SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Feb/14/23 10:55:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Trudeau legacy of the 1970s and 1980s was a disastrous inflation crisis, energy crisis and fiscal crisis that was terrible for Canadians at the time over those 15 years when that government ran deficits in 14 out of 15 years. A generation later, it led to $35 billion in cuts to transfers for health care, social services and education under the Chrétien and Martin Liberal governments. It was $35 billion in cuts because of the disastrous Trudeau economic policies of the 1970s and 1980s. Is the member concerned today that, at a starting point, the $4.5-billion broken promise on a Canada mental health transfer, a promise her own party made in the last election and cannot afford to keep, is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of things that will have to be cut for Canadians because of the disastrous economic policies of her government?

154 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/14/23 10:56:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we are talking about cuts to programs and services that are essential for Canadians, we need only look at the years of the Harper government. The Harper government actually cut health transfers to provinces. It is our government that is attempting to fix the health care system in this country. I was personally both surprised and glad to hear that the leader of the Conservative Party would support and maintain the transfers that the Prime Minister announced just last week following a meeting with premiers from across the country.

92 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/14/23 10:56:50 a.m.
Watch

On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

12 words

Hon. Mike Lake

Feb/14/23 10:56:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe it is against the rules of the House to mislead the House. The Harper government did not cut transfers. It raised transfers—

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/14/23 10:56:59 a.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.

21 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Feb/14/23 10:57:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for her speech. She spent quite a bit of time on the preamble of the motion. I will focus on the motion itself, specifically the part that says, “fire...consultants”. I must admit that I completely agree with that part of the motion. When consultants such as McKinsey are used, government policy is being subcontracted out, and that is unacceptable. When contracts are awarded to external consultants, we end up paying double. What is more, multinational consulting firms operate on the periphery of democracy, and using their services undermines democracy. If the Conservatives had put a period after “fire...consultants”, we would be voting in favour of the motion. Would the Liberal Party also be voting in favour of the motion?

133 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/14/23 10:57:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Bloc Québécois is talking about consultants. The use of consultants is necessary in order to provide Canadians with services that meet their expectations. I do not understand why the Bloc is criticizing the federal government's use of consultants when the Government of Quebec, the government of Mr. Legault, uses the same consultants to provide services to Quebeckers. The Bloc does not seem to have a problem with that.

81 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/14/23 10:58:40 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I want to ask a question about this statement. The Conservatives have quoted Tiff Macklem saying, “inflation in Canada increasingly reflects what's happening in Canada”. To me that shows that Loblaws, which had a 38% increase in its third-quarter profits in 2022, is not being taxed enough. Does the member agree that there needs to be a windfall profit tax on corporations like Loblaws?

69 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/14/23 10:59:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to point the member opposite to the taxes that we have introduced on large corporations, including large banks and large insurance companies. We agree that everybody needs to pay their fair share. With respect to her specific question regarding Loblaws and perhaps other grocery store chains, I am very encouraged by the fact that our minister of innovation has demanded that the Competition Bureau review grocery store chains in order to ensure that the prices are fair for Canadians. I look forward to its report, which should be coming out in the next few months.

