44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2023 02:00PM
- Mar/29/23 5:02:54 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I would ask members who are talking to take their discussions outside.
The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Motion No. 2 regarding Senate amendments to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:03:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted. They just announced yet another gag order, as I understand it. That is how eager the government House leader is to shut down debate yet again. Muzzling the House is unacceptable.
About the budget—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue with my speech, even though there is a hubbub coming from the Conservatives. Excuse me, it was not the Conservatives. It was the Liberals.
On page 25, there is a chart that shows the forecast for the government's projected debt, despite the large expenditures that were announced in this budget. What it shows is that, in 30 years, the federal debt will be virtually paid off.
Here is the situation. There are so many resources at the federal level—that is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us year after year in every one of his studies—and Ottawa has so much leeway that it will be able to pay off its debt, the one it has had since Confederation, in about 30 years, at the rate things are going.
At the same time, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that at the rate things are going, the provinces will no longer be able to provide the services they need to provide. They will be technically bankrupt in a few decades. This goes back to the unfortunate fiscal imbalance. The federal government is not sharing enough resources for the provinces to deliver the services that are in their jurisdiction and for Ottawa to do the same.
In this budget, health care funding is six times less than what was requested by Quebec and the provinces. It is six times less. Quebec agreed to take that money because it was either that or nothing, but we know that it will not solve the problems in health care. This is a major issue.
When we look at the deficit in the budget, it is $40.5 billion for this year. That is what was announced. However, when we look at lapsed funds, meaning the items that were voted in the House and those that did not need to be voted, for the last year available, the total is $41 billion. This year's deficits and the lapsed funds cancel each other out. Using this approach, we can say that despite this year's record spending, the budget is practically balanced because there is money in Ottawa. I consider that to be very problematic.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that if Ottawa wants to maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio, there is another $40 billion that it could use to lower taxes or increase spending or transfers. When we add those numbers together, there is $80 billion per year in fiscal room.
Yesterday, I asked officials at the Department of Finance where to find the lapsed funds in the budget. They could not answer my question. They said it was very complicated and that those funds were not necessarily in the budget. At least, that is what I am given to believe until I get a more satisfactory answer.
When Paul Martin was finance minister, he would underestimate the true revenues in his budget by approximately 2% every year. He would present a deficit, saying that we needed to tighten our belts and continue to cut funding for services to the provinces. He would say that we had a deficit and that things were not going well. At the end of the year, he always had good news to announce. He would say that, in the end, the situation was a lot better than it seemed. We figured out his trick. He was lowering the estimated revenues by 2% every year.
What concerns me about this government is that it votes for more money than it needs for its expenditures, which means that it has money left over at the end of the year. When it presents the budget, there is a deficit, and things do not look good. Then, at the end of the year, it has more money than expected. According to the most recent data available, it is $40 billion a year. When we add that to the other $40 billion that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says is needed to maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio, that makes $80 billion.
That is three times as much as Quebec and the provinces asked for to fix the health care funding problem and to provide adequate services to the public. Unfortunately, this goes back to the sorry issue of the fiscal imbalance that I was talking about. Ottawa has more resources than it needs to provide its services, while it is the opposite in the provinces.
Here is the proof: Chapter six of the budget says that, with the snap of its fingers, the government is going to spend $20 billion less a year by cutting expenses related to McKinsey, ministerial travel, and so on. The government is going to save $20 billion a year doing that. It is as easy as that.
Compare that to the austerity budget of the Couillard government in Quebec. The government chose to cut homework help at elementary schools to save hundreds of millions of dollars, which sounds like peanuts by comparison. That is not on the same level whatsoever. Here in Ottawa, it is easy to do things to spend less, but in the provinces, to save a dollar, they are no longer trimming the fat. They are down to the bone. That is the fiscal imbalance.
The fiscal imbalance means that Ottawa is not being careful with its spending, that it is not controlling costs. The examples I am about to give are not exact comparisons, but they will put things in perspective. When Ottawa handles an EI case, it costs two and a half times more than when Quebec handles a social services case. It is not exactly the same, but it gives us an idea. It costs this government two and a half times more to provide a service that is similar to one provided by Quebec. It costs Ottawa four times more to issue a passport than it does for Quebec to issue a driver's licence. Everyone remembers the passport crisis. Perhaps there is a bit more checking involved, but again, these examples put things in perspective. Ottawa is not careful about costs because it has plenty of resources.
