44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C‑32 contains 25 tax measures and about 10 non-tax measures. There are two kinds: minor legislative amendments and measures announced in the budget in the spring of 2022, last spring, that had not been included in the first implementation bill passed last June.
This means that this bill does not contain any measures to address the new economic reality of a high cost of living and a possible recession. As with the economic statement presented two weeks ago, there is nothing new, it is a rehash. The government thinks its measures are like shepherd's pie, better served as leftovers.
This is a bill with no point or certainty. It does not deserve to be applauded, but contains nothing to justify opposing it. Given current inflation and the risk of recession, the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable individuals, namely to increase health transfers, adequately support those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform employment insurance. Since the government chose to reject those proposals, we denounce this missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are expected in the coming months.
The Bloc Québécois had asked the government to agree to the unanimous request by Quebec and the other provinces to immediately, sustainably, and unconditionally increase health transfers. The health care system is stretched thin.
While emergency physicians warn us that our hospitals have reached their breaking point, the federal government is failing to act. The government clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the consensus among the provinces to convince them to agree to dilute their funding requests. That is exactly what the Liberal health minister said in the Quebec National Assembly: It is called predatory federalism.
We know too well that the fixed incomes of seniors do not allow them to cope with what are currently such pronounced increases in the cost of living. Seniors are those who are most likely to have to make difficult choices, such as groceries, medication or housing.
Madam Speaker, I am told that I must share my time with me esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
387 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 1:00:08 p.m.
- Watch
The member does not have to share his time. Members get 10 minutes for speeches.
The hon. member for Joliette may continue.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, seniors are the ones most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, not to mention housing, yet this government is deliberately choosing not to give people aged 65 to 74 the old age security increase even though they need it now more than ever.
That is not an inconsequential choice. Hypocritically, the government is trying to raise the retirement age. It has sneakily decided to force the less fortunate to work until they turn 75. The Liberals are well aware that inflation makes it impossible for people to make do with what the state provides. What we are witnessing is the creation of a two-tier retirement system. Got money? Enjoy retirement at 65. No private pension plan? Work until age 75. The government is choosing to increase inequality, and it is targeting women first and foremost. This is Liberal-style feminism. The Sheriff of Nottingham could not have done better himself.
While there is a serious risk of a recession in 2023, the Government of Canada is abandoning the comprehensive EI reform it promised last summer. There will be no EI reform. We know that the system has been essentially dismantled over the years and six out of 10 workers who lose their jobs are currently not eligible for EI. That is the situation seven years after the government promised reform. Time is of the essence. Clearly, Liberal promises are only binding on those who choose to believe in them.
On a more serious note, we must absolutely avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the system's shortcomings if a recession hits. As was saw during the pandemic, improvised programs cost more and are not as effective. Employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. However, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims, and that is a problem. In fact, the government predicts a surplus of $25 billion in the EI fund by 2028, and that amount will be paid into the consolidated fund rather than being used to improve the plan's coverage. That is unacceptable.
As for the 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits, that is a measure that was already in a bill passed a year and a half ago, even before the last election. All that is missing is a decree by the government to implement it, but the sick are still waiting. The House had even ordered the government to extend sickness leave to 52 weeks, and they are not even implementing the 26 weeks.
To summarize, this government is pointing to the problem of a rising cost of living, but is happy just talking about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves. They repeat what has already been done in the past, what they already announced in last April's budget, but do nothing else.
Let us consider the supply chains, whose vulnerabilities became apparent during the pandemic. Last spring's budget mentioned the problem 114 times. The statement two weeks ago mentioned it 45 more times, but neither provided any measures to resolve the problem. There is nothing in Bill C‑32, either.
As we know, all too often, the government buries harmful measures in its mammoth budget implementation bills, hoping that they will go unnoticed. This time, the bill contains no surprises, unless they are well hidden and have not been found yet.