100 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Feb/14/23 11:00:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to this opposition motion on the economy. Since we are still relatively early in the year, I think it is worth noting the strong rebound of the Canadian economy from the pandemic recession. Early data shows that the Canadian economy grew by 3% so far in 2022, the strongest performance in the G7. The unemployment rate is at 5%, close to historical lows. Labour force participation for working-age Canadians is at record highs, 80.3% among Canadians between the ages of 15 and 64, and 85.6% among women aged 25 to 64. Both figures are higher than in the United States. I am quite disappointed the member opposite did not mention this in his motion. Not only is the economic recovery well on track, but the inflation data is also encouraging. The consumer price index rose by 6.3% in December 2022 compared to the same period the previous year. Everyone realizes that it is still high, but when we consider that inflation was at 8.1% in June, it is clear that there has been some progress. That being said, we are well aware that many Canadians are still struggling with the rising cost of groceries and gas. That is why we are supporting those Canadians who are most affected by these price increases. The Canada workers benefit is a particularly effective measure. The Canada workers benefit is designed to reduce barriers to employment for low- and modest-income workers by giving them a sizable tax refund. It tops up their income. We introduced it in budget 2018, before the pandemic and the recently elevated global inflation, to encourage more people to join the workforce and stay in it. Right from the start, it put more money in the pockets of more people than did the old working income tax benefit it replaced. The program has proven its worth, and with the pandemic and the rising cost of living, we knew we had to make it even better. Low-wage workers were among the hardest hit during the pandemic, and they are still the most affected by the rising prices at the counter. First, we expanded and enhanced the benefit so it could reach three million Canadians: hard-working people who do important jobs, but unfortunately, do not get paid very much. Then, in last year's fall economic statement, we further improved it. We expanded the program to reach up to 1.2 million additional Canadians through advance payments. This was an intentional policy choice to top up the incomes of up to 4.2 million of the lowest-paid Canadians. No one who works 40 hours a week should have to worry about paying the bills. The Canada workers benefit can mean up to $1,400 for a single worker and up to $2,400 for a working couple every year. It also includes an additional $740 disability supplement to give greater support to Canadians with disabilities who face financial barriers to entering the workforce. People living alone and earning up to $33,000 per year receive the Canada workers benefit. Those earning $23,495 or less may receive the full amount. The benefit is also available to families earning $43,212 or less per year. They may receive the full amount if their adjusted family net income is $26,805 or less. The Canada Revenue Agency automatically determines whether people are eligible for the benefit. All eligible workers receive the CWB when they file their tax returns. We have also taken into account the fact that targeted benefits based on household income may discourage the secondary earner in a household from returning to work. Most of the time, that earner is a woman. The first $14,336 that the secondary earner contributes to the household does not affect their family's eligibility for the Canada workers benefit. This enables skilled female workers to enter and remain in the labour force. It also makes life more affordable for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Canadian families. Our affordability plan put a suite of measures in place to help Canadians who need it most. In addition to the Canada workers benefit I just talked about, we doubled the GST tax credit for six months. This is extra help for about 11 million people and families in Canada. With the one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit, we gave $500 to nearly two million low-income Canadian renters who have a hard time paying their rent. We permanently increased old age security for seniors aged 75 and over. More than 3 million seniors are benefiting from that. That means an additional $800 in the first year for seniors receiving the full pension. We worked with the provinces and territories to reduce child care costs by 50%. This is saving families, on average, up to $6,000 per child per year. For Quebec, which already has its own child care system, the government's plan will help create roughly 37,000 new spaces. We introduced the Canada dental benefit for families with annual incomes under $90,000. This benefit will provide up to $1,300 per child under the age of 12 over the next two years to help pay for dental visits. We are continuing to index benefits for Canadians, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We are also helping Canadians fight climate change. In the provinces where the federal system applies, individuals and families receive climate action incentive payments. This fiscal year, a family of four will receive $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. Most families, eight out of 10, receive more than the cost they face from the price on pollution. Low- and middle-income families benefit the most. Our support programs help those most affected by inflation. We cannot help everyone; that would be fiscally irresponsible. Our ability to spend is not infinite. It is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion. We need to help those who need it most, but we also need to ensure that government spending does not make it more difficult for the Bank of Canada to return inflation to its target. We will continue to put Canada on the road to success. We will ensure that the most vulnerable get the support they need; we will also keep our finances on a sustainable track in the long term.

1095 words

All Topics

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Feb/14/23 11:08:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member mostly talked about low unemployment and 3% GDP growth, basically suggesting Canadians have never had it so good. However, when the Canadians who are watching these proceedings today go to the grocery store, they know that those prices are not going down. If anything, they are still going up, and the problem with inflation is that once those inflationary prices are baked in, they are there to stay. Canadians know that this is going to be a serious, ongoing problem. The member did mention spending, very briefly, at the end. Given the fact that former Liberal colleagues, finance ministers and governors of the Bank of Canada have said that Liberal government spending is a major contributor to inflation in Canada, how is her government going to actually control spending going forward so we do not have those inflationary pressures anymore?

147 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/14/23 11:09:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, what I said was that we are there for people having a hard time making ends meet, and we are doing so in a fiscally responsible way. We know that inflation is improving; the inflation rate is decreasing and, hopefully, will continue to decrease in the coming months. Nevertheless, these are difficult times for many Canadians. That is why we put in place the various measures I spoke about, in particular the doubling of the GST credit, the one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit and the Canada workers benefit. We are stepping up for those most in need.

