SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 255 - Nov/24/23

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Nov/24/23 12:33:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for me, this is a really important bill, and one that the NDP really fought hard for. We have been fighting for anti-scab legislation for an extremely long time. I think about the times that I have stood on picket lines. If one is from a rural and remote community, sometimes it takes a while to get to that picket line, because people live in very isolated places. I remember having a conversation with one gentleman in particular who talked about the fact that, when they were on strike, the company took away their health benefits. He and his spouse had adopted a couple of kids and were planning to adopt a third, they were in the process, but they could not because of the strike. The bill before us would fundamentally give those folks, those workers, more power in the negotiating process. I wonder if the member could speak to why that is important.

158 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Nov/24/23 12:34:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that Canadians do not have the right to strike. We are saying that every person needs to have a right to live. One of the problems with the government is that it is not giving that ability to Canadians to make a financial benefit to themselves. With all the policies that are happening right now, taxes continuing to rise and the carbon tax taking away from their income is the bigger problem. With the cost of food and everything else going up, this is why the Liberals are bringing in this type of legislation. It is not about trying to protect workers. It is about trying to protect Canadians to live and have a quality of life. This is why the bill has some issues with it, which need to be dealt with.

139 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Nov/24/23 12:35:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though, with every bill we talk about in this place, it is just a matter of time before Conservative MPs find a way to bring up the carbon tax again. In light of that, the fact is, for the rebates Canadians receive, and that workers receive, eight out of 10 give more back than Canadians pay, unless they are among the 20% of the wealthiest across the country. Is the member for Yellowhead aware of the rebates they get back? Is he not concerned about the oil and gas companies that are gouging Canadians at the pumps every single day?

105 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Nov/24/23 12:36:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I love that they believe these talking points. I am surprised the Green member is not in a Liberal seat because those are their straight talking points, and they are not true. Canadians are paying a lot more for their groceries, fuel and everything else. They are far from getting back more than they contribute. The reason that statistic is out there is that they do not include all the costs. They take a lot away, such as fuel, transportation and public transportation. They are not included in the final details, and that is why they can claim Canadians are getting more back, which is not true. That is a false statement from the government.