Bill C‑32 even contains a number of interesting measures that were announced in the last budget. For instance, there is an anti-flipping tax on residential properties to limit real estate speculation, and a multi-generational home renovation tax credit for those who renovate their homes to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015. We welcome it.
There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive its share.
In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. No more flow-through shares. It is just one drop in the ocean of subsidies, but it is a start. There is a tax measure to promote mining development for the critical minerals that are essential to the energy transition, as well as an amendment to the excise tax to prevent cannabis producers from having to pay it on their unsold stock, which is causing them major cash flow problems.
As we know, the government gave licences to its friends. Now that they are having problems, the government is proposing a solution.
Other than that, Bill C-32 consists of minor legislative amendments. For instance, there is an adjustment to the Income Tax Act to reflect the new accounting standards for financial institutions. There are a lot of very technical pages about that.
There is also an amendment to the Income Tax Act to plug some of the loopholes that financial planners were trying to use to help their clients avoid taxes. We welcome that clarification. There are always people who try their luck. Obviously, the government must do much more to combat fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Finally, I am certain that my next point will be of great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), who is currently standing in the House chatting with another colleague and not listening to a word I say. I salute him. It is the implementation of a Canada-United States agreement on the salaries of government employees who go to the moon, like Tintin in Destination Moon.
To sum up, Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It proposes a few good measures and does some legislative housekeeping.
1066 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member was quite eloquent, covering the moon and back. He spoke on a wide spectrum of issues. The one I want to pick up on is the issue of employment insurance. The current Minister of Employment has been very clear. As we went through the pandemic, there were all kinds of modifications. She has recognized that there is a need to modernize the EI system and has put in place some actions to ensure we will see some changes.
The member somewhat gives the impression that the government is not looking at EI reforms, when we know quite factually that the Minister of Employment is very much dedicated to modernizing EI.
I wonder if he can provide his thoughts or other specific things he would like to see in that modernization.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for seven years now, since 2015, the government has been saying it is looking into what it can do to reform EI.
The hon. parliamentary secretary tells us that the minister just said that she will take care of it and is still looking into it. Last year, she told us that she would present her reform this summer. Two seasons later, we are still waiting.
The government says that we are in an inflation crisis and that we may be heading into a recession. The Bloc is saying that the government needs to hurry up and ensure that EI is reformed before a potential recession hits, so that we have an automatic stabilizer and a social safety net in place. We do not want to end up with another CERB.
The Liberal minister promised us she would amend EI, but a Liberal promise is only worth something to those who want to believe the Liberals. We no longer believe them.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Joliette is right. I think that the best part of his speech was when he referred to the moon. The Adventures of Tintin is one of the best comic strips I have ever read in my life.
Indeed, “lunacy” is the word that comes to mind when I think of this government and its budget. Since the last budget, it has spent another $20 billion. In this update, which we could refer to as budget number two or another draft, the Liberals are once again lost in space, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that $14.2 billion of this spending is not assigned to specific programs. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that is like writing a cheque without saying how the money is to be spent.
I would like my colleague to tell us more about the fact that the government is lost in space.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if that was the government's goal, it has been achieved. I thank the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for his question in French. I commend him.
At this uncertain time, what we are asking the government to do is to focus on its core duties, such as EI and health care funding. It needs to stop introducing new programs, projects and policies that intrude on areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The government is not even doing well at handling its own affairs, such as issuing passports, controlling the borders and funding health care, yet it wants to get involved in areas that do not concern it. We see it happening again in this budget.
As the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, there is a lot of money going to unspecified programs. He also noted that, over the long term, the concern is how the finances of the provinces will be affected, because Ottawa is not funding health care as it should.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his focus on the need for EI reform. He has been asked a few times about what his party would like to see. I wonder if he could elaborate for us the types of reform his party would like to see to EI in this legislation.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her question and for all the work she is doing to defend her nation, which certainly needs a voice like hers in the House.