110 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/14/23 11:10:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are many things we have often heard about in the House, and I would remind members that simply repeating something without adding anything new is just tedious. That said, earlier, we heard that the government needed the services of consultants to provide expertise, which is a good idea. However, we should not forget that when the public service is depleted of its expertise, there is unfortunately no choice but to hire highly paid people to replace what was already working. I would like my colleague to tell me if she agrees with the fact that, over the years, the government got rid of its expertise, which made it possible to hire McKinsey.

115 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/14/23 11:11:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we actually contract professional services to complement the work of the public service, which must respond to the various demands and unexpected fluctuations. This is all being studied in committee right now, and I am confident that the committee will come up with the best solution.

48 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/14/23 11:11:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, something just does not make sense to me here. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if the government extended the temporary Canada recovery benefit to the big box stores and to the oil and gas sector, it would generate $4.3 billion in revenue. Therefore, I really do not understand why the government did not do that. Why is it protecting the interests of a dozen CEOs in this country and leaving millions of Canadians struggling to get a meal on the table?

85 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/14/23 11:12:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, our priority is to really be there and work for Canadians and families who need it most. That is why we have introduced concrete measures that put more money in the pockets of those who are struggling to make ends meet. We know that these are difficult times. I see the price increases myself when I go grocery shopping. That is the point of our measures. They really are helping Canadians.

79 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Feb/14/23 11:13:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their unwavering support. I would first like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. As usual, our esteemed Conservative colleagues have decided to repeat their usual mantra, which is to repeat, repeat, repeat something over and over in the hope that voters will come to believe it. First of all, if the Conservatives want to talk numbers, they should start by double-checking theirs. Let us be clear: The seven years, three months and nine days that this Liberal government has been in power should not be rounded up to eight years, as the Conservatives repeat seven times in their motion, but down to seven. They need to remember the importance of accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. The teacher in me would say that, simply put, the motion does contain some truthful statements about the state of the economy, but the Conservatives' proposals are pretty shaky and they would fail economics 101. Let us take a look at their motion from the beginning. The Prime Minister has many faults, as the majority of the House would agree, but he is not responsible for the entire economic situation. He is not that competent. Today's motion addresses an important issue, which is that the difficult economic context and inflation are real problems that are making life difficult for many Quebeckers and Canadians. It is true that groceries are more expensive, mortgage costs make home ownership far too expensive in some cases, and rents and gas prices have also risen. The Bloc Québécois agrees that these are critical issues. However, eliminating taxes is not going to solve inflation. Let us consider the causes of inflation. Supply chain issues arose during the pandemic, Russia invaded Ukraine, and the pandemic was followed by rapid economic recovery and overheating. The labour shortage also contributed to inflation. A lot of different factors are involved. There was also a return to interventionist policies around the globe, in places like Europe, the United States and Canada, to fuel the economic recovery that everyone in the House is hoping to see. Do the Conservatives think that taxes cause inflation? Just look at our neighbours to the south. They have far fewer taxes, yet they are still experiencing inflation. As I have explained to the House before, the conduct of budgetary policy consists mainly of choosing the right level of taxes for the right level of spending, while ensuring quality public services. I think we can all agree that that is not really happening right now. This is a detailed exercise that requires nuance. Unfortunately, nuance is in short supply around here. One of the most important aspects of good government is the sound, intelligent management of taxes. Contrary to what is proposed here, drastic tax cuts do not constitute a reasonable and effective budgetary policy. However, reckless spending is no better. The government needs to play an important role in the economy. Let us remember that a government's main tool is its ability to collect and distribute funds. When we take away the government's ability to collect funds, we directly limit its ability to invest in the economy. Let us take a look at the solutions proposed in the Conservatives\ motion. First, they suggest firing “high-priced consultants”. If they had stopped there, we probably would have been in agreement. It is true that the Quebec government hires consultants, but never to the extent that the federal government has done it in recent years. There is not just McKinsey, but also IBM, PwC and Deloitte. Many companies are being paid exorbitant amounts by the federal government, for no discernible reason. Their services are not superior. Quite the contrary, in fact. Second, the Conservative motion proposes cutting waste and capping spending. As I mentioned, a good government knows how to levy taxes and how to spend them effectively. We can agree that some taxes are necessary for sound economic management. A good government knows how to do both. That is not the case here. I could give plenty of examples of exorbitant and useless spending items that could be cut, but spending does not play a role in the inflation we are facing today. Now let us look at the final section, where the Conservatives suggesting eliminating inflationary deficits and taxes. If we read between the lines, this proposal is really about eliminating the carbon tax. The Conservatives have been repeating this message in the House for months now, and it is wrong.