I was very sad to see that funding for health care allocated in the budget is six times lower than the amount needed to provide better services in Quebec. Since the provinces do not have sufficient resources, Ottawa is using this as an opportunity to buy itself areas of jurisdiction. We know that Quebec and the provinces are responsible for health care. Here, the coalition is putting a dental care system in place. The Constitution, which we have not signed and that was imposed on us, states that the provinces are responsible for dental care. Ottawa thinks it has so much money that it will implement this. Ottawa is buying areas of jurisdiction.
At Confederation, the choice of having a federation was a historic compromise to get my nation to embark on this adventure. That way, we would have our government at least, which would be sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction. Since my election, no matter what parties are in power, there is always a move toward centralization, toward the famous legislative union that Macdonald dreamt about. In the context of that centralization, Ottawa would be above other governments, and my government, my National Assembly, would no longer be sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction. When I read the budget, that is what I see.
Ottawa wants to create more programs in areas under the jurisdiction of other governments. Meanwhile, it is bungling the services that it is responsible for. Take employment insurance, for example. We are experiencing inflation and there is a risk of a recession. The budget doubles the GST tax credit, which is a measure that we support. However, other than that measure, there is nothing to indicate that we are in a crisis. Given the risk of a recession, it is urgent that the EI system be reformed. What is this government doing? What is the Minister of Finance doing? They are doing nothing at all. If the country goes into a recession when the EI system is broken, it will not be good.
What is worse is that Ottawa has decided to cover all of the costs incurred during the pandemic, except the deficit in the EI fund. It is making workers pay higher premiums to pay it off, even though when there was a surplus in the EI fund in the Paul Martin years, the government was dipping into it to pay off the debt. That is unacceptable.
1500 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:13:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting and very important speech.
I would like to ask the hon. member from the province of Quebec, one of the signatories of the health care agreements, a question. We have come to an agreement with all 10 provinces and territories. The federal government will have an additional $198 billion, in total, of health care spending over the next 10 years to the provinces. With the negotiations for the child care agreements, I obviously salute the province of Quebec. It was a first mover on a child care program for its residents.
I ask my hon. colleague across the way if he is not in favour of the health care agreement the Province of Quebec signed with the federal government, which is contained within budget 2023.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:14:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: No, because it is not enough. It is six times less than what Quebec and the provinces are asking for to prop up the health care system.
What is Ottawa doing with this agreement? It is stabilizing the proportion of support it provides to the health care system. In 2015, when this government was elected, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending. With what is being proposed, it will still be 24% in 10 years.
To restore fiscal balance a bit, it needs to be 35%, because it is not enough. The Government of Quebec told us that given the choice between this and nothing, it decided to take this, but it is not enough and it is not going to solve anything.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:15:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my colleague from Joliette because he is very well versed in public finance. I congratulate him on his speech and thank him.
I would also like to remind members that the member for Joliette and I were elected for the first time in 2015. He will remember that, in 2015, the members opposite got elected by saying that they would run three small deficits and balance the budget in the fourth year. It was true in 2015. That is the reason they were elected.
Over the course of eight years, there has been one colossal deficit after another. Today, we have a $43‑billion deficit and $44 billion in debt servicing costs, which is twice as much as last year.
My colleague will be pleased with my question, because it will indulge his sovereignist inclination. Here, in the House of Commons, he spoke about “my government” and “my parliament”. He could have gone to the National Assembly of Quebec, given that elections were held in Quebec a few months ago, but he decided to stay here. I do not have a problem with that because he is a nice guy.
As a sovereignist, what does he think of the attitude of this government, which is intruding in the jurisdiction of health care by becoming involved in child care services and dental care, among other things?
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:16:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I salute the hon. member in return. I enjoy serving with him in the House of Commons.
I am here to defend the interests of my nation and to make sure that its priorities are at least heard, even if they are not always respected. This is obvious from the budget and from the examples that my hon. colleague gave.
The point I would like to make here is that, yes, we have a government that spends recklessly. Yes, we have a government that interferes in areas of jurisdiction that are not its own, while failing to look after its own affairs.
My point is that, despite all of this and despite the $40‑billion deficit, it still has fiscal flexibility in the short, medium and long term. As I said, the $40‑billion deficit this year is offset by lapsed funding. On top of that, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, if we maintain the debt-to-GDP ratio, that is another $40 billion of fiscal flexibility. That is three times what was needed to pay for health care.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:17:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member for Joliette regarding the problems with the current EI system.
I would like him to talk a little more about the importance of a good EI system in a country that is facing a recession.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:17:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his question and his legitimate concerns.
