SoVote

Mar/31/22 11:12:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today's motion is so incoherent that I do not know where to start. I will begin, however, by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I must admit that I had to check my calendar when I read the motion. The motion contained so many contradictions that I was sure it was April 1. Let us start with point 1, concerning excessive government spending during the pandemic. Here is what I remember about the past two years. When the pandemic started and we needed to help our businesses, implement rent assistance policies for our SMEs, and create the CERB, there were discussions among the parties. Everyone around the table thought it was a good idea to take action. Everyone saw that there was a crisis and that it was urgent. It seems that the Conservatives forget things as often as they change leaders. Now, all of a sudden, they are talking about excessive spending. All of a sudden, there is absolutely no call for it. The motion mentions inflation and the carbon tax. Last week, I went to gas up in Mirabel, in my riding. I paid about $2 a litre, even though Canada is a net exporter and almost all of the oil refined in Quebec is from North America. Moreover, the “Alberta rebate” was not even displayed. Alberta benefits from increases in the price of a barrel of oil. I invite my colleagues to look at Alberta's budget, which went from a deficit to a surplus. Let us see who is benefitting. The motion contains nothing about supply chains, either. It only mentions excessive spending. It also talks about premium hikes and tax increases. The Conservative amnesia is now affecting memories from 24 hours ago. I was in the House at 6 p.m. yesterday when the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière proposed extending EI benefits to 52 weeks for people with a serious illness, which the Bloc Québécois supports. The Conservatives are saying they will do that, but at the same time, they are saying that we should not increase payroll taxes or employee and employer premiums. That is okay, they can be right wing. However, it bothers me as an economist when the numbers do not add up. This is absolutely incoherent. The Conservatives say one thing in English and another in French. In question period yesterday, they said in English that the carbon tax should be axed. In French, they talked about scaling back the carbon tax increase in western Canadian provinces. That is crazy. It is almost enough to make me want to be a translator. They are totally inconsistent. When I got to the motion's third point, I thought things might be looking up. The Conservatives were talking about giving Canadians breathing room, and I was glad about that because for once they were not talking about CO₂. However, there was nothing in there about the energy transition, nothing about reducing our dependence on oil even as they complain about rising prices. I personally like consistency, but the Conservatives are just as likely to say black as they are to say white. Actually, I would like to make an announcement. Liberals, New Democratic Liberals and Conservatives are all about Paul Martin and his fiscal responsibility. They talked about Paul Martin during question period yesterday and again today in my colleague's speech. Do members know what Paul Martin did? He merged the Canada health transfer with the Canada social transfer and then made cuts. He forced the provinces to deal with their deficits on their own. Do members know what that cost Quebec? It cost us ambulatory care and home care, and we are still suffering as a result. That is what Paul Martin did. It is all well and good for the Conservatives to say that they respect provincial jurisdictions, but they do not respect the underlying principle. To them, respecting provincial jurisdictions means that the money stays in Ottawa while the provinces shoulder all the responsibilities; it means starving the beast. The provinces can have their jurisdictions and starve, because they are not going to be given any transfers. I congratulate the Conservatives. I congratulate them for liking Paul Martin. Personally, I find this disturbing. We are familiar with Paul Martin's approach. We are familiar with the approach to fiscal responsibility. It is the typical federal approach. We know that the important responsibilities fall to the provinces and that when citizens like me need services, they never turn to the federal government, unless they need a passport. They seek help from the health care system, the education system or the child care system. All of those areas fall under provincial jurisdiction. Like the Liberals, the Conservatives tell themselves that, in order to be popular and win elections, they need to get involved in a certain issue because it is important, even though they have no jurisdiction in that area. Once in power, the Liberals got involved in mental health. They appointed a Minister of Mental Health. They have never run a hospital, but they appointed a minister. In Quebec, we are in favour of the child care system; we have had one for more than 20 years. However, if the Bloc had not been there and there had not been an election, the federal government would have imposed its conditions on us and told us what to do in an area in which we have more than 20 years of expertise. That would be like taking driving lessons from someone who does not have a driver's licence. What could go wrong? We are in favour of dental insurance, of course, but it is not in their jurisdiction. As far as the property tax is concerned, the Liberals say it will generate $700 million. In reality, it will generate just $600 million, but that amount does not include the cost of implementing the new tax. Universal medicare is an intrusion by the NDP into provincial jurisdictions. It does not bother the NDP one bit to meddle in our territory. There are all kinds of offices and commissioners for this and that, but in the end, there are always conditions that are imposed. The Liberals are so unfamiliar with provincial affairs that they need to create offices to fine out how to impose conditions. Let us talk about microtransfers and programs for small conditional transfers. Quebec has come to realize that being accountable to a federal government that knows nothing about the issue is so costly that it is almost better to turn down the money. The federal government is interfering more and more in provincial jurisdictions. Now our Conservative friends are talking about fiscal responsibility and the need to reduce taxes because there are too many. I cannot wait to see a Conservative finance minister. The Conservatives can balance a budget without decreasing spending or increasing revenues. I do not know if any of them have ever taken any accounting courses, but I would be curious to see their résumés. Let me get back to the cuts. What are they doing? They are taking the path of least resistance and cutting transfers, like Mr. Harper did. The Liberal government is more subtle. It is not indexing the transfers; it is letting the population age and the system costs increase by 4%, 5%, 6% or 7%, with no indexation. They are letting the water get up to our chins, and they think we will not notice. That is exactly what they are doing. This is not fiscal responsibility, it is poor federalism. It is populism, and it shows a lack of respect for the provinces. We are still waiting for the Conservatives to support our request to increase health transfers to 35% of system costs. What we are saying is that we need to offer solutions to the crisis and to inflation. Let us start with seniors' purchasing power. We need to help our seniors, who are waiting for a cheque. What did we do this week? We debated a motion to undertake a study on seniors' finances, among other things. When I am at my riding office, I never get calls from seniors telling me that prices are going up, that they cannot afford groceries and that we should conduct a study. No one has ever said that to me, but the House decided to conduct a study anyway. What the government is doing is putting seniors' concerns on the back burner. It never puts forward any suggestions. Farmers and truckers are facing increases in the price of gas. Alberta is not going to do them any favours. We need a program to help them, but there is nothing there. People buying groceries need direct financial support. It could come in the form of better indexation of the GST credit or more frequent cheques. That would cost the government peanuts, but there is absolutely nothing about that. We need to strengthen the weak links in the supply chain, but there is nothing about that, either. There is absolutely nothing about the housing crisis. As my colleague said earlier, there is a problem with the supply of housing, but there is nothing about that. Now the Conservatives are talking about fiscal responsibility. They are saying that the spending is not their fault, because they were not in power during the pandemic, they were not at the table and they had nothing to do with it. I have news for them: We are in the sixth wave of the pandemic, and we are not out of the woods yet. What they call fiscal responsibility, I call magical thinking. Personally, I will listen to what the Conservatives have to say once the budget is balanced.

