44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/27/23 4:15:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up on the question of EI. Let us face it: The budget implementation act is very light on EI measures. One thing it does is extend the pilot program for the “black hole” by just another year. When this pilot program is something that has been going on now for five or six years, I think it makes a lot of sense simply to make it permanent, rather than continuing to extend it year by year. There are also some modest changes to the EI appeal board, but there is not really anything that addresses the important changes that were made during the pandemic and cancelled by the Liberals in September.
Why does the government continue to drag its feet when it comes to this important reform as we are being told that Canada is likely heading into a recession, when employment insurance is at its most important in terms of the lives of Canadians?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:30:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I asked earlier about the urgency of employment insurance reform. I want to talk about another facet of the employment insurance problem that Canada has at the moment, which is the decision of the government to allocate $25 billion of CERB debt to the EI account. We know that EI was not in a good place prior to the pandemic. It was not adequate to the task. The whole system had to be revamped. It was effectively run like a program and not the usual employment insurance system that premium payers are used to. That was cancelled back in September.
How does the government imagine it is going to achieve an effective modernization of the employment insurance system when premium payers are preoccupied with paying down a $25-billion debt over the next seven years instead of seeing improvements to the employment insurance program?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 5:45:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to circle back to some of the member's reflections on the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement, which I know Conservatives were concerned to see pass very quickly. Of course, this was one of those extant issues. I am wondering if he could speak a bit to how he thinks our trade partners might respond to something like this and what the consequences could be.
We know we are under some other trade agreements. Of course, CUSMA does not have the same investor-state dispute settlement provisions as NAFTA did, but I wonder if he is aware of what some of the risks are in terms of other parties. There is a nation-to-nation dispute mechanism in CUSMA, for instance. How might that be received, and what kinds of risks might Canada have to consider in moving ahead with something that makes a lot of sense for people in the Canadian economy, who should have the right to repair their own equipment?
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:03:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Regina—Lewvan on having done a great job reading somebody else's speech. It is always interesting when people choose to use the words of others, rather than their own words in this place.
I thought maybe the member for Regina, of all places, might have a better handle on the Mouseland story, in which, of course, the mice are working people. I take his criticisms of mice running government as being quite demonstrative of the Conservative position over the years in respect of working people and whether they should be allowed to control their own destiny, which is the point of the Mouseland story.
I know he talked a lot about inflation. He talked about fat cats. Perhaps he will know that 25% of every inflation dollar spent by Canadians in this economy has gone not just to the oil and gas industry but to the profits of the oil and gas industry. That has not been shared with workers. That $18 billion in extra expenses by Canadians has gone to the oil and gas sector, and only $650 million of it actually went into the pockets of workers.
What does he think about that?
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 8:08:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member and I agree that the current government bears a lot of responsibility for the state of the current housing market, which is the worst that it has ever been. I think we differ in some of the ways in which we say the government is responsible for that.
I hear the Conservative leader talk a lot about how government spending is responsible for inflation in the housing market. As New Democrats, we look at housing and we see the role of massive private investment, corporate landlords that are gobbling up buildings with affordable units, superficially renovating them and jacking up the rent. We see real estate investment trusts doing the same. We see a lot of investor activity that is actually driving up prices in the real estate market. I do not see how government spending is playing a role. We know that, in fact, the government is not building enough non-market housing options, and we need to build more in order to address supply.
Can we hear the Conservatives talk about private investment activity in the housing market, the role it is playing and the things the government can do to curtail that as a way of actually getting out of the housing crisis, or are they going to continue to talk about government spending as if that is what is driving the housing crisis when it is not?
238 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 9:07:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was just reflecting on some of the comments that the member for Essex made about the importance of a skilled workforce, and I could not help but recall that when I worked for the Manitoba government, Manitoba had the provincial nominee program, which was a very successful program and worked very well to attract skilled workers to Manitoba. At the time I was there, that program was on track to start bringing in over 10,000 skilled immigrants every year to the province of Manitoba, but the Harper government put an arbitrary cap of 5,000 on those who could come under that program. It was puzzling at the time. I wonder if the member has a sense of the deficit of skilled workers in Manitoba today because of the decision of that government then.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and make my own contribution to the debate on Bill C-47 tonight.
Elsewhere, I have spoken more at length about some of the things I think are commendable in the budget, including another doubling of the GST rebate, which is an important way to help Canadians who are struggling the most with the cost of inflation without returning more money to the pockets of Canadians for whom extra spending might be inflationary. A lot of private sector economists have recognized the virtue of this approach the NDP pioneered and has managed to extend in the budget here.