117 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Nov/24/23 12:37:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Mr. Speaker, I wish the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-58, was unnecessary. As someone who values the work of labour unions, a person who appreciates the historic impact they have had on improving the rights and working conditions of Canadian workers, I feel it is sad that we have to consider whether replacement workers should be allowed in federally regulated workplaces. The use of replacement workers comes about when either a unionized workforce has gone on strike or an employer has locked out its workers. In either case, there are no real winners, so what would bring workers or employers to such a position? Why would they feel it necessary to take such drastic measures if nobody wins in such a situation? The answer is simple. If it seems that Canada has seen more labour strife than at any other time in recent history, the reason is simple. The policies of the Liberal government have made it difficult for Canadian workers to make ends meet. Workers expect government to look out for their best interests. We have a government that apparently does not understand what is good for people. We see record inflation, food prices spiralling out of control and the dream of home ownership dying for millions of Canadians. Those who are lucky enough to find a place to rent have discovered that rents have also skyrocketed. What is the Liberals' response to these economic problems? Its response includes inflationary deficits and higher taxes, government spending that seems out of control, the highest national debt in the history of Canada and no ideas of how to fix the mess they have created. When the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything for everyone, housing costs have doubled, mortgage costs are 150% higher than they were before the Liberal government took office and half of Canadians say that they are $200 or less from going broke, it is no wonder workers feel abandoned by the government. The Conservative Party supports the rights of workers to organize democratically, bargain collectively and peacefully withdraw and withhold their services from an employer. We also believe the government should work with unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to develop dispute settlement mechanisms and encourage their use to avoid or minimize disruption to services for Canadians. Bill C-58 will apply to about one million workers in federally regulated industries, many of which are sectors that are critical to national life. For this reason alone, it is important to study this legislation at committee to hear from witnesses, both those who are in favour and those who are against the legislation, to allow members to better understand the implications of this bill. I am sure the Liberals will tell me that such a study is not really necessary, that they know what they are doing and that this legislation should be passed with a minimum of scrutiny. After all, the Liberals tell us they know what is best for the country, but anyone who questions their dogma, they view as a heretic. In the church that is the Liberal Party, I would be a heretic. I have seen too many Liberal ministers telling Canadians that they know what is best for them when they obviously do not. The government would like us to believe that the Liberals are infallible, but all too often the truth is that they do not have a clue what they are doing. That may be true also with this bill. I would think that unions would view Bill C-58 as correcting a tilted playing field that has been in favour of employers. They expect that, once this act is passed, the strikes and lockouts will be shorter. In the same way, I would think employers would see Bill C-58 as favouring unions, with the potential of prolonged strikes and lockouts. These are conflicting viewpoints, and whichever one we might adopt may depend on our view of the current balance of power between unions and employers. Our job in the House is to find a way to craft legislation that is fair to both workers and employers, which is another reason to ensure that we consider the bill carefully so we do not have to return to the subject to fix mistakes made by a rushed process. When the minister spoke in the House just a couple of days ago, he said that consideration of the bill would not be rushed and that it is one of the most significant changes to federal collective bargaining that Canada has ever seen. I am glad he sees the need for a long and hard examination of the proposed legislation. We all want more deals to be made at the bargaining table. Strikes and lockouts are harmful to workers, employers and the Canadian economy as a whole. The Liberals seem to think that the bill would result in fewer labour disruptions. It will be interesting to hear what witnesses say when Bill C-58 is examined at committee. One of the areas that may be contentious is allowing employers to hire replacement workers as long as they deal solely with the situation that presents or could reasonably be expected to present an imminent or serious threat. Those threats could be to the life, health or safety of any person; destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises. Allowing replacement workers in such situations seems reasonable. The problem I foresee is one of determining exactly what the situations are when such hiring would be allowed. I would expect unions would quite naturally attempt to limit the use of replacement workers, while employers would try to stretch the definition as much as possible, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe employers and unions alike would be reasonable in all situations and there would be a clear understanding of what represents a safety threat, property damage or environmental damage. More likely, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would find itself much busier if this legislation is passed, as it tries to work out the details of the legislation in practice as opposed to in theory. No one, not workers, not employers and not the public, likes labour disruptions. In an ideal world, they would not happen. Of course, in an ideal world, workers would not have to worry about having to make a choice between paying the rent and paying for groceries. In an ideal world, Canadians would not be wondering why their government was offering tax exemptions on one form of home heating fuel and not on the others that contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions. In an ideal world, food bank use would be decreasing instead of increasing, and Canadians would not have to worry whether they can afford the ever-increasing cost of food. However, under the current government, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where the Liberal carbon tax keeps going up, increasing the cost of everything. Canadian workers and employers alike are feeling squeezed by a government that has shown by its fiscal policies that it does not care about either of them. Unions and businesses may have differing views about Bill C-58, but they do have one thing in common: They all know that it is time for the Liberal government to go.

1241 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Nov/24/23 12:46:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started his speech by saying that a bill to ban replacement workers was unnecessary. That really speaks to the Conservatives' view on labour rights and their track record in the past under the Harper government. The bill before us is a bill that would allow workers to stand up and be able to receive powerful paycheques. Conservatives say they stand up for workers, but when it comes time to vote, why are they always on the other side of workers?

85 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Nov/24/23 12:46:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did not say it was unnecessary; I said I wish it were unnecessary. That is what I said, and I hope the Liberal side will listen better so we can have better conversations.

36 words

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC)

Nov/24/23 12:47:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one possible unintended consequence of the legislation that I have not heard brought up yet is that it could possibly incentivize employers to make increased investment in automation, artificial intelligence and other things to replace workers. Yes, the legislation proposes to ban replacement workers in certain circumstances, but if it would be incentivizing employers to invest in technology that would end jobs, how would it be a net benefit to workers in the end?

