44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments and that we are having this debate this morning. What comes to mind after listening to him is that the member talked about the public interest, from those of members of the public themselves, to those of small businesses and to different levels of government. On numerous occasions he made reference to a plan. Something that I think is lost on a lot of community leaders is that we do need to have a more holistic plan, particularly with urban parks, going forward.
Could the member give his thoughts to the importance of having those strategic, long-term plans? We should not just be talking about the situation today. We should be talking about future generations having access to our environment and our parks.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the member's bill. I appreciate the fact that he has brought forward this legislation, even though there is some concern with respect to it.
I do believe in the necessity of having these types of debates. It is not the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in regard to national and, in particular, urban parks and the many different benefits of them. We often underestimate the benefits of having that strategic plan that deals with national parks.
The member spent a great deal of his time, obviously, because of the area he represents, focusing on Windsor. The principles of an urban national park and the value of these parks could be universally applied throughout Canada, from coast to coast to coast. If we take a look at some of the natural beauty we have, we want to ensure that we do what we can to preserve it for future generations. We all have that responsibility.
It is also important that we take a look at the mechanisms and how we deliver these types of parks. I would like to give a specific example. Many years ago we had a railway at the junction of the Red River and the Assiniboine River in downtown Winnipeg. What we saw was the public talking about the redevelopment of the area and how we could bring it back to nature and allow the citizens of Winnipeg to be more engaged in it.
It is, by far, not a huge national park, but what it did was that it brought in different stakeholders, from community activists and individuals who live in the downtown to different levels of government. Through a great deal of consultations and environmental sensitivity, because at that time we did not have the same sorts of studies, and looking at what people had to say and bringing together private agencies and different levels of government, we now have the beautiful Forks development.
During the seventies and early eighties, there were very few people who ever went down to The Forks. People would go to Saint Boniface, on the other side of the river, because there was really nothing at The Forks but the rail yards and a lot of dangerous things, chemicals and so forth, that were having a negative impact there. I often wondered what kind of seepage was going into the Red River and the Assiniboine River. Through co-operation, today people can go down to The Forks. The last time I heard a number, it was almost two million visits a year. This is in downtown Winnipeg.
This is far from the type of park that the member made reference to in his introduction to the bill. However, whether it is an urban national park or a rural national park, Canadians value our wilderness and what we have, our natural assets. Where we can advance them and move forward, we should.
Riding Mountain National Park is a park in Manitoba that is exceptionally well developed. There is a very strong nature component to it. Thousands of people visit that park as a result of its designation. Through that designation, we have seen things able to continue on in their natural form. That is something I see as a very strong positive.
Let us look at the urban centres. Because not everyone is travelling out into our rural communities, we should look at whether there are urban centres where the national government can play a role in their development. Personally, I look at the City of Saskatoon and what it has done with its Saskatchewan River. In many ways, that is something that Winnipeg, as a community, would love to see. If we could develop a national urban park that is based, at least in good part, on our rivers, I would see that as a very strong thing. I know that what I am talking about would be widely supported by the different levels of government and, in particular, the citizens of Winnipeg. If we put the necessary investments into that in the future, they would be there for future generations and we would ultimately get more people to go down and visit our rivers while protecting that environment.
We can look at what the Government of Canada has done through this incredibly agency, Parks Canada. The manner in which it goes about designating national parks and the lead-up that is involved is not something that happens overnight. There is a fairly extensive process in the development of national parks. I would encourage those who are following the debate this morning to tap into the Parks Canada website to get a sense of the types of things they do and the parks that we have today.
We do not necessarily have to reinvent the wheel. For example, when we talk about the Windsor park, we can look at the Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto and how effective it has been at preserving nature and allowing urbanites to experience that sense of wilderness. We can talk about how it is that a city like Toronto is able to continue to grow while preserving that beautiful park. It is fairly extensive. I would like to think that same principle could be applied to many different urban centres, big and small, throughout Canada.
We have in place an agency in Parks Canada that is respected around the world with respect to the efforts and work it has done. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out earlier, the Government of Canada has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the area of park development to ensure that future generations will be able to have input and receive the benefits of investing in national parks.
When I think of why we need to do this, the most obvious reason for me is that it is the right thing for our environment. Our environment is something I am constantly reminded of, in particular by my daughter, as well as many others, such as constituents, who want the government to do what it can to protect it. Obviously, our national parks have to be high on the agenda.