Since 2015, the government has been saying that it will reform EI. Consultations were held across the country and went on interminably, but we all know what is needed. What we do not want is the current Axworthy system, which does not work. We want a system that protects workers properly. Currently, six in 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI.
In particular, all the non-standard forms of employment must be included. The issue of self-employed workers is also a problem, along with the waiting period, the seasonal gap and everything else.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise this point of order. What I would like to do is just give a brief summary of the issue and give a couple of examples of parliamentary precedent that I think bear on the case and then propose a remedy.
This is with respect to Bill C-228. At committee, an amendment was moved to not only protect the pensions of workers when companies went bankrupt, but to also protect their termination and severance pay. It was an amendment that was agreed to by the bill's sponsor in advance of the second reading vote. It was ruled out of order by the committee chair. That was overturned by the committee itself. Subsequently, in response to a point of order by the member for Winnipeg North, that amendment protecting termination and severance pay was removed by the Speaker as being out of order.
There are a few examples in parliamentary history where amendments that were removed for the very same reason, which was that it was determined it was outside the scope of the bill, have been put back in with the unanimous consent of the House of Commons.
I refer specifically to June 17, 1986, when Speaker Bosley ruled three government motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-106, at that time, were out of order because they went beyond the scope of the bill. The parliamentary secretary to the president of the Privy Council at that time asked Speaker Bosley whether the motions could be put to the House for unanimous consent. The Speaker agreed, and the amendment motions were reintroduced in the bill with the unanimous consent of the House.
Similarly, on April 28, 1992, the House was about to begin consideration at report stage of Bill C-54. The admissibility of three amendments to the bill, which had been adopted in committee, were called into question on a point of order. The three amendments were ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee, as two of the amendments sought to amend the parent act and a third, like these, went beyond the scope of the bill, but the chairman's decisions were overturned by the committee.
After hearing comments from other members, Speaker Fraser ruled immediately that the inadmissible amendments adopted by the committee to Bill C-54 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. Right after the ruling, the amendments in question were agreed to by the House, once again, by unanimous consent.
I submitted these amendments again for report stage of the bill, which will begin tomorrow, so it is timely that I am raising this point of order now, with report stage of that bill pending for tomorrow, and—
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: But what is the point of order?
Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I am getting heckled on a point of order now by the member for Winnipeg North, who is very clearly keen to remove protection for termination and severance pay from Canadian workers.
However, the point I am coming to is that the remedy is to seek unanimous consent. When I presented those amendments for report stage, in accordance with Standing Order 76.1(2), the table decided not to put those amendments on notice. Therefore, the only remedy now is to seek unanimous consent of the House.
In the context I have laid out, I would now like to seek unanimous consent of the House to reintroduce the amendment that would create subclause 4.1 to the bill, which would protect the termination and severance pay that a bankrupt owes to various categories of its employees. I would ask that you unanimous consent of the House now, Madam Speaker, to do that very thing.
639 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 1:15:53 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: No.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 1:16:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This point of order is about the conduct of the member for Winnipeg North, who, it is no mystery to people in the House, speaks a lot, both on the record and off the record. When he said “no” to that request for unanimous consent, was that just part of his normal chit-chat on the benches that maybe the Speaker heard, because it happened to be very loud, or did he intend to say “no” to removing the—
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 1:16:37 p.m.
- Watch
We are getting into debate.
The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on the same point of order.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 1:16:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is trying to be a little tricky. I was not the only person who said “no”. When unanimous consent is requested, it is not appropriate for members to stand in the chamber and start pinpointing who said “no”. I was not the only member—
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 1:17:02 p.m.
- Watch
We are clear on that, and we will not debate the issue. There was no unanimous consent.