The government has been promising to reform the EI system since 2015. Since last fall, analysts and economists have been telling us to be careful because there is a risk of a recession. Whether big or small, there is going to be a recession.
We know that the most important automatic stabilizer in a recession is employment insurance. We know that the EI system is not working. Just four out of 10 people who lose their job are covered.
Things have gotten so bad that Minister Morneau suspended the program at the outset of the pandemic because it just was not working. He decided instead to implement costly, improvised short-term programs. That cost a fortune and it was not effective.
The EI system needs to be reformed now.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:18:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on February 14, I wished the NDP and the Liberals a Happy Valentine's Day. Today, to look at the budget document we have before us, I think that the union has been consummated. It is clear.
What we learn from reading the budget document, which was summed up well by my colleague from Joliette, is that the federal government has a tremendous amount of means and that, with the help of the NDP, which is not surprising, it is having a hard time spending and investing those means wisely in the priorities of people on the ground who are dealing with real problems when it comes to employment insurance, seniors' return to work, or health. There is absolute disparity between the government's financial capacity and the real needs on the ground. It is not for nothing that when the Liberals toss $4 billion to provinces that are asking for $28 billion and tell them to accept it or get nothing, they have the nerve to stand up and say that it is an agreement. They have the nerve to do that. I know that they are not lying. They believe themselves and that is even worse.
The budget document is clear. It seems to be very much like what the Parliamentary Budget Officer described, and my colleague put it well. It states that, in 25 years, if we include the new financial commitments, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio will be zero even in the worse case scenario. There is no other industrialized country that plans to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio to zero, which means that there will be no debt, without looking after its people. No other developed country is doing that.
There is fiscal flexibility in the budget. The Parliamentary Budget Office has done the calculations. Those people are paid to provide Parliament with information. They are competent. They are quite right in saying that as the government eliminates its debt over time, the provinces will find themselves in more and more trouble, and that when the federal debt is eliminated, the provinces will be technically bankrupt.
The federal government tells us that there is no fiscal imbalance because this year, the current year, some provincial governments are running small surpluses while the federal government has a $40-billion deficit. All of this is without recognizing that the problems we are experiencing in health care today are the same problems that could not be solved 25 years ago when the Liberals began cutting the transfers. By repeating the same thing today, they will create even more serious problems 25 years from now. In their minds, there is nothing dynamic. They are always thinking six months ahead, to the next election, and it is exactly the same with the NDP.
There is $40 billion in lapsed spending from last year. We have the figures and the public accounts. That is $40 billion that was not used. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that another $40 billion could be used to help the provinces with health care and other things. Even so, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio would remain the same and the provinces would be able to take care of people. We are talking about $80 billion.
We can add to that the fact that inflation is estimated to be 3.5% this year. That number is way off, which means that there will be additional tax revenue. That puts us at more than $80 billion, which is far more than the $28 billion the provinces were asking for. They would have $50 billion or $60 billion left over while allowing us to take care of our people. This is no joke. They could keep lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio while taking care of people.
Allow me to summarize. The Liberals had an opportunity to relieve the suffering of Quebec's patients. Instead, they decided to relieve the electoral anxieties of the NDP. That is essentially what they did. I can understand why the NDP is crowing about it. If I were them, I would be happy too. That is the reality.
What will the NDP tell us? The NDP is going to tell us that they got us dental care. The budget says that Health Canada is basically going to turn into an insurance company. If you have tried to get a passport, Mr. Speaker, you have every reason to be concerned. By the end of the year, it looks as though Health Canada will become an insurance company. They are going to call all the dental associations in all the provinces and they are going to negotiate agreements. Then we will be able to start submitting dental bills, all by the end of the year.
That is the promise that they are going to make to us, but they need a reality check. The federal government is so bad. The Liberals have no idea how to do anything. They are so far removed from what they are good at—and one has to admit that there is not much that they are good at—that the dental care program is not even included in the budget implementation bill.
They are going to implement the budget without even knowing how to do so. The dental care program is not even there. That will bring us to the summer. We will come back in the fall and there will not even be a dental care program because they just have no idea how to implement one.
There has been no talk of seniors because the Liberals created two classes of seniors, those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and up. There is nothing in the budget for seniors aged 65 to 74. They are taking the injustice they created and indexing it to inflation, and yet this government is supposed to have an aversion to injustice.
