SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 178 - Apr/17/23

Apr/17/23 5:00:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, prior to being elected to this place, I served as a provincial member in my home province of Alberta. Municipalities are the creation of provinces, and as such I am not suggesting that we take over the individual permitting. What the leader of the official opposition has suggested, and it is very smart, is to tie federal infrastructure money to having high development permits in certain areas, allowing us to have more homes being built in some of these communities where perhaps they are selling out and having a bit of a NIMBY perspective on it. This is not about the individual municipalities. The reality is that, since the government took office eight years ago, home prices have doubled in this country. Canada has tons of land, yet land costs have gone through the roof. We really need to do more to make houses more affordable so people can afford to live in this country.

157 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Apr/17/23 5:01:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Clearly, we are not going to agree on certain things, such as Bill C‑11 and all the disinformation around it. No, Bill C‑11 will not infringe on freedom of expression. However, we do agree on the issue of security, and I am very interested in hearing her talk about that. For example, it is deplorable that there is still no independent inquiry on Chinese interference, which is quite serious. We might have expected an announcement about some action being taken on this issue. Concerning arms trafficking, there are no measures to strengthen the control of gun smuggling across the border. That is very worrisome. I would like my colleague to talk about that.

127 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Apr/17/23 5:02:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think she mentioned several issues that are top of mind for Canadians across the country and that were not addressed in the budget. One thing that struck me is that there are a lot of expenditures in this budget but no money to tackle Beijing's interference. There is also no money to reduce crime rates across the country. That is an area where more work needs to be done in order to ensure that Canadians have everything they need.

90 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Apr/17/23 5:03:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. However, there is a difference between an expenditure and an investment, especially when it comes to investments in people, particularly in our seniors, our elders, who deserve respect. We in the NDP successfully forced the Liberal government to implement an actual dental program that will cover the bills for seniors who are living in poverty and need dental care. Is the member telling us that she is going to go back to her riding and tell seniors in precarious situations and those living in poverty that she does not want them to get their teeth fixed?

106 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Apr/17/23 5:03:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely hyperbolic from the NDP. Frankly, the Canadian Constitution is extremely clear that the delivery of health care is the sole jurisdiction of provincial governments. Provinces and territories all across the country have dental programs. Had the federal government wanted to have a well-costed program, it could have worked with provinces and territories to establish a program. Instead, the Liberals are saying what everyone in my constituency is always terrified of, which is, “I am here from Ottawa, and I am here to help.” Frankly, I do not trust a government that has not been able to figure out how to pay its own employees over the last six years, having not been able to figure out the Phoenix pay centre and paying its own employees, will somehow administer a program this large and be successful. Therefore, no, I am—

148 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/17/23 5:04:36 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Apr/17/23 5:04:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent concerning a vote held earlier today on Bill C-34. I would like to mark my vote as affirmative.

27 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/17/23 5:04:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): It is so registered.

