44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member in his assessment of the unfortunate reality of corporations using the opportunity of inflation to further expedite the problem by adding more inflation and trying to profit off of it.
It is one thing to do this by putting a special tax on it, but how do we do that? He talked about profits of over a billion dollars. How does he see that being implemented practically and the results of that, and how that will be received?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the way it works in the pandemic dividend in the legislation the government has crafted is that it establishes a baseline profit in advance of the pandemic. Then it looks at the pandemic window and how much more profit was made during the pandemic compared to baseline. That is how it comes up with a threshold. It then applies a tax for profits over that threshold.
There is a reasonable method already in place that could be applied to other industries. It would capture industry sensitive differences with respect to the level of profit. We do not like the words “cookie cutter”, but the way this works could be applied to other industries. The level of sensitivity that would be needed and expected is already in the mechanism.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like to hear him talk about housing. We know that the housing crisis is one of the very important factors of the inflationary situation that we are experiencing at the moment. At the Bloc Québécois, we believe that we should invest massively in social housing. We even believe that we should make a permanent commitment to invest 1% of the budget in social housing every year to reduce the pressure on the market and remove a certain number of tenants from the market. We believe that this could be an effective solution. Of course, it would require a great deal of construction.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Of course, the New Democratic Party believes that we need to invest in social housing. The Conservatives propose facilitating the construction of houses on the private market. However, without real investment and without the construction of social housing, many Canadians will not be able to buy these homes and will not have access to housing that they can afford.
Yearly, recurring investments are really important. Non-profit organizations need to know whether they will receive an amount every year to make their own investments in the initial stages of a social housing project. If they do not know when these investments will be made by the government, it is really difficult for them to plan—
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 12:08:18 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to ask a question about something my hon. friend from Elmwood—Transcona, whose speeches are always thoughtful and well-informed, did not touch on.
In today's debate, we have heard a lot, particularly from the Liberals, about their commitments to net zero by 2050. I wonder if the member happened to see recent news coverage about our former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, being part of a United Nations high-level expert panel that looked at the green washing, to put it mildly, around net zero by 2050 commitments.
The criteria set out by that expert body and former minister Catherine McKenna makes it clear that most of these promises by non-state actors are not measurable, not realistic and are simply empty promises. Canada's commitments do not measure up to the expert panel's criteria.
Does the hon. member have any thoughts on that?
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that if Canada wants to get serious about meeting its emission reduction targets in the timeline, even in the inadequate timeline, that has been promised by the government, we have to see more projects getting built. The proof is in the pudding.
The investments are not there, and the construction is not happening. We are not going to see infrastructure that reduces greenhouse gas emissions if it is not getting built. Announcing it does not do the job, and so far all we have are announcements.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to the fall economic statement, which is reflected in Bill C-32.
Let me go on record just quickly about the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia. The report was released today. I want to applaud the commission, particularly on its focus on reinstating all of Hants County as part of Kings—Hants. There was a lot of community backlash or engagement on this issue, and I certainly want to applaud the commission for its work. I know it is not an easy job, but as it relates to the boundaries in Kings—Hants, I do think objectively that it is fair and reasonable.
I am going to use my time this morning to talk about the fall economic statement and how what this government is putting forward is going to matter to my constituents. I am then going to talk about a few things that are going to be extremely important in the days ahead as we move into 2023 and start to focus on budget 2023.
This has been talked about a lot in the House. Right now, we know that times are challenging, particularly for those Canadians who are vulnerable and have lower incomes. I want to applaud the government for trying to strike the balance between fiscal discipline and making sure that there are targeted measures to help those Canadians who do need extra help right now.
First of all, there is a doubling of the GST rebate for the next six months. This is a targeted measure. Eleven million Canadians would receive it. It is something that is around $2 billion to the treasury, but it is something that matters to those families and those individuals who need a bit of extra help right now. It was approved by the House, and I certainly appreciate that it is there.
Along with that is a doubling of the Canada housing benefit. This is to about 1.1 million renters across the country who have lower incomes. I had the opportunity to speak to one of my constituents last week who was really struggling to be able to pay the bills. My riding is rural. It is outside of Halifax, but she was trying to pay a rental bill of about $1,500. That has increased significantly, even since I was elected in 2019. We know the challenges around housing, and this is a really important measure to help those who are needing the extra help.