When it comes to inflation, the NDP has spent all year getting worked up into a lather over grocery store owners. The Liberals decided to make the NDP happy. They are going to take the GST rebate cheque that they doubled, as the Bloc Québécois has been asking them to do for a year and a half, they are going to issue it early in the year—we asked them to increase the frequency of the cheques—and they are going to call it a grocery rebate. It is a great victory for the NDP. We congratulate them.
On employment insurance, this system that insures one in two people and leaves half the people behind when they lose their job, they are saying that there will be a recession, but no EI reform.
If I were looking to insure my house and the insurer told me that I had a 50% chance of my claim being rejected if my house burned down, I would switch insurers. That is exactly the situation that the unemployed are facing. The Liberals say that, according to actuarial forecasts, the EI fund is good for another 10 years before it needs to be reformed. There is nothing in the budget about getting experienced workers back to work without penalizing them for offering their strength, intelligence and experience to our businesses. When I walk around Mirabel and other places in Quebec, everyone talks to me about it. Everyone is talking about it except for the Liberals and the NDP.
There is nothing for the aerospace industry. The minister was telling me that he is talking to CEOs and inviting them to invest. The minister is not a lobbyist. His job is not to be a chargé d'affaires but to ensure that the investment climate is favourable to investment, in order to have investment, research and development, investment funds, credits for research and development, and to fix the implementation of this luxury tax, which is about to kill 2,000 jobs in Quebec. People will go elsewhere to buy planes.
We are the laughingstock of the G7. The Liberals tell us that aviation is important, but they are closing the control tower in Mirabel. They have shut down light aircraft access, our flight schools and a runway. The industry's strategic infrastructure is now managed by a board of directors that takes care of Montreal and whose CEO is a former accountant from Coca-Cola. Nobody is accountable and nobody knows anything about aviation. They appear to be really good at this. When they do not know something, it is scary.
With regard to energy, the budget gives $18 billion in subsidies to oil companies, which have money. When it comes to taxing luxury jets that are used to transport passengers and that harm our industry, there is no problem. They are for equality. However, when it comes to giving subsidies to companies that are making tons of profit, that could invest in reducing their emissions if they wanted to avoid the carbon tax, but instead the government gives them subsidies so that these CEOs can buy private jets to go to their cottages, that is not a problem for western Canada.
Now there is an election coming up in Ontario. Their 15% and 30% clean energy subsidies—because when we get right down to the nitty gritty, CO2 is all that matters to them—are going to go to Ontario's nuclear plants. Oddly enough, there is an election coming up in Ontario. Oddly enough, the majority of the next Canadian government is going to be in Ontario.
We are willing to collaborate and we are willing to vote in favour of measures that are good for Quebec. That is what we do, but our goodwill is like an elastic. There is a limit.
Since my time is almost up, I will move the following amendment to the amendment:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “since it” and substituting the following:
fails to:
(a) immediately reform employment insurance and increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74;
(b) fight climate change by ending fossil fuel subsidies; and
(c) increase health transfers to 35%, preferring instead to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, such as by creating dental insurance without giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation.
1749 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:28:46 p.m.
- Watch
The amendment to the amendment is in order.
Questions and comments.
11 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:30:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague made it very clear that he is going to vote against accelerating the green transition, the grocery rebate and dental care for more Quebeckers, but is he really going to vote against the $50 million that we are going to invest in the Mirabel airport in his riding? That $50 million will make it possible to expand the capacity to export goods, create warehouse and storage facilities and create jobs in his riding of Mirabel.
Will my colleague from Mirabel vote against that measure in our budget?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:31:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last week, the member for Kingston and the Islands tweeted so much misinformation that Twitter had to put a warning notice on his post. I just realized that the Liberals are okay with that way of doing things. That way of doing things has spread from Kingston to Outremont.
I am going to set the record straight on a number of things. We never said that everything in the budget was bad. However, we made very clear, specific pre-budget requests. In a budget, there is what is included and what is missing. Are the Liberals telling me that it is okay to refuse to grant health care transfers, to reject our seniors and to leave half of unemployed workers out in the cold? Are they telling me that all those things are okay? In any case, that is clearly what the member for Outremont is saying. The member for Outremont is rejecting the needs of Quebec, and that makes me sad.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:31:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my hon. colleague on the health committee.
I am a bit disappointed in my friend's pessimistic view of the efficiency of government. He seems to think government is not capable of delivering programs. He was highly skeptical that the federal government could deliver insurance for a dental plan.