Another issue with respect to our national parks is what is in those parks today. Whether insects, animals or mammals, particularly where there is the threat of extinction, they need to be taken into consideration, as well as how we can preserve them into the future.
Personally, my third priority is allowing people, whether from urban or rural areas, to be able to experience nature at its best. Canada has so much nature, not only to share with the citizens of Canada but to share with others around the world.
1126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 12:12:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, virtually from the very beginning, the government has been very much focused on the issue of equity. We saw this when, for example, we put in the special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1% and reallocated that revenue toward Canada's middle class, to which we gave a tax break.
As to the resolution today, one of the parts I want to highlight is what the member talked about regarding inflation. I am wondering if the leader of the New Democratic Party could provide his thoughts on this: When we talk about inflation, one of the things we have to take into consideration is what is happening around the world. Canada is doing reasonably well on that particular front.
Could the member provide his thoughts with regard to the notion that inflation is not just in Canada and that it goes beyond our borders?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 12:27:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to address the issue of wealth inequity, something NDP members often talk about, I made reference to the issue of the 1% wealthiest being taxed as one of the first initiatives this government took. I have also in the past made reference to substantial increases to the GIS and government investments.
Recently we made announcements across Canada of a national child care program for billions of dollars. That is, I would ultimately argue, a redistribution that is taking place. Therefore, there are different ways that we can tackle this problem.
One of the other ways, and I would ask for the member's comments in regard to this issue, is that there are a lot of people who avoid paying taxes. Over the last five years, we have invested close to $1 billion in going after those people because there is a lot of wealth that is being avoided in taxes. Could the member provide his thoughts in terms of providing Revenue Canada with the proper tools to ensure that we are collecting fair taxes?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 12:56:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just to follow up on my colleague's question, I think it is something Conservatives traditionally have always said, which is to give big business and the ultrarich the tax breaks and they will create the jobs. They believe in the trickle-down theories. I am wondering if my colleague could provide any sort of report or evidence that clearly shows that this is, in fact, the case, because that is not my understanding.
Conservatives continue to espouse that and I do not think it is a fair contribution to the debate, unless they can substantiate their comments.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 1:22:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague and friend across the way, and I think there is some discontent within the coalition of the Bloc and the Conservative Party.
At the end of the day, we hear a lot about banks, as we should. We want to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. However, one of the things that is important to recognize when we talk about banks is it is not one person who owns, for example, the Bank of Montreal. It is not the super wealthy who own our banks. It is often union members, pension funds and so forth, and they too are dependent on these dividends.
I would just ask the member to follow up his comments with the best way to tax so it is most effective and not hurting the consumer. Could he provide further thoughts on that?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 1:35:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's last point.
Back in 2015 when we had the federal election, we had made it very clear that the priority of the government was going to be Canada's middle class and those working hard to become a part of it. One of our first initiatives was to put a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, and then to take that money and give the middle class a tax break. I say that because when I look at the resolution, I think Canadians and all of us expect that we have an obligation to pay taxes. The issue is a sense of fairness, and that is what governments, whether at the national or provincial level, need to strive for.
Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to why it is so important that governments at different levels recognize tax fairness?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 3:28:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 24 petitions. These responses will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 3:32:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That the address by the President of Ukraine, delivered in the Chamber of the House of Commons on Tuesday, March 15, 2022, before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of Monday, March 21, 2022, and form part of the records of the House.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 3:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 267, 277, 278, 280, 283, 286 to 289, 295, 299 and 301 to 303.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 3:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions No. 265 and 266, 268 to 276, 279, 281 and 282, 284 and 285, 290 to 294, 296 to 298 and 300 and 304 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 3:42:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 3:50:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government have been up on this particular file from day one when we introduced a tax, a special tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest, shortly after taking the government back in 2015 to just a couple of months ago.
I would ask the member to reflect on what we voted on just a couple of months ago, which was to have an annual percentage tax on individuals who purchased properties in Canada yet are not using them as their residences. Could she provide her thoughts? She talked about the importance of housing and taxation.
