SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

Apr/27/23 9:06:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will answer a question with a question: Is that question good enough for the senior standing in a Zehrs grocery store crying because she cannot figure out what healthy food she can eat? If the member thinks that a one-time payment of $284 is sustainable, then that is pretty darn disgusting. Our seniors deserve more than this.

61 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

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

Mr. Chris Lewis

Apr/27/23 9:08:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-241

Mr. Speaker, it has honestly been really good to work with the New Democratic Party on trades. Of course, NDP members did support Bill C-241, so they understand it, unlike all but one member of the Liberal Party. I have been across Canada, from the east coast to the west coast and everywhere in between, and do I ever know that there is a major deficit of labour. I do not think that there is any one of the 338 members in the House who would disagree with me on that front. However, it is really unfortunate that when we have major hangups in the immigration system, all these skilled trades that are coming through are being backlogged, put into a file and not being dealt with to support our industries and businesses. It goes back to the government. My question for the member would be this: If it is that detrimental, and if NDP members have all the answers, why do they continue to prop up the Liberals?

170 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Apr/27/23 9:09:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and it was great. Also, I must say that his mother is a very good cook, so a shout-out to Helen out there. We have the GST rebate, which the Liberals call, in a gimmicky way, the “grocery rebate”, but is not the real solution to making life more affordable getting control of this government's out-of-control spending, because the more this government spends, the more life gets unaffordable for Canadians?

85 words

Mr. Chris Lewis

Apr/27/23 9:09:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, and I am sure mom is watching tonight. She makes excellent chocolate chip cookies. This is all about, and can only be about, a vision for the future. Everything we do today in the House has to ensure that life is more affordable and that spending is reined in. However, that same spending that we are doing is enabling and allowing our young men and women in the workforce to go forward to start their own lives.

84 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/27/23 9:10:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47 Bill C-241

Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill C-241 would have fit very neatly in Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. There are many sections in the over 429 pages of Bill C-47, but there is one that goes directly to the issue that the hon. member has put forward in his private member's bill, which is a tax discount on tradespeople's tools. I wonder if the member saw that section and if he sees it as encouragement that perhaps the Senate, like the House, will pass Bill C-241.

93 words

Mr. Chris Lewis

Apr/27/23 9:10:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, I certainly have seen it, and I am very much aware of the $5,000 tool tax credit. It is a great start, but it does not go far enough.

33 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/27/23 9:11:15 p.m.
Watch

Before we move on, I just want to remind members that when they are banging on their desk it does transmit into the microphone, and those who are doing the interpretation have a hard time with that sometimes. Continuing debate, the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

51 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC)