However, we know the federal government administers employment insurance for millions of Canadians. It administers the Canada pension plan for millions of seniors. It administers old age security for millions of citizens, and these programs include many people in the province of Quebec.
I know he is a separatist, so it seems strange that he thinks the Province of Quebec could form a nation, but does not seem to think a nation-state is competent to deliver programs for citizens.
My question is on dental care. The NDP's dental plan would mean that about two million Quebeckers at the end of this year, including seniors, children and people with disabilities, would be able to go to the dentist and have the federal government pay 100% of that cost.
Can he tell the House why he is opposed to having people who are suffering in Quebec get the dental care they need at zero cost to the Government of Quebec?
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to get angry.
My colleague started by telling me that the government is good at administering programs, and he spoke about employment insurance. I hope that the government will not dip into the dental care fund as it did with the EI fund, because it is not doing a good job of administering that.
Health care is a provincial jurisdiction and an area where the federal government often shows its incompetence. We know that from experience. What the Government of Quebec is saying is that health is important to us and that existing programs must be improved.
What Quebec is saying is that birthing rooms remain closed, there is a lack of palliative care, cancers are going undiagnosed, emergency rooms in the regions are struggling to stay open, and mental health services are unavailable. We are not saying that dental care is not important, but rather that the NDP is using this issue for electoral purposes. We see that clearly. That said, as public decision-makers, we must set our priorities. The NDP is making the next election its priority.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:34:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government had signalled that it was going to move into an era of fiscal restraint, yet here we are with a deficit that is as large as ever. I wonder if the hon. colleague has any comments on the size of the deficit in this budget.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:34:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when we look at the debt and the deficit, we have to look at it in proportion to the ability to pay. Any banker who is asked for a $2,000 or $3,000 loan does not treat someone with an annual income of $10,000 the same as someone with an income of $50,000 or $100,000. The same applies to people with assets and people with no assets.
The first thing to look at is the debt-to-GDP ratio. The Conservatives go from dollars, which they call nominal, when it suits them, to the ratio when that suits them. A little consistency would be nice. Beyond that, public finances have to be looked at as a whole. It is important to be concerned about both the deficit and the federal debt, but if the provinces are going broke in the meantime and they have to borrow money, or choose between borrowing money and caring for their residents, that has to be taken into account.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:35:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today as the NDP finance critic to say that we will be voting in favour of the budget.
The budget includes initiatives that we think are very important. We worked very hard to ensure that they were included. There is a dental care plan for students, seniors and people with disabilities. The GST credit will be doubled for another six months, which is important right now because of inflation and the high cost of groceries, housing and many other things. There are requirements for the investments that the government is going to make in a clean economy. That will ensure that workers get their fair share, with good pay and benefits.
We are hearing rather common responses to the budget. We can be for it or against it. We have heard some contentious speeches, but the NDP is trying a different approach this time. At a time when hate, anger and polarization are increasingly seeping into our politics, we want to try to find a way to work together, even with people we fundamentally disagree with, on finding common objectives and making progress, instead of simply criticizing what is broken. There are plenty of things that are broken, but we need to find a way to set our differences aside and work together to make progress for the benefit of Canadians.
We are living in times when politics and doing politics are getting more difficult. There is a lot of anger, a lot of justified anger, with the difficult circumstances we are facing. There is a feeling of unfairness at the burden of things not falling equally on the shoulders of all Canadians. People should be angry about that, but it is not enough to just be angry. People have to try to find solutions, which means trying to bring people together, not dividing them.
New Democrats are prepared to support this budget, as we were prepared to enter into an agreement with the current government to not cause an election in exchange for progress on a number of key policy areas. We see some of those reflected in this budget, according to the timeline that had been agreed to in that agreement. First and foremost is dental care, which is a really important initiative that would allow millions of Canadians, who up until now have not been able to, to get their teeth fixed. Children, seniors and people living with disabilities are finally going to get access to dental care, which has been eluding them for a long time.
That has had real consequences. It has affected their ability to get and keep a job. It has affected their sense of confidence in socializing with others. It has affected the way people look at them. It has caused them pain. These are real things that we are going to help a lot of Canadians take on in their lives and find solutions to.
We are doubling the GST rebate, not for the first time but for the second time, because we recognize that, in a crisis of affordability, people need to receive help, and that help should be targeted in a way that does not simply pour more fuel on the fire of inflation. This is the best way to do it. Members do not need to take my word for it. They can take the word of many private sector economists who, incidentally, are not NDP members. They do not always have nice things to say about us, but they recognize that this is a way to get help to people who need it and to do it in a way that is responsible and reflects inflation.