What the government needs to do is to look at the ways in which we can ensure that people are paying their fair share of tax. In this situation it is a real tax. It is going to be a real income coming in, making homes hopefully even that much more affordable going forward.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 4:35:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would not want to see false impressions being given when we have seen over the last number of years a progressive government that has focused special taxes on some of the wealthiest in Canada, right from the first budget up to legislation that we just passed.
Recognizing that the member made reference to the cost of housing, we now have an annual tax for individuals who are purchasing condos and so forth, in places such as Vancouver and our other big cities, and using them purely as an investment as opposed to a residence. That is a special annual tax that will be applied to very wealthy people. There are different ways we can approach this.
I would suggest to the member that what she said has been noted, and I appreciate the comments, but I would ask her if she could provide her thoughts on this: When you make reference to banks, we need to be fair. Many of the shareholders of the banks are pension funds and so forth, so it is not only individuals per se.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 5:58:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some want to talk about contrast, so they will probably get a bit of contrast now. Listening to the member from Thompson can get fairly depressing for those who are following the debate. I suggest there is a great deal of variation from the truth in what we have been listening to.
At the end of the day, I would like to share with members a better sense of the reality that has been taking place over the last six years. They should not have fear: It is nowhere near as bad as the member from Thompson has tried to portray. I understand why the member from Thompson said those things. It is because in some ways, the NDP has that attitude. It is an attitude of superiority about all social issues. If someone does not believe them, just ask one of them and they will reaffirm it.
I will cite one very short example. The member made reference to infrastructure. She criticized the Government of Canada, saying that in the last six years, we have not done anything on infrastructure, and she cited an example. I would challenge any member to show me a government that has invested more in infrastructure in Canada in the the last 50 years than this government has done in the last five years. We have invested historic amounts of money in our infrastructure, and that is in every region of our country. That is what I mean in terms of a bit of variation.
The member also made reference to the infrastructure bank, saying it has not completed anything. Well, the infrastructure bank is relatively new and has to review and approve projects first, let alone get some of them completed. To try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada, over the last number of years, has not done anything on infrastructure is just wrong.
Let me continue with the motion we have before us. The motion tries to give a false impression that we in the Liberal Party, in particular the Government of Canada, do not understand the issue of income inequality and have not made any policy decisions to address that issue.
It was interesting. My colleague and friend from Kingston posed a question to the member for Winnipeg Centre. I thought it was a good question. The member was criticizing the Government of Canada because we are apparently in the pockets of big corporations. I must say, to both the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member from Thompson, that this is not the case. I will tell members that when I sat inside the Manitoba legislature, it was not once, not twice, but I believe five or six times that the New Democratic government in Manitoba reduced corporate taxes. That was the provincial NDP, and there is a difference. The NDP at the provincial level has been in government, and every one of those governments often reflected the opposite of what the NDP will preach in the House of Commons.
Corporations do play a very important role in our society, but some try to give a false impression that we are in the pockets of corporations. I can tell colleagues that former NDP premiers Gary Doer and Greg Selinger, based on what I have heard, were more in the pockets of corporations than this government is. In fact, taking a look at our election laws, there are limitations on what a corporation can give, which is nothing. It is individuals who can give.
Members take shots at the big banks. I am no friend of the big banks; I would like to see banks pay more too. However, they try to give an impression that with big banks, we mean a handful of elite, wealthy people, which is not the case.
If we look at it, we will find that these big banks and the people they are paying dividends to often are unions. They are people who have invested in banks because there is a relatively high rate of return. I believe it is an exceptionally high rate of return during the pandemic, and this is something the government is looking into. The good news is that the budget is not too far away. The 2022-23 budget is just on the horizon, and I know members are very keenly waiting to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who has done a phenomenal job in bringing us through this pandemic on a number of fronts.
We will have the opportunity in the House to present to Canadians a budget that we can all be proud of, a budget that will reflect a lot of the discussions that have taken place, whether it was with constituents and members of Parliament, who were used as a vehicle to communicate priority issues, or the many stakeholders. This government, particularly the Prime Minister, has made it very clear to all members, at least within the Liberal caucus, that we want individual members of Parliament to bring constituents' interests and thoughts to Ottawa, not vice versa. As a result, when the 2022-23 budget is unveiled, we will see a budget for all Canadians in all regions of our country that will have an impact and that will see a better equalization of income, something we have seen from day one.