24 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Apr/17/23 5:05:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. It is an honour to rise today to speak to this budget bill, which is a very important budget. I have been sitting here for quite some time listening to Conservatives routinely talk about the government spending too much money, but then the same speakers in the same speeches talk about all the places where we should be spending more money. I am getting mixed statements coming from the other side of the House on what we should be doing. Nonetheless, I would like to address some of the points I have heard today. First, I am going to start with the issue of the debt and deficit we have in Canada. There is no doubt that we are still coming down off of the debt and deficits that were taken on during the pandemic to support Canadians. It is a public policy that we decided on in this country, as most OECD countries did, if not all to at least some degree, to take care of Canadians, our constituents and residents, during the pandemic. That is exactly what we did. We ensured they had the supports they needed. We are obviously coming down off of that. The deficits are getting smaller as we move away from and put the pandemic behind us, but it should be said that, in comparison to other countries, when we compare the inflationary impacts of Canada to the United States, for example, the United States is seeing much steeper inflation, especially as it relates to items such as groceries, which the Conservatives always want to bring up. I am not saying all of this because I am trying to say we should not be worried about inflation. We should, and it something that we do need to tackle. What I am saying is that inflation has been happening globally. It is something that the world is experiencing. Yes, there is a lot of credit to the argument that it had to do with the supports that went out. It is not due exclusively to that, but, globally speaking, when we look at that, we can draw a correlation to it. However, we should not suggest that inflation in Canada is happening in isolation from the rest of the world or, more importantly, that we would have had the ability to control inflation in isolation from the rest of the world, especially when we consider how globalized our economy is. We have more trade agreements with other countries than any other country in the world. What does that mean? That means that, when we build things, things are flying across the border. I will give a perfect example. I do not know if members know this, but 80% of the nylon that goes into airbags comes from the Invista plant in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. It makes the nylon, and that nylon will probably travel somewhere to the United States where it is made into the fabric. It then maybe goes somewhere in Mexico through the NAFTA agreement to be fabricated into the airbag, then it probably passes to another country to create the airbag that goes into the steering wheel, and from there the process continues. My point is that we are a globalized country that has significant trade with many different countries. The unfortunate reality of that is that inflationary impacts are not something we can control in isolation from the rest of the world. If we tried to take an inverted approach and only focused within Canada, saying we will do things without the rest of the world, we would be left behind. As a matter of fact, if we look at the United States and Donald Trump's approach when he was president, we see that he took that approach, and he was unsuccessful in doing it because of that globalization, and it still saw more inflation than Canada did. I respect the argument because it is a great talking point. It points the blame at somebody, but the reality is that, when Conservatives point the finger at this government to say it has caused all of the inflation in this country, it is ludicrous. It just does not make sense, and it is unfair. Having said all of that, it is also worth pointing out that, despite the challenging times that the world is seeing right now, Canada continues to have the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Why is that important? It means that, as our economy is growing, and as we are seeing new industries and we are expanding, we are able to keep that deficit in check, relatively speaking, against other countries. Also, very important is the fact that Canada continues to maintain a AAA credit rating. We should all be concerned about the inflation we are seeing throughout the world. We should certainly be concerned about how it is impacting Canadians here in Canada, but to suggest, for a second, that it is something that we could control while also, at the same time, engaging in the globalization and the global trade that we do, is just wrong. It does not make sense, and any economist would tell us that. It is extremely disingenuous when we hear from the opposition that that is the case. I also find it absolutely remarkable, and I have said this a number of times, that if people believe that the Prime Minister of Canada, whom the official opposition is very critical of on a daily basis, is responsible for inflation in our country, then they would somehow have to also accept the fact that he is responsible for inflation throughout the world. To my Conservative colleagues, I would say that, for somebody they do not have a lot of faith in to do anything, to suddenly be giving that individual credit for affecting global inflation is truly a remarkable feat. They cannot have it both ways, despite the fact that Conservatives would like to do that. The other falsehood or talking point we continually hear from Conservatives, and I would like to take the opportunity to try to once again set the record straight, as I am broken record, and I have been saying this for five or six years, respects the carbon tax, or what we, and I, like to call a price on pollution. I will explain why that is in a second. If the term of the day is “carbon tax”, I am happy to entertain the discussion. What Conservatives always leave out when they are talking about that, every single time, is the fact that there is a rebate. Although the price on pollution might triple by 2030, and not a couple of days ago, as the Conservative rhetoric would like people to believe, although that may be increasing, and it does increase every year, so too does the rebate. The rebate is reflective of how much people are paying and what they are paying on that price on pollution, or that carbon tax. That is important because of my reason why I prefer to call it a price on pollution as opposed to a carbon tax. A tax is something that is intended to be collected into general revenues and then used for supports, income redistribution to support those in particular hardships who need it at various times, and that is not what this levy does. It takes the money and then returns that money to Canadians. It is the exact same amount. Whether one made $1 million dollars last year or $10,000, we all got the same amount based on the number of people in our family, in our households. Now, a very valid question would be why we would even bother doing that if we are giving the money back. I think it is actually a good question, and a lot of people ask that. There is a very simple explanation for it. Economists throughout the world resoundingly agree that, when a price is put on something, it changes the behaviour in the marketplace. It incentivizes people to make different choices. If people are making very environmentally friendly choices and they are paying just a little into that price on pollution, they stand to gain more back than they put in. That is an incentive to incentivize people to make different decisions as it relates to the choices they are making when they are making purchases. Those are two very important things that I wanted to bring up in this debate, because I think they are germane based on the discussion I have heard thus far. I will certainly be supporting this budget. This is a budget that respects the circumstances we are in and that we have just come out of, and it is a budget that looks towards the future to invest in people and in businesses throughout our country.

1514 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Apr/17/23 5:15:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a very short question: What set of circumstances would the member envision where the ratio of debt to GDP would drop? If the Deputy Prime Minister stated last year that it was always going to drop but this year it did not, circumstances changed, what set of circumstances would allow for some responsibility here?

58 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/17/23 5:15:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I am so glad that I was asked it. The reality is that if our economy continues to grow, and grow at a faster pace, which it is through immigration, through investing in people and businesses, then we are taking on debt and our net benefit, our net bottom line, is actually ahead. That is why Conservatives have done it. That is why Liberals have done it. That is why, out of the last 16 budgets introduced by Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, only two ran surpluses. Every other run ran a deficit, because they all understood the economics would be the exact same. I guarantee the member that if the Conservatives end up on this side of the House, they will continue to do the exact same thing.