The hon. member for Joliette is also rising on a point of order.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work done by my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona and I would like to endorse the overall comments he made on his first point of order. The Speaker's ruling may have been handed down, but I would like to remind the Chair that, over the years, the Chair has consistently taken a stricter and stricter view of the amendments that can be moved in committee. It is the same thing—
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I must interrupt the hon. member. I think he would agree that challenging the Speaker's ruling is a bit of a slippery slope. I believe the House has spoken: There is no unanimous consent.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would be remiss, given the hyper-inflationary context, if I did not mention those without whom my region would not be what it is today, the seniors who literally and figuratively built everything we have, who cleared the way.
Since becoming the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I have heard from many seniors in my riding who are frustrated about their financially precarious situation. They just cannot afford to pay their bills because of the higher price of goods and services.
We are heading for some very tough times. Everyone's purchasing power will suffer. Some people can find ways to improve their situation, but other more vulnerable people, such as seniors, have fewer options.
I wish I could have told them that their government was proactive this past year, but it was not. Like it or not, the population is aging and people are living longer and longer. I think the government is underestimating the consequences of not increasing seniors' income.
Many of us were hoping for meaningful measures to kick-start this period where people will have to compromise and make some choices. I think everyone is prepared to tighten their belts to make ends meet. However, I do not see how maintaining the status quo helps the most vulnerable. It feels like one step forward and two steps back.
People who are hungry and worried about having a roof over their head cannot remain indifferent to some of the speeches we are hearing. The government needs to focus on doing better in areas under its jurisdiction.
Who is more likely to live on a low income? Among people aged 75 and over, women, single people and renters are more likely to live in poverty.
Living on a low income can present significant challenges for seniors. Consider, for example, transportation costs due to reduced mobility, home maintenance and heating, and additional health costs.
Our seniors spent their entire lives working hard, saving and paying for a system that was supposed to support them. Now, that future is beyond their reach. As most seniors are on a fixed income, increases in interest rates, taxes, groceries and heating hit them hard. It means that many seniors must continue to work or return to work. The fact that the government reduced the retirement age from 67 to 65 is inconsequential because people must make decisions based on their bank accounts and not their preferences with respect to quality of life.
This is on top of the problems that many seniors are dealing with in my riding. In rural areas, many of them are dealing with isolation and the lack of support for health services, transportation and federal services, which results in further isolation and health problems.
We must also recognize that this inflationary period has coincided with one of the worst housing crises in 15 years. For people on a fixed income, such as seniors, it is an unavoidable catastrophe.
With the increase in the price of energy, taxes and groceries, and the Bank of Canada's increased interest rate, people are having trouble keeping a roof over their head. We know that we need to try to stop the economy from getting out of control, but there are currently people who are having to sell their home, skip meals or take another job to survive.
The government needs to be aware of that so that it can offer more than just compassion and useful advice, such as cancelling a Disney+ subscription to save money. That kind of measure is useful for those who are privileged and have a steady income. It is not useful for those living paycheque to paycheque or on a fixed income. These people already know how demanding this situation is on their budget and they do not need any suggestions from the government on how to stop spending money.
Even though seniors have more wealth, there should be a financial model that helps them save more of the money they worked so hard for their entire lives.
When my colleague from Joliette spoke two weeks ago in response to the economic statement presented by the Minister of Finance, he pointed out that, for a government that claims to be feminist, it is doing a remarkable job of neglecting low-income women aged 65 to 75. They have no pension, because they spent their lives as caregivers supporting their families rather than maintaining their professional networks and pursuing their careers. This invisible work, which is not recognized as real work because it is not paid, is not menial and must not be ignored.
The problems senior women are facing are only made worse by the gender wage gap.
That means that, if a woman decides to work during her lifetime, she will face bigger challenges as a retiree than a retired man will. A retired man would have had more opportunities to save because he was paid more for the same work or because he was promoted at the expense of women. Those are the types of systematic injustices that the government needs to remedy if, as it claims, it really wants to defend and help these women who need its assistance.