By working together here in Parliament, we have been able to move forward on dental care support for children under 12. I believe that has actually passed the Senate. It is another important measure for children in households with incomes under $90,000 that do not have any private insurance. We are making sure those children have access to dental care. I was disappointed to see that the official opposition, the Conservatives, voted against this. I did not hear much of a rationale as to why they would not support something like this, which matters to constituents from Newfoundland and Labrador and all the way to British Columbia. However, I am pleased to see that it is going to move forward. I know it is going to make a difference for families in my riding of Kings—Hants.
Speaking as one of the youngest members of Parliament in the House, who does still indeed have student debt, albeit not federal, one of the big measures is to remove interest from the federal portion of student loans. This is something that matters. On average, it would save those who hold debt almost $400 a year, and it would make sure that we are not piling on interest at a time when students are trying to recover. This is in addition to the fact that we moved the student-loan repayment schedule from an income of $25,000 up to $40,000 before someone would have to start repaying. These are really important measures. I had the chance to be with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth at Acadia University last week. We spoke to students, and we know how important this measure is.
The Canada workers benefit is a benefit that would be brought forward on a quarterly basis. It will be automatically available to workers. Workers will not have to apply for this. This will come as part of the benefits from the government, and it is for workers who have family income below $42,000, so it is very targeted to help those who are working hard but are struggling to stay ahead. This is another affordability measure that I certainly support.
With respect to the tax-free home savings account and the doubling of the first-time homeowners tax credit, again, as a younger member of Parliament with a number of friends and people I know looking to get into the housing market, I know these are really important measures to make sure that they have tools to help purchase their first home. I applaud the government for moving forward on them.
In my riding, there is the most concentrated group of farms east of Quebec, and there is a number of supply-managed farms. Of course, this government made a promise to make sure supply-managed farms would be compensated, and I am pleased to see the government is moving forward with that. The Minister of Agriculture had the opportunity to announce that in Quebec on Monday. I know it is going to make a difference across the country, particularly for farmers in my riding. We know how important their work is, especially during the pandemic.
I have two other quick points before I transition to something else. There is the launch of the growth fund. This is a $15-billion capitalization of funds to try to draw private capital. For energy transition and opportunities for Canadian leadership on food and energy, this is a really good thing. I am pleased to see the Minister of Finance moving forward with it, along with the tax credit for the hydrogen and critical minerals sector.
I was particularly pleased with the Minister of Finance's candour about the challenges we could face in the days ahead, particularly with the prospect that we could be facing a global recession in 2023. When I look at some of the challenges, such as health care, I was disappointed to see provincial health ministers not take federal money that was on the table in British Columbia on the guise that somehow a national sharing of data was a step too far for them to be able to work together.
We are seeing challenges across the country. We want to make sure that, if we are going to put federal money on the table, it is actually going to health care and it is going to deliver on results. I was quite disappointed, but it is going to be a significant spend. The Government of Canada has made sure there will be more money coming ahead. This is one element, when we look at the fiscal discipline and the fiscal ability for the government, that will be a challenge.
Next is reducing emissions and fighting climate change, and of course Canada's position in the world. I am going to take my remaining time to talk about things I think we need to be really focused on as a Parliament in the days ahead. First of all, concerning regulatory reform modernization and non-cost measures, we need to really start talking about things that do not cost money that can help us to achieve the results and outcomes that we, as parliamentarians, or the government, may wish to see because there is going to be a real challenge on the fiscal position in the days ahead. This could include interprovincial trade.
A Senate report suggest that 2% to 4% of GDP is being left on the table. If premiers want more money for health care, that is fine. First of all, they need to stop the fakery around the idea of national sharing of data and having the results, and get out of the way to make sure we can grow the economy so we can have a sustainable way to pay for it.
I would like to see us move away from command and control regulations. We are one of the worst in the OECD in this regard. That is really important. As well, I would like to see things like a presumptive health approval, and I have said this in the House before. If an applicant comes to Health Canada and already has approvals from a jurisdiction such as the United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, jurisdictions that we trust their processes, why would we not give them a presumptive approval to operate in Canada until such time that Health Canada either can approve them outright or found a reason as to why they could not operate in the country?
I want to ask my colleagues if we have given thought to how we are going to double or triple energy generation in the country. As we move to EV vehicles, and as we try to move to a low-carbon economy, we need to have serious conversations on how we are actually going to generate that electricity. I submit to the House that nuclear energy needs to be a big part of that conversation. We have a tremendous opportunity in Canada to be a global leader, and we are already are. We are recognized as being one of the best as it relates to nuclear energy. When we look at a zero-emission opportunity to generate electricity, we need to get more serious on it. I would like to see the government introduce nuclear as part of its green bonds initiative.
I hear too much of colleagues in the House who talk about net-neutral and getting to our 2050 goals, but that are not talking seriously about the technologies that are available before us right now and how we get there.
