things that are positive.
However, I will sit and hope to get a question or two.
2265 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite cannot believe it is not butter, but we know that this fall economic statement is not the real thing either.
The government is purposely engineering a famine by increasing the cost of fertilizer on farmers and the cost of fuel on farmers. It has manufactured a climate emergency and that is the rationale for the Liberals' tripling the carbon tax. No matter how much the costly coalition steps on the gas to accelerate to net zero, we are never going to get there because there simply are not the minerals available on the earth to make these batteries and all these things that they think are going to get us to net zero by 2050. I just wonder when this person is going to look at and take a hard read of the Finnish study that shows that net zero is an impossibility.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