137 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Apr/17/23 5:16:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since my colleague mentioned the environment a few times in his speech, I want to engage him on that issue. Much like the Bloc Québécois, many groups recognize that the budget contains some positive measures for the environment. However, everyone sees eye to eye on criticizing the investments in carbon capture and storage, as this only offers a vague hope of a transition to a cleaner economy. Why, on the one hand, are we investing in greener technologies while, on the other hand, we keep funding a technology that is not well developed and that itself generates greenhouse gases?

106 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/17/23 5:17:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is another great question. I appreciate it, but I do not think the future is in carbon capture. However, I do know that we have a limited runway in front of us to protect our environment for my children, the member's children and all members' children and grandchildren. We have to throw everything at the problem that we possibly can at this point in my opinion. So, if investing in carbon capture is not the best solution, I would agree, is it a solution that we can use at least in the interim? Possibly, and I want to see if that will materialize. I want to see if it is a possibility. At the end of the day, of course, I do not want to be capturing carbon forever. I do not want that to be the solution. I want to move away from the problem of even having to capture the carbon in the first place.

161 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Apr/17/23 5:18:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the carbon tax. That is something that the NDP agrees with. However, his government continues to give subsidies to oil and gas companies. On one hand, the government wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but on the other hand, it is using taxpayers' money to continue supporting fossil fuels that produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases. Does he not think that is a contradictory position?

70 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/17/23 5:18:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting point that NDP members always bring up. They say we are investing in fossil fuel subsidies. However, no, the subsidies have actually been going down. What we have been investing in, which makes it look like they have been going up, is dealing with things like orphan wells. We should not be in a position where previous companies that have gone out of business left wells behind for society to deal with, but the reality is that those wells are there and we have to deal with them. When the NDP talks about our increase in subsidies, they are adding into that calculation money used for dealing with orphan wells, and I would submit that it is not a subsidy. This is something that we need to do as a society because, as a society, we allowed companies to not deal with them effectively themselves when they should have.

155 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Apr/17/23 5:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the budget. To begin, I want to talk about something that is not necessarily in the budget but is an area where I sincerely hope the Liberal government left itself some wiggle room. I am talking about the negotiations with the federal public service. Time is running out. The federal government has been given an ultimatum. It has until Tuesday at 9 p.m. to come to a negotiated agreement for the 155,000 men and women who work for us, for Quebeckers and Canadians, and who need a new collective agreement. Theirs expired two years ago. I think that these men and particularly these women deserve respect. They do not deserve to grow poorer with an insufficient offer at a time when the cost of living is going through the roof. This is evident when we look at the cost of groceries, housing and many other things. I simply want to reiterate that federal public servants can count on the NDP's support. I really encourage the President of the Treasury Board to give a bargaining mandate that will make it possible to come to a negotiated settlement and show respect for these workers who were there for us and continue to be there for us and who serve all Canadians.

225 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Apr/17/23 5:21:33 p.m.
Watch