I would be remiss to not talk about the Atlantic loop. I hope to see in budget 2023 a firm commitment from the government to make sure there is money on the table to drive this initiative. I will go on record saying I am disappointed in Premier Houston's government and the fact that Bill 212 at the Nova Scotia Legislature is creating real challenges for Nova Scotia Power and Emera to actually raise the equity to make this happen. It is unfortunate, and I really hope he can get to the table with our provincial utility to make sure we do not squander this historic opportunity to help get Atlantic Canada off coal.
I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues, and I appreciate having this opportunity to speak today.
1832 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I found it remarkable that, in the last year, we have seen a change in the Liberal Party on nuclear energy. I agree with the member that it is critical for any industrialized country to meet their climate change reduction targets to have, as baseload power generation, support for nuclear. The issue is that Catherine McKenna, when she was the minister of climate change and environment, did not support that technology. In fact, in all of the discussions of our Paris targets, it was never mentioned. That technology was not included in the green bonds program, as the member discussed. He has the opportunity in the Liberal caucus to make it clear that they should have included that technology, as well as the investments in small modular reactors.
These are all positive steps. Maybe the member could tell the House what has changed within the government after six years of inaction on nuclear? Are they now going to pursue this as a part of their strategy?
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I look at the lights in this building right now, I know 60% of the generation of the electricity here in Ontario is done by nuclear power, so I would agree with the member opposite. As I made it very clear in my speech, we need to become more serious on this.
I would encourage the government on this. I hope the Minister of Finance will make sure that, in the next offering around green bonds, nuclear is included.
I look at the Canadian oil and gas industry. As we try to decarbonize its process to ensure that it can be competitive in the days ahead, nuclear and SMR technology have to be a part of that. I do not speak for the executive. I stand here as a member of Parliament proudly saying that this is something that I will be encouraging the government on, both in the House and in our conversations in caucus, and to continue to pursue in earnest because I think it is extremely important if we are actually serious about meeting our climate target goals.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I see in the House are members of Parliament who work hard, who are honest and who represent their fellow citizens well. The member for Kings—Hants is one of those people. Frankly, I hold him in high regard. He is an honest person and I know that he will answer my question honestly, without partisanship.
At my constituency office, I hear a lot of talk from seniors aged 65 to 74 who do not receive the same treatment by the federal government as senior who are aged 75 and over. I seriously receive a lot of calls at my office about this. I am asked why they are treated differently from other pensioners.
In Bill C‑32, there is nothing to correct the situation, namely this two-tiered approach to dealing with seniors under the age of 75.
Can my colleague answer me and tell me why?
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that it is well known that I appreciate how the government increased it. The government has put forward $3 billion a year in spending for those 75 and over for old age security. Like the member opposite, I have heard a number of questions and concerns about those who are 65 and older, not 75, particularly from lower incomes, who were not necessarily pleased with that decision.
I think in hindsight a better approach would have actually been to take that $3 billion and make it for those 65 and up, but have it set on a certain income scale. That is not what happened. That is fine. We still want to appreciate the fact that the government has moved significantly in this direction on investing in seniors.
I will remind the member opposite that there is a platform commitment from the government to increase the GIS for 65 and up by $500. I think that is an important measure. It is something that I know a number of folks on this side of the House pushed for. I look forward to making it happen in this Parliament.
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji. I would like to thank the member for his platform on prevention. I think that he has clearly outlined one of the concerns that the Conservatives have said. The Conservatives this morning have been talking about how Canada is sending out a blank cheque. I completely disagree with that. The government has provided some very great measures in this bill that would make sure more Canadians can keep money in their pockets. I also appreciated the measures that he thinks need to happen for the future.
Does the member agree that there needs to be a comprehensive EI reform, something that his party started campaigning on seven years ago?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree, and this is something the minister has committed to doing. I will give an example in Atlantic Canada. On the basis of Ms. Gail Shea, I believe it was, and part of her work in the last Conservative government, there are what are called dividers. For example, in Prince Edward Island, the EI requirements in Charlottetown are vastly different from what they may be even 15 kilometres away. That is one example of where we have to create more uniformity and modernize the system. It makes a lot of sense, and I look forward to working with the government to make that happen.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and represent my constituents of Foothills on this important discussion today on the fall economic statement.
We have heard from the government since this statement was released, and we have certainly heard in many of the speeches over the last few days, that the Liberals are bragging about being fiscally responsible and having fiscal discipline when it comes to this statement. I do not know too many Canadian families, or Canadian businesses for that matter, that would define fiscal responsibility and fiscal discipline, in a time of economic crisis, as increasing spending and going further and further into debt. That is not the right definition of fiscal discipline.