776 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Feb/14/23 11:19:24 a.m.
Watch

Let me take a moment to talk about what a carbon tax is. It is an example of an effective tax. Remember that, by 2014, Quebec already had a cap-and-trade system, but it was forced to partner with California because there was no interest in Canada, except for the Ontario government, which later changed its mind. That is what happened. We had to partner with California to implement a proper system that works. We have the figures to prove that the system works. Quebec has already shouldered its responsibilities when it comes to fighting climate change. I will give a small but important example to demonstrate how well these measures are working. By 2015, Quebec had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.8% over 1990 levels. Putting a price on GHG emissions works. If the Conservatives agree that we need to fight climate change, and I am really eager to hear one of them say so, they need to propose solutions. A carbon tax, like a cap-and-trade system, is a solution that works, because it also follows the rules of the market. They should be happy about that, but they are not. Why not? It is because the oil lobby is too important to the Conservative Party. Remember, too, that the cost of climate change is higher than the cost of taking action to fight climate change. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Let us talk about the high costs of climate change. First, there are the health costs. Scientists all agree that the increasingly frequent heat waves will mostly affect the most vulnerable, such as seniors and newborns. People will die. People are already dying, but it will happen more and more. Second, there are zoonotic diseases. As temperatures rise, vector-borne diseases such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus are moving north and spreading throughout southern Canada and Quebec. These diseases cost society money. Lastly, even allergies have costs in terms of productivity and have an impact on the economy. In terms of infrastructure, more and more floods are happening, including flash floods and ice-jam flooding. There are enormous costs associated with these types of floods, and they are becoming more frequent as a result of climate change. There is also the matter of permafrost. Reserves in northern Canada and Quebec are being forced to rebuild their infrastructure. The loss of permafrost, which is melting as a result of climate change, is jeopardizing their infrastructure. Entire cities and villages have to be rebuilt. Another way climate change is affecting infrastructure is through erosion. Along the shores of the St. Lawrence and other rivers in Quebec and Canada, roads and villages need to be moved, because erosion due to climate change has a tremendous impact on the economy. Now that I have demonstrated that the costs are high, we may be able to finally agree on the fact that levying a simple tax on greenhouse gas emissions makes a little sense. The cost-benefit analysis is simple. Why does the Conservative Party insist on denying the facts? If they want solutions for curbing inflation and cutting wasteful public spending, that is great. We can start by reforming the competitive system. The federal government has an annoying habit of encouraging monopolies. Several companies in Canada, especially in the transportation and telecommunications sectors, have few competitors, and their fees are among the highest in the world. If we want to give consumers a break, we could perhaps start by lowering prices, which are currently far too high. What will we say to major companies like Rogers and Shaw, which are awaiting a final decision from the government? “Yes, prices will go up, but that is not a problem. Let us avoid reforming the competitive system at all costs because that would make lobbyists unhappy.” Essentially, we have a totally obsolete competitive system. How come ministers have the power to decide whether companies can sign agreements that conflict with the Competition Bureau's rulings? It makes no sense. Instead of stirring up anger, which is not helpful, let us stop and propose practical solutions, as the Bloc Québécois is used to doing.

704 words

All Topics

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Feb/14/23 11:23:09 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It is quite refreshing to listen to someone who really knows what she is talking about. As an economist, she spoke in depth about a number of subjects today. She indicated that there were costs, not just because of climate change but also because of the lack of support for the most vulnerable people and populations. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the official opposition, which says that financial supports for the most vulnerable individuals are inflationary measures.

91 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Feb/14/23 11:24:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, I believe that the social safety net is essential. That is what we have in Quebec, and we are often considered models of social democracy around the world. However, I believe that the federal government is in a poor position to help the most vulnerable members of society because it just throws money around. Unfortunately, it only duplicates work already being done. For example, we do not need an employment insurance system managed by Canada, particularly when it is very badly managed by Canada. We should simply have one system in Quebec that actually works.

98 words