44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 12:42:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very sad to hear the member say that. The truth is that the real impact on the economy is terrible, minus $30.5 billion until 2030. There will be a direct impact on family households of $1,800. If everything were perfect with the Liberal carbon tax, we may have seen the real impact of it. However, based on the evaluation made, not by the Conservative Party, the Fraser Institute or L’institut économique de Montréal but by the United Nations, especially scientists around the world, after nine years of the government, Canada is 62 out of 67. I am sorry folks, but it does not work.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 1:32:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate around the subject. In fact, the environment committee right now is talking about sustainable finance, the transition and categorizing investments as transition or green.
As I said earlier, we are an economy in transition. Oil and gas has been a major part of our economy. Anything oil and gas companies can do now to reduce emissions helps us reach our goals. Ultimately we want zero emissions. We want a cap on emissions and to get to net zero in every sector of our economy. That is what we are working toward, but there is a transition period and CCUS is part of that transition.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 2:31:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in the House, it is great to see that the Conservative Party of Canada now actually believes that economists are thoughtful and give good advice. Three hundred of them signed a letter that told people eight out of 10 Canadian families do get more money back.
I would encourage my hon. colleague to read that letter. Certainly, I would say that, as we move forward, we must have a plan to address climate change, and we must do so in a manner that is affordable. That is exactly what carbon pricing does. That is something we will continue to do, balancing the environment and the economy, versus a party that actually has no plan for the environment whatsoever.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:02:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member has had a chance to read the report that the Liberals just released this morning. Does he believe that a $30.5-billion hit to our economy is going to affect Canadians' everyday lives?
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:08:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the one thing I can say is that Newfoundland and Labrador is poised to be a major wind energy production province, along with Nova Scotia and others.
We see immense possibilities and a bright future for Newfoundland and Labrador, with other clean energies that we are going to build and implement as we do green hydrogen projects and so on. It is a great example of how we can invest in technology that will benefit not only the economy but also the climate.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:50:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his many very relevant answers to questions.
I would like to ask him the following question.
The claim is that this will cost the Canadian economy $25 million, but that does not take into account the annual benefits of investments made in the fight against climate change. That figure is $25 billion a year now. It also does not take into account the costs associated with climate change that will be avoided between now and 2030. That figure is $23 billion a year.
Would that not add up to two, almost three times as much as the Conservatives claim?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:15:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I take umbrage at my colleagues' characterization of what I said about calculating emissions from the price on carbon. The Conservatives clipped what I said in committee and put it on Twitter, and I got some attention in my riding for that, which I appreciate because people pay attention when something is on Twitter. However, what I was saying is that the reductions in emissions from the price on carbon are calculated as part of a modelling exercise, which is analogous to the unemployment rate. When we come out with an unemployment rate every month, it is not as though we have asked all 40 million Canadians, “Did you get a job this month or did you not get a job?” The number is arrived at through modelling, sampling and statistical methods. I would ask the member to be clear about that.
However, my question is the following: The other side says that the price on carbon is damaging the economy, but today there was a headline in The Globe and Mail saying, “Household wealth jumps to record” high. It rose by nearly $550 billion during the first quarter of 2024. I know the opposite side likes correlations, but—
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:20:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talks about the costs to the Canadian economy, but surely he knows that research has shown that there could be up to a $38-trillion cost to the global economy from climate change. The cost of climate change is wildly larger, and the impact on farmers, families and individuals in our country is going to be very severe.
What is the Conservative plan on dealing with the extraordinary cost of climate change? What will it cost our economy, our farmers and our families?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 8:04:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to split my time with the wonderful member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Tonight we debate a supply bill, and for those Canadians who may be watching, this is an important parliamentary vehicle that authorizes the spending of money to pay for government programs and services. It has been said that it is the primary duty of parliamentarians to scrutinize and authorize executive spending, and that is what we are doing here tonight.
I would like to start with a few general observations about the economy and government. In the New Democrats' view, the economy is not a sterile entity. It is not a vague concept removed from human contact. It is instead a vital expression of our social activity. In other words, it is not something that we are to serve. The economy is something that, in New Democrats' view, should serve people and the citizens who make up our great country, and a budget is an expression to us of priorities.
As President Joe Biden famously said before he was president, “Don't tell me [your values]. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you [your values].” I think those are wise words. There are very different values expressed in this Parliament.
For the NDP, government is a positive force in society that is in place to serve Canadians. Among other things, one of the most important jobs of government is to deliver programs, services and resources that people need but are unable to provide on their own and that the marketplace is unable to deliver. To others, notably Conservatives in the House, government is something to be distrusted. It is something to be feared. It is something to be reduced to the greatest extent possible.
To the NDP, the economy is something to be incentivized, to be nurtured and to be developed to serve people. That is the end of having a healthy economy. To others in the House, and I am thinking primarily of my Conservative colleagues, people's interests are often subservient to the economy, especially to corporations whose interests are generally to prevail over individuals, with the faith that, if we let corporations have their way, somehow or other, ordinary citizens will magically benefit.
To the NDP, the budget is to spend the people's money in the best way possible to benefit Canadians and their families. To others, again, particularly Conservatives, spending is bad, and they believe that, essentially, people should be left to sink or swim on their own. The supply bill invokes several of these underlying concepts.
The supply bill is part of broader appropriation acts this year that so far will propose to spend some $191 billion this year. Major expenditures of that $191 billion would include the following: $80 billion would be spent on Canada's seniors in elderly benefits; about $52 billion would take the form of health transfers to provinces so that Canadians can go to hospitals and their doctors to get the health care they need when they need it; and about $8 billion would be spent on indigenous reconciliation, services and justice. As my honourable colleague from Nunavut points out so powerfully in the House all the time, that is a fraction of the money that is needed to deal with the huge indigenous infrastructure deficit in this country.