76 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Nov/24/23 12:47:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. That is why the bill needs to be studied well and studied at committee so we can understand and examine it. Giving the bill proper scrutiny would make sure that it is perfect. However, we know that the government is always hiding things under its belt. There is something that could be dangerous enough for the government to rush the bill through without allowing the proper consultation and allowing witnesses to go through it so we would know exactly what the bill is all about.

93 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Nov/24/23 12:48:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, I got the impression that he was saying that his party would agree to anti-scab legislation as long as there are enough exceptions so that this law, if applied, would not restrict employers too much. He says there should be exceptions so that, as soon as a strike causes the slightest inconvenience, the employer can use replacement workers. Generally speaking, an employer does not give a hoot about the consequences for employees when locking them out. I want to know from the outset whether my colleague agrees that, when there is a strike, it is somewhat normal for the employer to suffer at least some consequences.

117 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Nov/24/23 12:49:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that under the Chrétien government, there was something called partnership between an employee and employer. An employer's not caring about an employee would go against productivity and having a good result for the business. I hope that such a situation does not ever exist in Canada, but the member is a legislator. She is an MP and I am an MP. Every MP of the House would want to have the most perfect piece of legislation coming through. That is not something we take lightly, especially with a bill that is as important and critical as this one. In my speech, I advocated having enough time to study the bill carefully to make sure it would do the job. That is our intention and that is why we are here.

141 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Nov/24/23 12:50:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am a little curious and would like to get more information from the member. Specifically, while he was speaking, I was reflecting about the fact that the Conservative leader stands frequently and says that he is there for workers. Now, the member is saying that he wants to see deals happening at the bargaining table. At the same time, I am not hearing a clear answer around what his stance is on the bill. We know that workers need to have the capacity to be at the bargaining table when they are forced to do so, to fight for fair and respectful working conditions. Replacement workers take away that capacity for workers to fight for what is right, for them to have a dignified and respectful working environment. Can the member please clarify? Will he and his Conservative colleagues be voting in favour of the bill, or will they do what they have always done and not be there for workers?

164 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Nov/24/23 12:51:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I reject the notion underlying the member's question, which is that we are against workers. That is absolutely unacceptable. Besides that, we are asking for better examination and for the bill to be carefully done. By the way, we have not yet heard from the unions or the workers. We have heard only from the NDP. If it thinks it is the only party to represent unions and workers in this place, then we are in bad shape here. The answer is that we need the bill to be studied properly and carefully. That is what we are asking for.