I have talked about the importance of dental care and the good it will do for millions of Canadians to be able to finally access dental care when they have not had that privilege before. It is something that should not be a privilege, but should be a right for every Canadian wherever they are in the country.
I have talked also about an important step, not a step that meets the need in any way for indigenous people, who are struggling, like other Canadians, with the housing crisis, but in an even more acute way with more challenges for how to deliver housing properly. Over $4 billion was invested in the last 12 months to an indigenous-led strategy where indigenous people themselves will be making decisions about how better to house their people in urban, rural and northern areas.
There are some important labour conditions on federal funding for the new energy economy, ensuring that public dollars that are invested in that new energy economy do not just go to large corporations and get siphoned out of the country, but actually go to Canadian workers, by requiring those companies to pay prevailing wages, not just the hourly wage but the wage package, which includes benefits and pension amounts, to their workers in order to qualify for that federal funding. There will be two seats for labour on the board of the growth fund that the Liberal government is establishing to ensure that workers and their interests are represented in the investment decisions of that fund.
Those are just some of the things the NDP has pushed for in the budget, which we think are going to make a positive difference in the lives of Canadians.
I have also talked about many of the things that are not in the budget that ought to have been, including urgent reform to the employment insurance system, which the Liberal government has promised now for close to eight years and has not done. In the meantime, it has actually revolutionized the EI system and completely changed it, and then it came back full circle to the EI system that the Harper government left in 2015. We have made no progress, despite years of promises and a demonstration that the government can do it.
The Liberals did do it. They had a minimum benefit. They had one universal qualifying threshold with low hours. They had a higher income replacement rate for many people on the program. They had a lot of the things EI needs in order to be a successful program that is there for Canadians when they most need it, which incidentally is in a period of recession, which the budget says is coming.
When will the employment insurance reform come? The Liberals know where the account is, because they took $25 billion of CERB debt that does not belong there and plunked it right in there, ensuring the premiums for workers and employers will go up consistently for the next seven years, trying to pay down a $25-billion debt that does not belong there in the first place, so it is certainly not because they do not know about EI or they do not know where to find the account.
Up to now, over $60 billion has been taken out of the EI operating account by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. As far as I am concerned, adding $25 billion of debt is another expenditure that does not belong on the EI account, and we are now in the territory of about $85 billion the Liberal and Conservative governments have taken from EI ratepayers they never had any right to in the first place. The EI account would be in very good shape and perfectly capable of sustaining the kinds of reforms we need to have for the sake of Canadian workers if that money had not been taken out of there in the first place.
That is a perfect example of what is not in this budget that ought to be, and Canadians can count on New Democrats to continue to press the government to get the job done, just as it should get the job done on housing. I talked a bit about a modest plan, when it comes to indigenous housing, in terms of allocating some funding in the budget. It is nowhere enough, and that is just for the needs in indigenous communities, never mind the amount of non-market housing we need to build in order to meet the needs of people right across the country from coast to coast to coast.
It is not just about spending money. It is also about taking regulatory action in order to constrain the investment activity that is happening from private actors with deep pockets all over the country that is driving up the cost of housing, whether it is driving up the cost of rental housing for Canadians who need affordable rental housing or whether it is driving up the cost of a home that Canadians would aspire to own. In either case, it is a problem. We need to see a government that is willing to take action. I have talked elsewhere about the kinds of things New Democrats believe can be done by the government that would not cost a dime to taxpayers, in order to relieve some of that investment pressure that is driving up houses in the real estate market.
There has been a fair bit of debate tonight about the budget, rightly so. We have heard a lot about the carbon tax and inflation. These are important debates and I respect how people are being affected by inflation, certainly. I see it in my own community.
We are not in any way immune to the rise in the use of food banks and people having to make tough choices, but I do want to talk a little bit about the nature of inflation, because when we listen to Liberals and Conservatives debate inflation, there is something that never comes up.
Again, this is what they share in common with housing. They do not want to talk about the role that deep-pocketed investors are playing in driving up the cost of housing for Canadians. When we talk about inflation more generally, they do not want to talk about the role that corporate Canada has been playing in jacking up prices for Canadians.
There have been reports out, more than one, that say that up to 25% of the inflation that Canadians have experienced is related precisely to excessive profits by corporations.