Let us now talk about single seniors. The current tax system is a traditional model built for a nuclear family from the 1950s or before, which generally consists of a couple with two or three children who own their own home. That old model no longer applies. Whether it be because of separation, divorce, the growing number of women in the labour market, the emergence of sexual choice, the death of a partner or simply preference, more and more people are living alone. In fact, one-person households are growing more rapidly than any other type of household in Canada, according to the Statistics Canada figures from 2016. In the coming years, this number will only continue to grow. It is therefore not logical for the government to continue to reward couples and ignore single people when determining how to spread out the tax burden.
Society has always marginalized single people. Nowhere is this more evident than in politicians' speeches, where families are the centerpiece and single people are ignored, unless they are in long-term care. Life can be bleak if you are a single senior, another often marginalized group. Then, throw in financial concerns that were deliberately engineered by the government through unfair tax practices. It does not take long for a comfortable middle-class existence to become impossible in one's senior years.
Few of us will reach the end of our lives without being single at some point. A partner dies, a couple breaks up, or the right life partner is never found, and those people are alone. Such a situation brings with it a variety of challenges, not the least of which is mental stress and loneliness. The added stress of income insecurity can be overwhelming. That is why we need change now.
I also want to point out that this budget statement does not include anything for those who are in the most precarious situations, those who are on fixed incomes and do not have the ability to go out and make more money.
I sent a householder with a petition to the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The petition calls for an OAS increase of $110 per month for all seniors 65 and up so as to permanently improve their quality of life.
That petition was tabled after the latest budget. We expected the government to be more responsive to seniors in its economic statement. Over 5,000 people signed the petition. In other words, 5,000 people who received the document at home felt that seniors' predicament deserved their attention, and they signed the petition to say that it is time for a big change.
I sincerely hope the government gets this message. I will be giving the Minister of Seniors seven of the big green boxes we all have in our offices so that she understands how urgent it is to take action in the next budget. This particular economic statement may not have resulted in much, but the next budget has to do a lot more for seniors. Let us not forget that these people are not able to increase their income because their income is fixed.
Perhaps we should be considering measures in the context of the labour shortage. Seniors who work need more robust tax measures so the money they earn by working does not get clawed back. That could be a very important measure for our seniors.
People know that I care about seniors. That is why I created an advisory committee for seniors in my riding, with members recruited from the four Abitibi—Témiscamingue RCMs. It was one of my election promises. One of the main things we want to do is conduct research so we can propose solutions that will improve seniors' quality of life. They are very concerned about income and also health care.
I am asking the House to listen to our seniors' message. More than 5,000 people in Abitibi—Témiscamingue showed that they are interested in this issue, and I believe it is urgent that the government take action to increase our seniors' purchasing power.
The $110-a-month increase is the bare minimum, and that is what we were asking for before this hyperinflation started. If there is a recession looming, it is all the more urgent to support the most vulnerable people in our society.
1604 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the Bloc will be voting in favour of the legislation, and for good reason. There are many initiatives within this legislation and the fall economic statement that would help literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians, going into the millions.
One of the things I take great pride in is that we are getting rid of the interest on student loans. Students would not have to pay interest, and I see that as a very strong, positive way in which the national government would ultimately be enabling more students to be fully engaged in post-secondary activities. It would give them more money in the long run. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how important it is that we support our students, especially given the fact that we are going through inflation.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear that coming from the parliamentary secretary. I spent all 10 minutes of my speech talking about seniors and the most vulnerable, and he wants to talk about young people, who have their entire life ahead of them to build their future. Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile measure; unfortunately, it does not apply to Quebec.
There are some good measures in this document, such as lowering credit card interest rates for small businesses. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for that for a long time. If we are talking about people who have been forgotten, I would mention farmers. Input costs and inflation have had a devastating impact on their income.
I would have liked to see the government propose a program similar to the emergency account or the RRRF program that was created during the pandemic. It could have offered low-interest loans, along with subsidies to reward those who pay off their loans, because there is a tremendous need for cash flow in agriculture. That is what we hear about most back home.
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