When we talk about investments, when we talk about expenditures, when we talk about investing in our federal public service, for example, but also in other things, such as our social programs, many people will say that this is a difficult situation, that we may not have the means to do that and that we should not make those investments because they are so costly. They will say that there are deficits, that we need to be prudent and responsible. The NDP agrees. However, it is also essential to have the political courage to put in place measures to ensure tax fairness and, consequently and ultimately, social justice. That is why, as a left-wing party and as progressives, we are concerned about being able to find the money, wherever it is, to invest in people, in our communities, in our cities and towns and in our workers. Where can this money be? It is interesting because the Canada Revenue Agency recently released a study it conducted itself on what is called the tax gap. The tax gap is an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax that should have been collected from individuals and companies, including major corporations, and what was actually collected. As we know, there are loopholes, tax avoidance and tax evasion. The federal government is still having a hard time taking drastic action on these issues. I was recently in Montreal with a group, a collective called Échec aux paradis fiscaux, that gathered in front of the Canada Revenue Agency to remind it of its own study. The Canada Revenue Agency assessed the years from 2014 to 2018. This was the first time this type of self-assessment was done on the tax gap. What we learned is that each and every year we lose between $18 billion and $23 billion in revenue that we failed to collect but is owed to us. That is huge. Imagine what we could do with that $18 billion to $23 billion a year that we miss out on. That could pay for dental care for everyone and provide universal public pharmacare to everyone. It would be extremely beneficial for us as society to have better health care and to be able to meet people's basic needs. Who are the big tax gap villains who slip through the cracks in the system? Those would be the large corporations, which are responsible for 70% of the tax gap even though they represent only 1% of all registered companies. It is not small businesses, the corner stores or the mom-and-pop shops that are finding ways to avoid paying taxes. Large and very large corporations are responsible for 70% of it. A collective called Échec aux paradis fiscaux has reiterated that there are no concrete measures. There have been no announcements or new measures put in place to recover this shortfall. Once the facts have been established, not by a group of external individuals, but by the Canada Revenue Agency itself, which reports on the money missing every year, I hope the government will listen, acknowledge the problem and take real, meaningful action. We could also talk about the CEOs, the big bosses of these companies who are seriously lining their pockets, while people are struggling to make ends meet. I have some pretty clear examples. Last year, Loblaws pocketed $1.9 billion in profits, an increase of more than 20%. That is a lot of money. People who go to the grocery store and have to do without things like meat, vegetables and really essential goods for their families are seeing Loblaws pocketing a lot of money and substantially increasing its profits. The CEO of Loblaws, Galen Weston, recently got a raise and saw his salary go from $8 million to $11.8 million a year. We are talking about $11.8 million a year for someone who is making record profits while people are struggling to pay for groceries. If that is not the definition of indecency, then I do not know what is. It is nothing short of insulting, because while the ultra-rich continue to line their pockets ordinary citizens are struggling and actually paying the price. Mr. Weston earns 431 times the average salary of his own employees. Our esteemed Mr. Weston earns $5,679 an hour, and he is not the only one in this country, or even the only one in his company, to make that kind of money. Richard Dufresne, a senior executive at Loblaws, got a raise in 2021-22, and his salary went from $1.8 million a year to $5.4 million a year. He started earning about $4 million more in one year. We are still talking about the same company. Let us keep to the major grocery chains. The annual salary of the CEO of Sobeys is $13 million, while that of the CEO of Scotiabank is $12 million. On average, the CEOs of major Canadian companies earn 191 times the salary of Canadian workers. The NDP thinks that significant tax measures must be implemented to put an end to this abuse and to stop the select few in the ruling class from lining their pockets while full-time workers are being paid minimum wage, can barely afford to pay their rent and have to use food banks. I share their anger and frustration at seeing the ultra-rich always wanting more, even though they really do not need it. Getting back to the budget, there are some good things that will improve peoples' lives. I am proud to talk about them because many originated with the NDP. The agreement that we negotiated forces the Liberal government to take the kind of action that it never wanted to take in the past. It is rather amusing to see the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance boast about the new dental benefit, because the NDP proposed the same thing just two years ago and, at that time, the Liberals thought it was a very bad idea. We had to convince them. It took some time. However, this year, children under 18 and seniors aged 65 and over will have their dental care covered. We know how important that is to people's quality of life. I also want to talk about the GST rebate, which is known as the grocery rebate. That is the new name the Liberals have given it. That was another NDP demand. Next July, people who really need it will receive several hundred dollars. Those are concrete measures, and we owe it all to the work of the NDP caucus. With the balance of power, with our bargaining position, we have been able to get help for people, and we are going to continue doing that, particularly on issues that affect pretty much everyone, like social housing, affordable housing and home ownership. We want a more just and equitable society for everyone. I think my time is up. I will be happy to take questions from my colleagues.

1197 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/17/23 5:30:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to pick up on the issue of housing because back in the nineties, there was a big push from all political parties inside the chamber that the federal government not play a role in national housing. I was an MLA at the time, and I believed that that was wrong. We would have to go back generations to see a federal government like the one we have today, playing such a strong leadership role on housing, including the first-ever national strategy on housing. The federal government needs to play a strong role, but we also need to see the municipalities in particular, as well as the provinces and other stakeholders, step up and play a very important role so that Canadians can get that affordable housing. Could my colleague provide his thoughts about this?

139 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Apr/17/23 5:31:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. All levels of government have a responsibility when it comes to housing. That is true. However, the federal government has fallen behind. It is appalling. Nothing has been done for years, and now we have a lot of catching up to do. As far as Quebec is concerned, it is a shame that it took three years of negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec to finally get the money out the door and see projects get off the ground. We are very behind. In Montreal alone, there are 24,000 people on a waiting list for social housing. Social housing is the best way to lift people out of poverty and give them a real hand up. The federal government is still not doing enough. While it is true that a housing strategy has been put in place, it has not been improved and it is not meeting the real needs of people in the community. We want to see the federal government investing more heavily in social housing.

178 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Apr/17/23 5:32:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction. There is a Québec Solidaire motion before the Quebec National Assembly that states that health care falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. Quebec is asking for unconditional financial compensation for dental care, and it wants that amount transferred so it can improve coverage for a program it already has. I would like to know what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie thinks of that request for unconditional financial compensation.

93 words