What do we mean by excessive profits? We mean profits over the prepandemic baseline, an increase in the rate of profit for these companies. The oil and gas sector is a good example. It has seen outsized increases in its profits over the last couple of years. It has seen a 1000% increase in its profits. That is a lot of money.
What do we mean when we say excess profits? We mean expanding one's profits by a 1000% over two years, because who pays for that?
Conservatives are quick to talk about how every penny that is raised in taxes comes out of Canadian pockets. Well, guess what? Every penny that is raised at the pump comes out of Canadians' pockets too. I am not just talking about the pennies that go to the government and the carbon tax or the gas tax or whatever else. I am talking about the pennies that go to provide that 1000% increase over two years in corporate profits for oil and gas.
That is why New Democrats have been advocating for an excess profits tax. We forced the Liberals to do this when it comes to banks and insurance companies. We have also said that this should also apply to oil and gas companies.
What do we hear from the Conservatives when we talk about that? They say, oh, well, they will charge it to the consumer. They will just pass that on to the consumer. There is probably some truth in that. That is why the member for Windsor West has done an excellent job talking about how we should have a formal body that regulates price increases so that Canadians can be sure that they are getting a fair shake at the pumps. We have done this for decades in Manitoba with the public utilities board, in respect of auto insurance rates and Manitoba hydro rates and gas prices for heating one's home.
This is not something out in left field. This is something that provinces do with respect to important price controls, something that the member for Windsor West has done a lot of great work on.
The other thing that they neglect to mention is what happens if one removes the carbon tax. For some reason, they think that if there is additional tax, they will just pass that on to the consumer, but if by lowering a tax, we create more disposable income, they somehow think that oil and gas companies are not going to raise their prices to gobble that up too. We have a problem. Yes, the oil and gas companies win, it seems, no matter what one does.
That is why the member for Windsor West is bang on in talking about a real way to control oil and gas prices, but they best believe that by reducing those kinds of taxes in a period where the oil and gas companies have been jacking up their prices and making a 1000% increases in their profits over two years, they are going to gobble that up too.
That is why targeted tax relief, like doubling the GST rebate, has been praised by private sector economists as a good way to provide relief to Canadians who need it the most without contributing to inflation and that broad-based tax relief, of the kind that the Conservatives advocate for, is seen as something that would contribute to inflation. B.C., Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories all have their own carbon pricing system imposed provincially. Getting rid of the carbon tax is not going to make a whit of difference for people who live in those provinces.
We have a broad-based tax measure proposed that economists say will be inflationary and only provides relief to people in about half the country. That is not a plan. That is just a talking point.
1859 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 9:38:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say that if times were so tough for oil and gas companies, they would not have seen a 1,000% increase in their profit over two years. I think the member should look at the numbers and give his head a shake.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 9:39:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things the government could be doing is working to establish a non-profit acquisition fund. A lot of non-profits have great experience running housing complexes and know how to get the job done, but they find out too late that a building with affordable units might have been available or on the market. Corporate landlords, who are better connected and have deeper pockets, find out sooner; by the time there is more public knowledge of that building coming up on the market, it has already been scooped up. Therefore, providing a notice period for that kind of sale and making funds available for competent non-profits to be able to swoop in and compete with some of these big corporate landlords is a really important piece of the puzzle.
Also, we can look at the idea, as they have done in New Zealand, of having escalating down payments. As a person owns more properties, they would be required to put up more instead of just leveraging equity out of their existing properties for the same amount of down payment. This is another way to try to have a bit of control over really excessive investment activity in the residential housing space.
These are just some of the ideas out there about what government could do. The non-profit acquisition fund, obviously, does involve some government investment, but different rules around escalating down payments do not. Therefore, that is an example of something the government could be doing right now that does not cost money and could help have a cooling effect on the residential housing market.
272 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 9:40:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is kind of a curiosity, is it not? I think that “doubling of the GST rebate” is very clear and very honest in terms of what it is. The “grocery rebate” branding has caused some confusion.
We had finance department officials at committee just recently, and I had the opportunity to ask them about that. They confirmed that, from a technical perspective, there is no difference at all. Therefore, it is just another doubling of the GST rebate, as we have been happy to talk about on this side of the House.
I asked if the tax officials in the department moonlighted as branding specialists and maybe recommended to the minister's office that it be called a grocery rebate. They did not say that was true. In fact, they said that they could not say, because those are privileged conversations. However, I felt that astute political observers could probably put two and two together and figure out that the Liberals are sad that the NDP has been getting credit for a good thing, and so they came up with a term to try to get more credit, as is the wont of many folks around this place.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