103 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Nov/24/23 12:51:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-58, a very important piece of legislation. It was a commitment made by both the Liberals and the NDP in the last election, something we have been able to work together on in order to bring forward legislation to the House so we could provide a better environment for workers to be able to negotiate new contracts or re-negotiate existing contracts with employers. That is what the bill seeks to do. We know that when there are individuals who want to go on strike, they are usually doing it for a fairly important reason. They are sometimes doing it because their wages are not reflecting the reality of what they believe they should be paid. They are doing it because they are worried about the conditions in which they are working. They are doing it because they are worried about job security and what their employers are providing for them. We know that when they do make the decision to go on strike, which does and, quite frankly, should happen from time to time in order to properly demonstrate the need and the requirement to change working conditions, it has to be taken very seriously. The employer's having the opportunity to bring in scab labour, replacement workers who are there while negotiating, significantly takes away from the employer's ability to negotiate in good faith. Think about that for a second. What if someone were on the management side of a firm and had to negotiate, and the only thing being held against them was the ability of people to strike? What if, at the same time, they had the opportunity to bring people in to replace the workers while management was in the process of negotiating with the striking employees? Management would not face the same realities that those who are on strike would. When a union decides to go on strike, extreme hardships can be felt by the employees. They are not paid anymore. Sometimes they are given small stipends from their union, but it is nowhere near what they would be making normally. They are taking on hardships in order to stand up for their rights. If an employer has the opportunity to negotiate while having replacement or scab labour in place, they are going to be negotiating from a much more comfortable position in terms of their ability to continue to function. While employees have the hardships imposed upon them through either a strike or a lockout, in the same vein, we have to make sure that the negotiating position is balanced. That is done by ensuring that employers have to feel the same kind of pain, for lack of a better expression. They have to be faced with the same reality that if they do not get to a deal quickly, they cannot continue to function in their business in the manufacturing sector or whatever it might be. As a result, they have to be motivated. We know that the best deals are those that are made at the bargaining table. We know that when we can encourage, through various different pieces of legislation, both sides to sit down and work out a deal, it will produce the best result for everybody. It can be a messy process, and we have seen that time and time again through the history of this country, in terms of organized labour. It can be messy when people are striking. Just yesterday, I was driving through Quebec and saw a number of people protesting in a strike that was ongoing there. This is part of the process. It is about bringing to the attention of the employer that there is a significant need for the employee that is not being addressed by the employer. That is why the best deals are those that are made at the table by bringing the two parties together to be able to do that. That is why the legislation before us would specifically prohibit employers from using the following workers from doing the work of striking or locked out employees: first, new hires, such as employees and managers hired after notice to bargain collectively is given; and, second, contractors, regardless of when they were hired. The bill also seeks to prohibit employers from using the services of employees in a bargaining unit when that bargaining unit is in a full strike or lockout where all employees in the unit are expected to stop working. I think this is really important, because a union's strength is in its unity and membership. Unions operate in a democratic fashion. They elect their leadership, which is there to represent them; it is critically important to ensure that some who might not have voted in favour are still subject to the leadership that they have democratically elected. I can see how it might be tempting otherwise for individuals to do this, but again, at the end of the day, we know that the best deals are those that are made at the table and not by the influences that come from using outside forms of labour in the meantime. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. I will not get into detail, but they relate primarily to health and safety and environmental impacts on the property of the employer. However, this bill also seeks to ensure that, if unions believe that an employer is violating a ban, they may complain to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This is an independent administrative tribunal whose job is to resolve workplace disputes and certain appeals that arise under the Criminal Code, among other acts. The board can investigate, and if it agrees with the complaint, order the employer to stop the violation. It is also really important that a hefty fine comes along with this to further discourage the employer from moving toward this kind of action. It sets out a maximum fine of $100,000 per day if the employer is prosecuted and convicted of violating the prohibition. Members can see that the intent of the bill is really to put as many measures in place to prevent these activities of employing scab or replacement workers for the purposes of, once again, ensuring that people get to the bargaining table and having meaningful discussions there. One other thing I want to address, and perhaps I pre-empt a question from my NDP colleagues, is that NDP members have been steadfast in their support for the bill. However, they have said that they forced the government to do this; I do not quite look at it like that. We did run on this. It is on page 22 of our last election platform, but it may have been slightly different. We may have worked on this in a way with the NDP to make the bill even