Finally, as this is long overdue, the government is preparing to make some serious investments into the new energy economy that is coming. It must come if we are to reduce our emissions and avoid the worst consequences of climate change. As the government is doing this, we have been working hard to ensure that workers stand to benefit from those investments. They will benefit not because a cheque will be handed to corporations, as the Liberals so often do, and then we are left to beg them to do the right thing, but because it will be written into the funding agreements to pay prevailing union wages with benefits and pensions in those wage packages. This is so we will know that Canadian workers, when they show up to work to build the economy of the future, are going to be fairly compensated, that it will not be paid out in dividends to international or Canadian shareholders, the wealthy shareholders who hide their money offshore so we do not see a benefit here.
That is important as we move forward. One of the biggest concerns that workers have had about the changing economy and the changing role of fossil fuels in our economy has been that they would get left behind, and initiatives like this are what are necessary to make sure they are at the centre of that transition and that they stand to benefit as much as companies.
Those are some of the things we think are positive about the budget. I was saying earlier that there is a lot to be angry about now. We have seen grocery prices go through the roof, and that is affecting families. We know there are record lineups at food banks. We have seen a generation in Canada begin to give up on the dream of home ownership because prices continue to go up and up. We have seen indigenous people continue to suffer from the legacy of colonialism in so many ways, and we have seen them lose family members and friends far too regularly as a result of the intergenerational legacy of colonialism in Canada. People are starting to see the consequences of climate change and appreciate the enormous costs, both personal and financial, that are coming for all of us if we do not find a way to get on top of it.
As such, there is a lot to be angry about. I can get pretty angry about some of these things. I appreciate that members here who care about their communities and care about our future get angry about these things. However, I say to Canadians to watch out for the guy who is selling anger without any real solutions because to be angry, but to not try to channel the legitimate anger people are feeling about the injustices in Canada into a real solution, is to take us nowhere fast. When that anger turns in on itself, it is self-destructive, and that is why we need to take that anger and focus it on solutions so we can make real progress.
If we want to propose solutions, we have to understand the problems. Unfortunately, we do not have to understand a problem to get angry about it. We saw this earlier from the Conservative leader, somebody who is willing to get really angry about problems he clearly does not understand. If he does not understand the problem, it means he is not going to be able to find a solution to it.
What am I talking about? I am going to go through a list. First of all, I will go to the economy because the leader of the Conservative Party likes to talk a lot about the economy. He is right. Inflation is hurting people. We agree on that, but if we want to stop inflation from hurting people, we have to propose real solutions, and that means we have to understand the problem. He would have us believe that only government has caused inflation in Canada. That is not true. During the pandemic, we saw, across the world, manufacturing facilities shut down and shipping shut down. We saw all sorts of supply chain issues as a result of shutdowns due to a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic.
It is strange for me as the democratic socialist in the room to have to be teaching market principles to my Conservative colleagues, but anyone who understands the market will know that, when we have that level of significant supply chain disruption, we are going to see an increase in prices. That is going to happen. It is unbelievable to me that the so-called economic analysis of the Leader of the Opposition does not even take a moment to recognize the very real supply chain disruption we have seen as a result of a global pandemic.
The other thing he refuses to mention, which is just what the Governor of the Bank of Canada refused for months to mention until we squeezed it out of him at committee, is that corporate greed has been a significant driver of inflation. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada has now said that companies have been raising prices beyond the increase in costs they have incurred and that the inflation happening because of the global pandemic created circumstances in which they felt they could raise their prices and get away with it because people would not know why the prices were going up. They might think it was justified. He said that, as inflation comes down, we may see prices come down even further, as companies no longer have a pretense to be raising their prices.
How does the Conservative leader pretend to have answers to inflation when he will not talk about corporate greed? Do members know who else will not talk about corporate greed? It is the Liberal government. That is something they have in common. It is a blind spot in their understanding of what is happening to Canadians right now, and they work together to try to silence the voices that would point out the role of corporate greed. I say shame on them both for that.
That is why we have made it a mission here to push the government to do things that it would not otherwise do. That includes the permanent 1.5% increase in tax on banks and insurance companies, which the Conservative leader loves to decry, but he never once has expressed support for taxing back some of the money that banks and insurance companies improperly took from Canadians during the pandemic. Do not tell me that guy has solutions; it is not true. He does not even have the decency to recognize a good solution when it comes up and slaps him in the face.