Need I remind members that one of the first pieces of legislation we brought forward was reducing the tax rate for Canada's middle class? A good portion of that reduction, the money to facilitate that reduction, was a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. If that is not directly what New Democrats are hoping to accomplish with this motion, I do not know what is.
I would remind members in the chamber that the Conservatives voted against the tax cuts for the middle class and, surprisingly, New Democrats voted against the additional tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. We are the only party from day one, since we have been in government, that has consistently come up with financial initiatives, legislative initiatives and policy decisions to ensure that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it have advanced their interests.
We have gone beyond that. When we talk about putting money in the pockets of people in need, one only needs to look at some of the other initiatives we have taken, such as the Canada child benefit program, a program that, shortly after becoming government in 2015, we retooled and changed. Millionaires no longer qualified.
Instead, we put more money toward those who had a higher need. Not only did we reorganize it in that sense, we also put in hundreds of millions of additional dollars to ensure this program would be there for families in all regions of Canada. That made a difference in a very real and tangible way. All one needs to do is look at children in poverty.
I have cited this in the past. Well over $9 million a month comes to Winnipeg North as a direct result. I can say, to the best of my knowledge, that there are no billionaires in Winnipeg North. Over $9 million a month, and probably over $10 million but I do not know that for a fact, is coming from Ottawa to support children because of a policy change that was made a number of years ago under this administration. Hundreds of children in Winnipeg North have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result.
I can talk about the substantial guaranteed annual income increase that was given shortly after the 2015 election. Once again, in Winnipeg North, as in every riding in this country, hundreds of seniors were lifted out of poverty as a direct result of a government policy. The Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, ministers and the caucus understood the importance of supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way, which lifted seniors out of poverty by the thousands.
Those are the types of policies that matter and have been making a difference.
If we look at some more recent things, we passed legislation to deal with the issue of housing. Here is a tax change that not only brings in more revenue for the Government of Canada but also has a positive spinoff on housing prices. We all know that there is a huge demand from abroad to invest in Canada. One of those investments we have seen over the years is in housing, such as condominiums. Whether it is in downtown Toronto, downtown Vancouver or municipalities throughout Canada, individuals are purchasing these properties. Many of them remain empty. I am quite surprised by the thousands of units, worth millions of dollars, that sit completely empty.
Just a couple of months ago, we brought in legislation, which I believe the Conservatives voted against, that would ensure that the owners of those vacant properties being used in that sense would have to pay an annual tax. Members have talked about the increases to housing prices. A direct result of that policy change would have a positive impact in two ways. It would generate additional revenue, which is a good thing, because our current Minister of Housing likes to spend money, and we are all glad about that. He can use those millions of dollars that would be generated, because we understand how important the non-profit housing sector is. There are many among my caucus colleagues who talk about initiatives such as housing co-ops, investing in non-profit housing banks and other opportunities in housing. In fact, the minister is out extensively consulting on how the national government can continue to invest in housing.
We understood the importance of housing, not just during the pandemic, but even prepandemic. That is why we brought in the first-ever national housing strategy. It was not just a piece of paper. It was supported by billions of dollars over a period of time. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing tens of thousands of units in every region of this country. I have witnessed first-hand the Minister of Housing come to Winnipeg, both physically and virtually for a number of different announcements. Yes, there is a need for us to do more on that front. We do not need to be told that. We understand that. That is the reason why we continue to look at ways in which we can enhance housing. We want it to be affordable, but let us recognize that it cannot just be Ottawa.
When we talk about inflation or some of the issues that are of great concern to Canadians, we need to incorporate the idea that we need to work with provinces and municipalities. Many of my colleagues were mayors and councillors, and they understand the process of going through a municipality to get a house developed, built or even renovated. Municipalities have to play a role, and so do provinces, as provinces are often administering the non-profit housing units. Governments need to work together. For the first time in a long time, we have a national government that is spending historic amounts of money on housing. We have a federal government that wants to play a role, and we will play a role, and we will look for partners in order to make that happen.
With regard to resolving the issue of tax fairness, we have now put through a budget that increases the basic personal exemption by thousands of dollars. What does that actually mean in a real sense? In a real sense, it means that individuals will not have to pay taxes on a larger percentage of their income. I could be a little out on this, but I think that by the end of 2023, it is going to be something in the neighbourhood of $15,000 that one would not have to pay federal tax on. Provinces will do what they do, but hopefully many of them will see what we are doing and follow suit. This would help greatly, and for those who are working so hard at the lower end, it enhances their opportunity to keep money in their pockets.