stronger, which is great. That is what this entire process is about. Our Westminster parliamentary system is based on the idea that, if one party does not form a majority, we work with other political parties to develop strategies and policies that we can bring forward on behalf of the Canadian people, in our case anyhow. That is what we are seeing. Therefore, I think that the NDP should rightfully take credit for some of this, as they have done good work on it. I also think that the government has done extremely good work on it, and the Liberal Party has been committed to it as well. I hear that call from the NDP, but I respectfully disagree that it was forced. Nobody forced anybody to do anything. This was one of the terms of that agreement that we came to in order to work together in a productive manner. To that end, I am very glad that there is another political party in this room made up of adults, when it comes to doing meaningful things for the people we represent. I would say two, one of which is the Bloc. It is not always just about saying no, because the objective is to be an obstructionist at any cost. The objective is genuine in this agreement. I quite often see a genuine objective from the Bloc as well to advance better policy, ideas and legislation for the people we individually represent. However, I am very concerned, once again, about the lack of clarity on this issue from my colleagues on the other side of the House, the Conservatives. They have given a couple of speeches on this. They were asked a direct question just moments ago by my NDP colleague about whether they will support the bill. They skate around it, they do not answer, they give vague statements, they are not concrete on it and they will not even say that they will support the bill to get to committee, which is just an initial step. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: They are heckling me now. Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will not even say that they will support it just to get it to committee where they want to do this work. We heard the member for Edmonton Manning say that just moments ago. They want to have a thorough discussion and thorough examination; a lot of that happens at committee. Will they support getting it to committee? I raise this because it is an important observation. We have seen this happen a couple times now with the Conservatives, especially since September, where they are very non-committal on an issue. When they do get up and speak about it, like the bill we were debating yesterday, they do not even mention the issue at hand. Thankfully, they are at least talking about workers in this context. What do they do next? They vote against it. Where did we see that recently? With the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The Conservatives never committed, in all the speeches that they gave in this House, to what their position was. Then one by one, they stood up and voted against Ukraine and showed exactly who they were. They are not going to get away with that. The Canadian people are going to know how they voted and the Canadian people do know. In the news cycle yesterday, there was a lot of talk about the Leader of the Opposition, his right-wing politics and where he is going, where he is taking this party, by even some of the most Conservative pundits out there who write opinion pieces on the position of the Conservative Party. There is this fake notion of a price on pollution, when it clearly states in the agreement that no particular country's environmental policies can impact another country. They look for these red herrings to be able to do this. We did not let them get away with that. If the Conservatives' plan again this time is to just skate around the issue of workers, stand up and say that they support workers, that they are there with workers until the end and that they will always support workers, but then turn around and vote for it when it is time to vote, we are going to report that back to Canadians. I am sure my colleagues in the NDP are going to help us do that. Canadians deserve to know where the Conservatives stand. When they get up in this House and talk about an issue, they need to be able to say they support it or they do not support it. They cannot any longer get away with the rhetoric we hear from across the way and the approach they have been taking. I am very happy to tell members that I will be supporting this. I want to see this go to committee. I know there have already been a couple issues brought up, I think, in good faith, that can be discussed at committee. The committee can look into the issue to make even better legislation. The idea that we are going to be able to just stand up and talk about how amazing Conservatives have been for workers when the record does not come anywhere near to reflecting that— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I do not know why they would clap for that. Mr. Speaker, their record is not anywhere near reflective of that. The reality is that the vast majority of Canadians know that Conservatives do not support workers. They support big corporations and that has always been their MO. They come from the position of trickle-down economics from the Ronald Reagan era. As long as they make things better for the most wealthy, as long as they make things better for the corporations and as long as they strip more taxes from corporations, they swear it is going to trickle down to the workers. Workers are going to be impacted by that and they will be so much better off as a result. We know that Reagan economics failed. We know that it has only, over the last several decades, contributed to a wider gap between the haves and the have-nots. That is why we need meaningful legislation, like we have before us today, that will force the employer to come to the bargaining table under the same conditions as the employee, which is the condition of fighting for their job, for job security, for fair wages and for benefits from their employer. Just like we expect an employee to do that, we need to expect the employer is going to come with the same restrictions and the same hardships associated to them if they do not negotiate in good faith. I am glad to see this legislation has come forward. I am really happy we are able to work with our colleagues in the NDP to make this a reality. I am going to cut my comments off there because I think that will give more time to one of my NDP colleagues later down the road.