The supply bill that we are debating tonight would authorize approximately $128 billion of spending. What are some of the priorities that Canadians will get for that money? We can start with dental care. We made the dental care plan a condition of support of the Liberal government, and make no mistake, this is not a shared priority between the NDP and Liberals. The Liberals voted against dental care every chance they got until the NDP forced the Liberals to bring it in as a condition of our support for the government.
So far, over two million Canadian seniors have enrolled in that dental care plan. Over 100,000 seniors have already gone to the dentist. I was in a denturist office just yesterday when I was told moving stories of seniors who had not been to the dentist in many years. They had had terrible pain and suffering in their mouths, and they were getting, for the first time, their dentures they needed to help them have proper nutrition and to take care of their health.
On June 28, in a matter of two weeks, every child under the age of 18 in this country, in families that make under $90,000 a year and do not have the benefit of a private employer dental care plan, just as every person in the House has, will be able to sign up for this plan, including people living with disabilities. That will add millions more Canadians to the Canadian dental care plan.
Ultimately, we are seeing the beginning of the first, most expansive expansion of public health in this country in half a century. This will see nine million Canadians able to get the primary oral health care they need and deserve, which they have not had for six years. I would tell my Bloc colleagues that provinces, including Quebec, have not proven competent in providing this service to Canadians, even though there are certain programs in provinces. Obviously, millions of Canadians are not covered for this, and the NDP has made sure those people will have the same access as members do.
This bill would provide $1.5 billion for pharmacare. As I pointed out, this is a historic first in this country. For the first time ever, through a single-payer system, Canadians will be able to walk into pharmacies and walk out with the diabetes medication and devices and contraception devices and medication they need without paying for them directly, just like all of our other necessary and essential health care costs.
In terms of diabetes medications, pretty much every single medication necessary for a type 1 diabetic and almost everything for a type 2 diabetic would be covered by this plan, as well as continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, test strips and syringes and needles. For contraceptives, it is not only contraceptive medications by prescription, but also devices, including IUDs. That is an extraordinary measure that would help liberate women, providing them with free agency and control over their health.
There is $1 billion over five years that will be established for a school nutrition program. Canada is the only G7 country that does not have some form of universal access to school nutrition, and this, by the way, is not anywhere near enough. This plan would only cover a fraction of the children that go to school from grades 1 to 8 in this country, but it is a start. This is something the New Democrats also demanded.
I want to turn to housing. The housing crisis is robbing young people in this country of their hope for the future, and we are saddling our children with challenges that the generations before them did not face. Owning a home seems increasingly unattainable. Building a life and a family of their own appears increasingly unaffordable. To New Democrats, our children deserve a world of promise and possibility. The Prime Minister claimed before that housing is not his responsibility, but has failed to acknowledge the fact that it was the Liberals who walked away from this federal responsibility in the first place, and it was Conservatives who removed social spending from the CMHC out of housing a generation ago.
Today, Canada's stock of non-market housing is among the lowest across the OECD peers, at just 3.5% of total dwellings. As a consequence of successful Conservative and Liberal neglect, Canada now finds itself decades behind. Because the Conservatives and Liberals have abandoned the federal government's position in housing, encampments are expanding across the country at record levels. The financialization of housing has left one-third of all seniors' housing in Canada in the hands of institutional investors, as well as 30% of purpose-built rental buildings.
Young people are being shut out of the housing market, renters are losing hope of ever owning a home, and rent and mortgage payments are devouring an unbelievably high share of people's incomes. We need to build some nine million homes over the next 10 years. International evidence demonstrates that it is only with direct financing of non-market housing, such as co-operative, non-profit and public housing, that we will meet this challenge. This budget goes some distance in addressing that need. By the way, public spending on housing is anti-inflationary. It expands supply and puts downward pressure on prices across the housing market.
I will conclude by saying that New Democrats are supporting this budget and supply bill because we believe the federal government needs to invest in Canadians and provide the conditions so that all Canadians can thrive and prosper in this economy. That is core to New Democrat values, and we are proud of those values.
1517 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:19:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the OECD has reported that Canada will have the lowest private sector investment in our economy this decade and then, as a result, in subsequent decades. It is because of taxes. It is because of spending and regulation that is chasing away that investment, and while the member points to one example where there was heavy government subsidies, that does not preclude the macroeconomic picture that I spoke about.
I had the opportunity to knock on doors in the hon. member's riding fairly recently, and he may want to try that sometime soon and hear from his constituents. Without a doubt, the cost of living, the carbon tax and their mortgage increases are what I heard about over and over again at the doors in Niagara Centre.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit the member's riding, and there are many great places there. On the subject of health care, over the years of the Harper government, we saw increases to health care spending during that tenure, and health care is important. I know this very personally and directly.
My father had heart surgery five or six weeks ago. There were some complications, and he spent a number of weeks in hospital recovering. My mom was a nurse in the hospital system in Hamilton for 50 years, so we absolutely support health care. What is important for health care is a strong economy that generates the revenue so that we can actually afford to invest in health care.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:22:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the importance of growing the economy. When the Progressive Conservative Party was in office, Brian Mulroney increased the capital gains inclusion rate to 75%. That was in 1990.
In 2024, the Conservative Party is saying that that is not a good idea. At the time, Mr. Mulroney justified that decision by saying that the goal was to stimulate the economy, so I would like my colleague to explain why it was a good idea to increase the capital gains inclusion rate to 75% in 1990, but today he is opposed to increasing it from 50% to 66%.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