Apr/27/23 9:11:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this House representing the great hard-working people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. As parliamentarians, we sometimes have to deal with unpleasant situations, like today, when unfortunately I have to critique the Liberal government's latest inflationary budget. Let me state the dismal facts that confront Canadians. This budget is set to increase the national debt to a record of $1.3 trillion. The interest payments alone on this debt will reach $50 billion, which is $10 billion more than Canada spends on national defence. The government's revenue, or taxes on Canadians, has nearly doubled since the Liberals took office eight years ago. In other words, the finance minister has managed to create a budget with both record revenue and record deficits. This record spending will only throw gasoline on the inflationary fire that Canadians are already struggling with. It will not help people who are struggling to get by. Our party had three demands of this budget, none of which have been met. First, we wanted to help Canadians bring home better paycheques with lower taxes and for the government to scrap the carbon tax. Instead, the Liberals tripled down on higher taxes by tripling their carbon tax earlier this month. As the PBO reported, this tax will cost the average family far more than what they get back in rebates. Here is the simple equation. In Saskatchewan, the average household will spend an additional $410 this year beyond the $1,781 they get back. Let me say that again. In order to get $1,781 in rebates, they will need to spend $2,191. I have to ask if this is the new math kids are doing in school, because it does not work. Let me state the facts. The government is putting a price on people with this carbon tax. Liberal inflationary spending has also caused the price of food and groceries to skyrocket. One in five Canadians is skipping meals. People are going to food banks who have never gone before. We are blessed to live in a country with an abundance of natural resources and agricultural goods, and this should never happen. “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend over $1,000 more on food this year. That is nearly $600 more than the grocery rebate announced in this budget. Here is the equation: spend $1,000 and get $400 back. It is bad math. Let me be clear. Not everyone qualifies for this rebate; most do not. Add to the equation I just shared that a large majority of Canadians will continue to struggle with the cost of food, along with the ever-rising carbon tax, with no help from the government. This compounds the cost of living crisis all Canadians are facing. This is after yet another hike in payroll taxes. Overall, the average Canadian will see another $305 deducted from their pay. They take home less and pay more. Canadians are slowly getting their pockets picked by the Liberal government. The government's grocery rebate is simply giving money back to Canadians that has already been clawed away from them with tax hikes. It will not solve the cost of living crisis. The government is forcing Canadians to be dependant on it. It taxes them and gives them rebates when it sees fit, instead of trusting Canadians with their own hard-earned money. Conservatives demanded that the government end inflationary debt and deficits that drive up inflation and interest rates. Obviously, this condition was not met, and I would have been absolutely stunned if it had been. After all, the Prime Minister has added more debt than all other prime ministers combined and has no plan to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits. Our national debt this year is projected to reach $1.2 trillion. To put that in perspective, that is nearly $81,000 of debt per household. The fall economic statement tabled just a few months ago projected a $4.5-billion surplus in 2027-28. Now that is all gone, with more massive deficits years into the future. In last year's budget, the finance minister said that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was her fiscal anchor and that this number must decline for Canada's finances to be sustainable. She said: ...let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down. This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable. According to this budget, our debt-to-GDP ratio is set to increase from 42.4% to 43.4% this year. The finance minister herself knows that her inflationary debt and deficits are unsustainable. Let us relate this to a household budget in which someone is putting tens of thousands of dollars each year on their credit cards while only paying the minimum amount. We all know this is unsustainable, and this is happening year after year. We cannot borrow our way out of debt. We cannot spend our way out of debt. Conservatives' third demand was to remove government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits to help build homes people can afford. The dream of home ownership for young and new Canadians under the government has died. Nine in 10 people who do not own a home say they never will. Over the past eight years, the down payment needed to buy a home has doubled. The average monthly mortgage and rent payments have nearly doubled in the same time. What used to cost $1,400 eight years ago is now over $3,000. When the government took office, someone needed just 39% of their average paycheque to make monthly payments on the average house. Today, that has risen to 62%. We should remember that on top of that 62%, we are still facing the cost of living crisis, with the cost of groceries skyrocketing and the carbon tax increasing the cost of everything. Things are more expensive and Canadians are taking home less. Let us talk about what this budget has, or rather does not have, for Saskatchewan. If we look through the document, Saskatchewan is mentioned only five times, and where it is mentioned is in paragraphs bragging about announcements made as far back as the summer of 2022 and some with little or no involvement of the federal government at all. Our agriculture industry is barely mentioned as well, although this is hardly surprising with our current minister's abysmal track record in supporting our agriculture producers. What our agriculture sector needs most is relief from the punitive carbon tax. If the government was not so focused on trying to impress its European friends, it would know that our farmers are already tremendous stewards of the environment. Forcing them to pay obscene amounts in carbon tax means that they are less able to spend on needed new equipment that would lower their carbon footprint. Thankfully, my friend from Huron—Bruce is working to fix that. His bill, Bill C-234, has passed the House, despite opposition from the government and the agriculture minister, and it is now making its way through the Senate. I pray that common sense will prevail and our farmers will see tax relief soon. This budget has failed to do anything to help Canadians. It has failed those who are struggling with higher taxes and inflation. It has failed those who want to some day buy a home. It has failed our agriculture sector. It has failed Saskatchewan, and it has failed Canada. The cost of living crisis is real and it is hurting Canadians. The price of gas in Moose Jaw has risen over $1.60 after the government tripled its inflationary tax. This is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. The Prime Minister has said that he has put a price on pollution, but the fact is that he has put a price on people. This is a bad budget, and I will not be supporting it.