He likes to talk about housing, and rightly so. Canadians are rightfully angry about what is happening in the housing market. The Conservative leader likes to pretend that this is a product of the last eight years. In 2004, a house that sold for $30,000 in Winnipeg would sell for $60,000 in 2007, and then for well over $120,000 in 2012. Housing prices have been doubling in Canada for a long time. They doubled every few years under the last Harper Conservative government. Therefore, they cannot tell me that this is a product just of the last little while. It is a problem, and it is a growing problem, but it has been growing for a long time.
How do we solve the problem around housing? Browbeating municipalities into approving building permits for houses that will be built and that Canadians cannot afford is not a solution. Developers have been building a lot of houses over the last number of years. Do members know who has not been building houses? Governments have not been building housing. Before 1995, the CMHC, in partnership with provincial governments, would build 15,000 to 20,000 units of affordable and social housing every year, but they stopped when their funding was cut in 1995 by the then Liberal government. If we take the last 30 years and multiply the 15,000 to 20,000 units per year that would have been built, we land right around 500,000 units. Do members know what the deficit for affordable housing in Canada today is? It is about 500,000 units.
How did we end up with this deficit of affordable housing? It is not rocket science. It is because governments with the same philosophy as the leader of the official opposition cut and cut and cut the housing budget right out of the federal government's budget. That is why we have such a dearth of affordable housing today. That corresponds with the financialization of housing that we have seen, not over the last two years or the last eight years, but over the last 30 years. That is when it started taking off, because we no longer had more affordable housing being built at the bottom end of the price spectrum. That meant all those folks who otherwise would have moved into affordable or social units had to pinch their pennies and make tough decisions about what they could afford and what they could not, so that they could start to compete in the housing market. That is how we got to where we are.
Therefore, I will say “No thanks” to the leader of the official opposition, who runs around saying he is really angry about housing but does not even understand where the problem came from. He does not understand that policies like the ones he is preaching have caused the housing crisis we are facing today. It did not happen overnight; it took 30 years and, unfortunately, it is going to take a long time to fix. That is why we cannot afford to have somebody who is so ignorant about how we got here in the first place be in charge, because it would push us back another 10 years before we even start addressing the problem.
Let us talk about the indigenous peoples of Canada, who have suffered generations of colonial violence when the government determined to commit genocide, to take children away from their parents, to rob them of their language and to deny them access to their cultural heritage. We are still living out the consequences of that. The answer is not going to come without empowering indigenous people to be masters of their own economic destiny. Obviously, that is important when we talk about developing natural resources. It is important when we talk about the investment of $4 billion, here in this budget, for a “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy so that indigenous people have the tools and resources to begin solving the housing crisis for themselves. That is important. If they can bring private capital and do some of that building, in addition to what the government can supply, that is a great thing. There are certainly examples of those successes.
We should not kid ourselves. Just as we cannot rely on the market that has created the housing crisis writ large to solve it without beginning to build again the kinds of affordable housing we had been building before, when times were better in terms of housing affordability, we cannot pretend somehow indigenous people now are going to rely on the market and market mechanisms to be able to house their people. If that was going to work as a strategy, I swear it would have been done already.
Indigenous people are not sitting around waiting for a handout when they have other solutions. What they are waiting around for is a government that is willing to work with them and resource them to be in charge of their own destiny and to be able to find the solutions in their own communities.
They have been economically sabotaged by the Canadian government since Confederation, when they started to have successful businesses and were told they could not take their products off the reserve, that there was going to be a pass system and they needed the permission of the Indian agent. We should not be surprised it did not work out. Now those are some of the problems we are trying to solve.
I hope that gives some understanding of the housing problem and what we are going to need to do in order to be able to fix it. I do not doubt a genuine desire to solve the problem, but I really do question whether the Conservative leader and his group have the intellectual wherewithal to be able to solve it. We would not know it by listening to what they have to say about the problem.
It is a similar thing when it comes to climate. The fact of the matter is we need to get our emissions down; there are no two ways about it. It has to happen, so we need to find ways to be able to do it. We need to find ways of doing it that put workers at the centre of that transition so they have good union jobs that pay well, that provide good benefits and that provide a pension for them when their working life is done, so they are able to support themselves in retirement and support their families along the way. That is how we are going to get this done.
If we look to the budget, how does this begin to assert some solutions? When it comes to Canadians who are making really difficult choices between caring for their teeth, buying their food and paying the rent, a national dental care program to cover children, seniors and people living with disabilities makes a difference. It makes a difference for their dignity. It makes a difference for their health, which otherwise deteriorates until they present in an emergency room because it has become so bad. We pay for it then, but we pay a lot more than what we are going to pay for some preventive dentist visits.