Canadian families across the country are struggling to heat their homes, struggling to feed their families and struggling to operate their businesses and their farms, and the Liberals' response to that is to continue inflationary spending at a record pace. We have seen inflation at a 40-year high, with many Canadians having to make difficult choices when it comes to their food choices at the dinner table and in their everyday lives.
When the Liberal government talks about making difficult choices, I do not think it really understands what the average Canadian is having to endure when it comes to those difficult choices. A difficult choice for an average Canadian family is not the difference between cancelling one's Disney+ subscription or having a decision to make on which $7,000-a-night room they stay in when they are in London. The difficult choices Canadian families are having to make right now are about whether they are going to be able to put their child in sports, whether they are going to be able to pay the grocery bill this month, or what sacrifices they are going to put into their family budget so they can afford to pay their mortgage this month and not lose their home.
It just shows the contrast in how out of touch the government is when it talks about difficult choices being only $40 billion in new spending to add to the $200 billion in additional debt that had nothing to do with COVID, in comparison to the tragic choices Canadians are having to make every single day just to try to get by.
Like, I would hope, many colleagues in this House, I found it quite tragic when I heard 1.5 million Canadians had to rely on a food bank in the month of March alone. That is a 35% increase over that same month prior to COVID and a record number of Canadians relying on a food bank. Those are the difficult choices Canadians are having to make, so when the Liberal government says it is practising fiscal responsibility and fiscal discipline by adding record debt to further spur record inflation and higher interest rates, those actions are having real consequences for real Canadians.
For example, I am now hearing from farmers across the country who, because of these higher interest rates, are unable to manage the debt on their farms. It was already at a record high, and these interest rates are making that situation much worse. Certainly I have heard from constituents who are saying their mortgage has gone up $500 a month and is crippling. My colleague, who I do respect, from Kings—Hants mentioned his conversation with his constituent, who said her rent is now at $1,500 a month. He said he is hopeful she will get the $500 rent relief. More than 60% of Canadians will not actually qualify for that rent relief program, and I would ask my colleague, if his constituent does qualify for that $500 a month one-time rent relief cheque, what she is going to do in January, February, March or April, when she is no longer getting that government cheque.
Canadians need long-term solutions, not a little band-aid for the hemorrhaging of their financial futures.
As a result of this, the Liberals have not been able to offer the most basic services, despite these massive increases in spending. Canadians are not seeing any bang for their buck, as we see an inability to get passports and a 2.4-million backlog in immigration applications. We have seen the veterans affairs minister under fire for the backlog in veterans' benefits. Zero infrastructure projects have been completed from the infrastructure bank. All of these things are having an impact on Canadians, who do not see the benefit of these increases in spending.
I want to get back to the impact this is having on the average Canadian and talk about Canadian agriculture as well. We talk about food inflation being at a 40-year high and the impact it is having on Canadians' everyday ability to buy groceries and put healthy food on the table. Considering that Canada is one of the countries that exports 80% of what it produces when it comes to food, it is frustrating to see these record-high prices. The cost of bread is up 17%; flour is up 24%; a head of lettuce is up 21%; potatoes are up 17% and pasta is up 30%.
As I have said before, these are not luxury items that one would get at a Liberal cocktail party. These are the staples that Canadians rely on every single day to feed their families, and they are no longer able to afford those critical staples. Inflationary spending, a tripling of the carbon tax and a fertilizer tariff are driving up the price of food, because they impact every aspect of the supply chain.
Those prices are difficult to swallow, but because of Liberal policy they are going to get worse. The fall economic statement did not say anything about listening to Conservatives and putting a cap on tax increases. The Liberals are moving ahead with tripling the carbon tax. That is only going to further drive up the cost of food.
The Liberals' undemocratic escalator tax is going to increase the tax on beer, wine and spirits by 30%. When the Liberals put in the escalator tax, they said they would index it to inflation. This tax is undemocratic because it does not come back to the House of Commons for debate and automatically goes up every single year, but when the Liberals put in the escalator tax, inflation was around 2%. They felt the industry would be able to absorb that, but no one could foresee what was going to happen this fall, when inflation was in excess of 10%. As a result of that, the escalator tax is going up more than 6%. That is significantly higher than what the industry was able to absorb year after year.