When we see the actions that are taking place, whether five or six years ago when we brought in the tax break for the middle class and put in the extra tax for the wealthiest, or today with the annual tax for those people who are investing in homes in Canada, I like to think that we understand the imbalance that is there, and we are taking action to rectify it as much as we can. If we take a holistic approach to what this government has done over the last six or seven years, I would argue that we have seen a government that has done more to address income inequality than any other government in the last number of generations.
We have seen this in the policy decisions that have been made, not only directly through taxation but also in the child care benefit. I believe Ontario is the only province that has not signed on, but hopefully it will. Who benefits the most under that program? Ultimately Canada as a nation does, but individuals are also going to be better empowered to go into the workforce and do the other things that are necessary, whether it is in the workforce or in volunteer work. Canadians are fantastic volunteers. One only needs to take a look at the pandemic.
However, we are creating opportunities that were not there. We have seen how well the child care program worked in the province of Quebec, and it is nice that we live in a federal system with other provinces so that we could duplicate that idea it and turn it into a national program. In this way, people will be in a better position to be able to go to work, and we know that because we have seen the impact it has had in the province of Quebec.
However, the importance of taxation has not been lost on us. What my constituents want is the same as what all our constituents want. They understand the need for taxes, but they want their taxes to be fair and they want their tax dollars to be spent wisely. These are the things that we as a government, through accountability and transparency, strive for every day.
In fact, we have invested close to a billion dollars in additional financial resources for Canada revenue to look at ways in which some of these wealthier people in particular are getting away with not paying their fair share of taxes. We have given hundreds of millions of dollars to CRA to ensure that there is a sense of fair taxation across the country.
I am very optimistic, given what we have seen from Canadians over the last couple of years, that our future is positive and that we have reason to be optimistic. I look forward to the 2022-23 budget, because I know it will be a true reflection of what Canadians want, and it will be something we can all be proud of.
2550 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 6:19:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the different election platforms over the last three elections, we will find that a vast majority of the promises and commitments that were made have actually been kept, with a good percentage of them still in progress. We cannot simply click our heels and implement everything that was said through three different platforms. Some of it is in progress. Most of it, or a good portion of it, has actually been fulfilled.
There are some, which are very rare, that we were not able to move forward on, and I would be more than happy to sit down with the hon. member, or any other member, on why we could not move forward on the issue of electoral reform. It is somewhat unfortunate, but there was a reality at the time that prevented us from doing so.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 6:22:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I am not a New Democrat, but I can tell members, and anyone else who is listening, that I am very much in contact with people. I believe in the importance of being grassroots-oriented, in terms of talking with people. In fact, for 30 years now, with the pandemic being an exception, every Saturday, for example, I would be at the local McDonald's, where we would deal with dozens of people and constituents on a wide variety of topics, much of it dealing with poverty. I am in constant contact, now in virtual meetings or Zoom meetings.
I do not necessarily need to be lectured about the importance of talking with real people. I have been doing that for over 30 years, and I take a great sense of pride in ensuring that many of the policies that we have been bringing in are a reflection of Liberal members of Parliament, in good part, communicating with constituents and bringing them to the table so that we can help people in all strata of our society.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 6:24:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is something the Government of Canada has been doing for the last number of years. Just prior to the pandemic, the Prime Minister was actually in Winnipeg at the Winnipeg transit garage where we had announced supports for public transit. Over the last number of years, we have seen a national government take an interest in busing and in public transport. Earlier today in question period, the minister was asked about CP Rail. At the end of the day, we are talking about huge investments to assist in facilitating transportation. Whether it is inner cities or rural communities, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars and I suspect we will continue to see these types of investments. For me, it was really nice to see money being allocated to things such as building bus shacks, which helps a lot of inner cities and so forth.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 6:27:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems in questions and answers is that the Speaker is not going to let me give a full, detailed answer. Suffice it to say that what members need to recognize is that, when we brought in these measures of the special tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest and the tax break for the middle class, it actually came along, at the end of the day, with the reform of the Canada child benefit program, and that enhanced disposable income for many individuals. I am sure my friend would have liked to see that and he would have no doubt supported it had he been here.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