2356 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Nov/24/23 1:07:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first let us clarify the record on the Liberals' record with Ukraine. The Liberals sent a turbine to Russia to help Putin fund his war machine. They invited a Nazi to the House of Commons when the President of Ukraine was here. They voted against our motion to give Ukraine the weapons it was asking for, and we just found out today that the Liberals are allowing Canada to sell land-mine detonators to Russia. With respect to the subject of replacement workers, in 2016, legislation of a similar nature was brought and the Liberals voted against it. Why is there a flip-flop? Is it because the Liberals see that they are plummeting in the polls with the union workers, or is it to try to bolster a shaky relationship with their NDP coalition partners?

138 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/24/23 1:07:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, is it because it was on page 22 of our election platform? The member brought up Ukraine. I am so glad that she did. She took the bait very well. The member wants to talk about Ukraine. The reality is that she is trying to somehow justify Conservative support for Ukraine. I will go back and check her Twitter feed to see if she has said anything about Zelenskyy being here in September because I know her boss did not. He did not once mention his presence here. As a matter of fact, the member for Calgary Nose Hill had to go back to quote a tweet on his visit from 2022 as a way to say, “Thanks for coming to visit us in Parliament.” The reality is that the member is critical of our position on Ukraine. President Zelenskyy asked her to vote for the free trade agreement. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked her to vote for the free trade agreement. Two million Canadians are depending on that member and the Conservatives to stand up for them and for the democratic principles that we promote throughout the world and she failed Ukraine. She turned her back on Ukraine. That is a decision she made earlier this week and something she has to live with.

219 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Nov/24/23 1:09:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is truly very much in favour of the bill. The House will recall that the Bloc Québécois has introduced 11 such bills, with the first attempt dating back to 1990. It was the dean of the House who introduced that first bill. This morning, my colleague from Saint-Jean asked the parliamentary secretary a question. She wanted to know why there will be an 18‑month waiting period before the bill comes into force once it receives royal assent. The parliamentary secretary told her that we could ask that question in committee. However, why this change when usually a bill comes into force as soon as there is royal assent? Since this is a Liberal bill, I wonder if my colleague can give me the reason for this delay.

151 words

Delay

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/24/23 1:10:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of the fact that it was the dean of the House, a sitting member of the Bloc Québécois, who first introduced this legislation decades ago, but I am not surprised. Once again we are seeing how Quebec has shown leadership with respect to issues like this. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation in place for decades now. Quebec continually does this, to its benefit and to its credit. When it comes to environmental legislation, or getting an equitable workplace or getting more women into the workplace, Quebec once again leads the path. Therefore, I am not surprised to hear once again that this is an initiative for which Quebec has been fighting for a long time. We can learn a lot from the lessons that we have seen from Quebec with respect to issues like this. With respect to the member's question about the timing, I am not exactly sure why 18 months was a requirement, but I know if we get this to committee we can have the questions asked there and perhaps, if necessary, amend it.

188 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/24/23 1:11:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking so much about the Liberal platform commitment on anti-scab legislation. What is important to note, but I did not hear the member say, is that the commitment was to legislate against scabs in the case of a lockout. Therefore, it was not actually about protecting the right to strike, which is fundamental to workers' being able to bring home more powerful paycheques; it was about slapping employers on the wrist if they lock workers out. However, we know that if we really want to take anti-scab legislation seriously and we want to defend the right to collective bargaining, workers themselves should be able to go out on strike to fight for better wages and enjoy that protection. Therefore, I am very glad that the NDP was able to bring that and push the government to do that. I also heard the member talk about trickle-down economics. I agree with his analysis. Does that mean he would be willing to raise the corporate tax rate by a percentage point to triple the government's investment in affordable housing initiatives and make them happen now instead of two years from now?

202 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/24/23 1:12:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I said that our proposal may have been slightly different from that of the NDP. The result is better and I will be the first to say that. Yes, we ran on something slightly different, but the NDP said this was a better way to do it and we came to an agreement that is going to be for the betterment of all Canadians. That is the difference between parties that can work together and being confronted with an opposition whose purpose is to be completely obstructionary in its approach. To his question about raising taxes, the member has raised this before. What I am very concerned about, which I can certainly see eye to eye on with the NDP because I know the NDP has raised it, is corporations, the grocery giants in particular. We need to be doing more to control the greedflation that exists. I do not disagree, personally, that it exists. Is it as easy as raising taxes by x amount on every single corporation in the country? I think he would be the first to admit that a lot of small businesses are corporations in this country as well, so maybe that is not the right way to do it.

210 words