When our restaurant and hotel industry is struggling as a result of coming out of COVID, this puts a further burden on cost. This is going to severely impact our wine and beer industry, certainly craft brewers, who bring incredible economic development to rural communities, but also to farmers, who grow the barley and grapes for those products. This is going to impact them as well. This is a 30% increase on their costs, which they are going to have to pass on to the consumer. This is an undemocratic tax that is now going to further cripple our agriculture industry and have a massive impact on Canadians and consumers alike.
Conservatives asked the Liberals to put no new taxes in the fall economic statement. We are facing a financial economic crisis and for them to continue to pursue the tripling of the carbon tax is nonsensical, especially when food security is probably the number one issue we are facing, not only here in Canada but around the world. When we need our agriculture sector firing on all cylinders in order to reach its full potential to meet the needs here in Canada and around the world, putting these further burdens on Canadian farmers makes zero sense.
We already know that the carbon tax costs the average farmer about $45,000 a year. I have a propane bill from a farm family in St. Thomas, Ontario, for one month, and the carbon tax was more than $11,000. In one month, it was $11,000. Thanks to the opposition, the Conservatives, with the support of the NDP and the Bloc, Bill C-234, which will be a carbon tax exemption on propane and natural gas, got through committee, so farmers will get some relief. We need that bill to pass.
We desperately needed the Liberals to put resources aside to establish a vaccine bank here in Canada for Canadian agriculture. We will no longer be allowed to rely on the United States for vaccines for livestock. We have seen the impact the avian flu has had on the Canadian agriculture economy. Foot-and-mouth disease and African swine fever will have more than a $45-billion impact on our industries if we do not have the resources in place in Canada to address them. Conservatives are asking for $4 million to establish that vaccine bank, which was not in the fall economic statement but which I know every stakeholder has pushed the government to do. We need these critical resources to protect our food supply, food sovereignty and our agriculture industry in Canada.
1564 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have respect for the member opposite as well, but I can understand why Canadians would be confused about what Conservatives stand for.
I just listened to the member opposite talk about the housing benefit not having a wide enough scope, immediately after he said the government was spending too much money. He talked about carbon pricing, yet he ran on a platform just over 12 months ago to do exactly that, to put a price on carbon. He also ran on a platform that would propose to outspend what we were planning to spend as a government.
What would the member have to say to his constituents? He comes in the House and talks about carbon pricing being bad, yet he ran on it just months ago. He talks about the government spending too much money, yet he stands in the House and says the government is not providing enough support. Where is the principle in what he is saying here today? What does he actually stand for?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that seems to be the answer for every Liberal problem that they create themselves. They just want to throw more money at it to solve the problem. They have not solved any problems. In fact, despite record levels of spending, the problems have gotten worse. The Liberals have broken Canada. This is a government, as any Canadian can tell you, that cannot offer the most basic services, despite adding tens of thousands of public sector workers and despite adding $200 billion of additional debt. What has it accomplished?
Canadians cannot get a passport. Our airports are not functioning. We have a 2.4-million backlog in immigration applications. That is what this additional money has accomplished. Nothing.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In the government's fall economic statement, the word “inflation” appears 108 times.
However, when we look at the measures announced in the economic statement, we see that it is essentially implementing the measures that were in the last budget. Apart from rhetoric, the government is not contributing to the response to current inflation and the risk of recession.
We at the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to refocus on its core missions to better support the most vulnerable, namely by increasing old age security from age 65 on, increasing health care funding and reforming EI.
This government seems to identify the current economic crises, but does not appear to propose any new measures. What does my colleague think of that?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would agree. I do not believe the fall economic statement added any new measures to try to curb inflation and end higher interest rates. In fact, I think the fall economic statement is doing everything it possibly can to accelerate inflation and raise interest rates by continuing inflationary spending, by continuing to go further and further in debt, and by tripling the carbon tax.
It is unfortunate that the Liberal government did not listen to the opposition parties, which put forward very concrete and realistic potential solutions to try to curb inflation with no new taxes and no new spending. As I said, the solution for any Canadian business or any Canadian family, when faced with a financial crisis, would not be to rack up the credit card. Their solution would be to get their budget in order.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the member would know, health care in Alberta is at a crisis level. Children are going without it. Some hospitals, particularly in Calgary, have wait times of almost 20 hours for children. These are real people. I know the member cares deeply about our province and about the people in it.
It has been the position of New Democrats for a long time that when health care, something so critical to Canada, is at risk, we must defend it and we must protect it. Publicly administered, publicly accessible health care was the promise that began in Alberta and went into Saskatchewan and is now across Canada.
Will the member defend publicly accessible health care that is publicly administered, which the founders of our province were able to secure?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