1399 words

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Apr/27/23 9:21:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as to this theme of gatekeepers holding up housing, we know that the housing supply is controlled by municipalities and provinces. What the member and other members who have talked in the House this evening and other days as we have debated the budget have neglected to talk about is affordable housing. I know that our government, as I outlined earlier tonight, has a number of programs that have helped not just housing issues and homelessness but providing affordable housing in municipalities across Canada. Can I ask the member why consistently Conservatives get up and talk about housing and housing supply but neglect to talk about affordable housing investments and why they are so averse to supporting any program that has to support housing providers who are assisting with social housing units?

134 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Apr/27/23 9:22:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was the mayor of Moose Jaw. The biggest challenge that I faced while the Liberal government was in power was accessing infrastructure dollars to help my community grow. Anything that the Liberals have touched has created problems and this budget does not help small communities like the city of Moose Jaw or communities in my riding.

59 words

Mr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC)

Apr/27/23 9:23:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a little bit in his speech about how much Canadians are struggling. I am hearing that in my own riding. I would like him to maybe talk a little bit about his area. I know that for the residents of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte that our food bank is getting overwhelmed. Recently, I had discussions with the executive director of the Barrie food bank who told me that many residents who were once good donors to the food bank are now actually going in and having to use the food bank, which is just a terrible situation. Maybe he could tell me what is going on in his area of Canada if that is a similar situation or how it is.

128 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Apr/27/23 9:23:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague and I have a shared heritage in history, in being part of municipalities and supporting municipalities. I have seen a rise in those using food banks in my community. It has been challenging. The way that we have tried to offset that has been to actually create jobs to attract people. The challenge that municipalities face with the oversight of the federal government makes it very difficult. That is a challenge that we are facing. That is because the Liberal government's policies are failing the people of our communities and raising the cost of living, which makes people need the food banks, disappointingly.

112 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/27/23 9:24:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to join my friend from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan virtually. We are debating the budget tonight. I do not want to be too finicky about it. It is really weird, of course, that we have already voted on the budget. Like him, I voted against the budget. I could not support this budget after reading the 429 pages of Bill C-47. I do not blame him as everyone is doing this. They are treating this debate as if it is about the budget, but the budget implementation act does not do anything about carbon pricing. It does not do anything about fossil fuel subsidies. Those were in the budget. One thing I found in Bill C-47 that I really want to vote for is taking Russia and Belarus off the most favoured nation tariff treatment. I would have thought we would have done that a year ago, but I wonder how my hon. colleague feels about this. If he votes against Bill C-47, he will be voting against taking Russia off the most favoured nation list for our trade relations. It is peculiar, but I just wonder what his thoughts are on that.

204 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Apr/27/23 9:25:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that my colleague is not voting in favour of this budget either. Obviously, as I stated, this is a challenge that we sometimes have to face. We have to face difficult decisions. One of the things that I have always thought about leadership is that there are tough decisions to be made. Normally the first thing is to take ownership, but I have not seen that with the government. Second is to make tough decisions, not bad decisions. Third is to remember that this is about serving others, not oneself. Four is to leave a legacy and not leave a mess behind. This is a difficult decision but I will not be supporting this budget.

120 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Apr/27/23 9:26:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

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

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Apr/27/23 9:37:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution tonight, although I have to disagree with some of the flaky theories he has. For example, provincial jurisdiction allows for price controls or for information systems to basically force gas companies to post ahead of time what their prices and inputs are. That is something the provinces can do right now. However, in my home province of British Columbia, the NDP government has chosen not to. In fact, it has backed away from all the big talk about excess profits and people being gouged. The member continues to say that if we just had another tax, we would make all this money go to the people. It used to be government asking the big oil and gas companies to hire lots of people, expand their projects and invest back into it. However, at the end of the day, they cannot because of NDP and Liberal policies that have made it impossible for them to do so. What does the member have to say about that?

174 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

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

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Apr/27/23 9:38:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is nothing flaky about standing up for people who need affordable housing support. I really respect the member's interventions every time he gets up and speaks in the House. I would ask the member about the comments he made on real estate investment trusts and the issue we are dealing with as it relates to the commodification of housing and the impact it is having on people in terms of rising rents, renovictions and other things. I really respected the fact that he got up and talked about it a number of times. Could he expand on it in terms of what that means for renters and what the government needs to do to provide assistance regarding the same?

123 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

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