It is also a question of affordability. For those who are at the margin, who maybe have been able to afford some dental care in the past but for whom it has been difficult, this takes that cost off their plate and allows them to no longer need to put the care of their teeth in that delicate balance of costs they are trying to juggle in a time of increasing costs. The dental piece is very important.
There is another doubling of the GST rebate. The Liberals can call it a grocery rebate, they can call it whatever they want, but it is a doubling of the GST rebate. It makes sense. It is something that is targeted support that does not contribute to inflation. It is not going to households that have the ability to cause inflation; they could not cause inflation if they wanted to. They are just trying to buy the same basket of goods they used to be able to afford and no longer can afford. That money just helps them put most of the same things on the table.
I talked earlier about some of the investment tax credits and the labour conditions that are attached to those, because that is really important. It is also really important Canada begins to decarbonize and electrify. We cannot do that without producing significantly more power than we currently do. We need a grid infrastructure that can support that power if we are going to electrify not just homes and vehicles but industry such as aluminum production and steel production.
Canada has the capacity to be a world leader, so that means an opportunity for some folks to make a lot of money. This is an economic opportunity just as it was in the seventies when Peter Lougheed had the vision to make public investments in the oil and gas industry then to benefit his province.
I do want to talk about some of things that are not in the budget, but I will leave that for questions and comments.
3321 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to be speaking tonight, but that is not really the case. I would have liked to have seen my colleague's bill, or my own bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament, passed by the House to allow sick workers to fight their illness, get healthy again and get back to work. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. I am here again tonight, and I think this is my third or fourth speech on the issue of sick workers.
We are talking about seriously ill workers who have paid into EI their whole lives. That means that there is a deduction, an EI premium, on their paycheque. That means that the employer has also paid contributions. It is an insurance program. Currently, sick workers are entitled to only 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits. We know very well that is not enough.
I believe I have repeatedly asked whether this government is a heartless one. There is a story I would like to tell. We talk a lot about statistics and data and documentation, but tonight I am going to talk about one particular person who called me last week. He asked me to speak on his behalf tonight.
I am talking about one of my constituents, Normand Chevalier, who lives in Saint‑Polycarpe. He is a worker and has been working for 50 years. I think this is the first time in his life that he has had to apply for unemployment. He is not applying for it because he does not have a job. On the contrary, he had a very good job. Quite honestly, even at 65 years old, he would have liked to continue working.
Normand Chevalier called me last week and said to me, “Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I have tonsil cancer.” It is a serious cancer. He has been undergoing treatment for 15 weeks now, and it is costing him a lot of money. He lives in the country. Saint‑Polycarpe is a rural town in the Soulanges area of my riding. There is no public transportation to the hospitals in Montreal, so he has to drive himself. He told me that he has worked his entire life and this is the first time he needed help. He has been going to radiation treatments for 15 weeks now, and he has to keep going because it is not over. If he wants to have a chance to survive, he has to continue his treatments.
He said, “You know Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I've used up my benefits.” He thought that with the government's top-up, he would be entitled to 26 weeks, but that is not the case. He began his treatments before December 18, 2022, and is not entitled to 26 weeks. He is among those who believed that because the number of weeks was increased from 15 to 26, they would at least be entitled to the additional weeks of EI sickness benefits to continue their treatments, to fight and, above all, not to worry about how they would pay their rent.
Last week, this gentleman told me that he was a driver at a company in Soulanges, that he was well liked and that he could hardly wait to get better so he could return to work. However, he was very worried because he did not know how he was going to pay his rent next month. Everyone has a story. Mr. Chevalier lives with his 16-year-old granddaughter. She, too, does not understand what is happening. Why is her grandfather, who is sick, hard-working and brave, not entitled to 26 weeks?
The bill we are debating this evening calls for 50 weeks and we support that. Some cancers require 37 to 40 weeks of treatment to get better and to beat the illness. That has been documented.
Mr. Chevalier told me that he was calling because he was so angry and he found the government to be heartless. When the minister increased the number of weeks from 15 to 26, why did she not decide that anyone who was already undergoing treatment would be entitled to 26 weeks? He said, “I thought that was how it was going to work, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.” However, he realized that the exact opposite was true.
741 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 6:01:12 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the member that she should not use members' names in the House, even if it is her own name.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