1659 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/31/22 12:12:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would start by noting that Canada is not alone in having made massive expenditures during the pandemic period. We are alongside our G20 colleagues in having made incredible expenditures, so it is not something that is out of the ordinary with respect to responding to the pandemic. A lot of that spending went into direct transfers to individual households to help weather the economic consequences of the pandemic. Finally, I would reiterate a few of the points from the end of my speech, which were very much about revenue. I mentioned having a wealth tax on fortunes of $10 million and over as a way to generate revenue, as well as closing the tax havens, which would bring in $25 billion in tax revenue from the most wealthy. It is not the people who are struggling with the cost of inflation, but those who are best able to cope with it, who are getting away with a further $25 billion in wealth every year because of our tax haven arrangements. These are things we can do to address the revenue side. It is simply not true that New Democrats are not interested in the question of where the money comes from. We simply do not agree with the Conservatives that the wealthiest among us should continue to get a free ride while everyone else struggles.

228 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mr. Eric Melillo

Mar/31/22 1:33:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I should have mentioned this in my previous comments, but it is great to see you in the chair again. I appreciate the question from my Bloc colleague, who made a good point around health care specifically and the need for increased health transfers. I stand by that. I frankly do not believe that there is a contradiction there, because I think it comes down to priorities. Obviously nobody on this side of the House is saying that the government should never spend a dollar ever again. That is just not going to be possible, and it is obviously not good policy. However, we need to spend more wisely. We need to ensure that we are prioritizing the right things. What we have seen in recent PBO reports is that the justification for stimulus that was used during the pandemic—and rightly so, to a great degree—is no longer there. It is time to rein in spending and get things back on track.

168 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Mar/31/22 1:49:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of constituents who reach out to me who have had to switch jobs that maybe they were not trained in or have not worked at in a long time because they have not been able to meet the current mandates of the government. When the government gives numbers to say we have recouped this many more jobs, the jobs may not be necessarily in the fields that people had trained for or at the high income levels that they were making before. That is the first thing. The second thing is that during the entire pandemic, we have continually made recommendations to the government to make sure that programs were amended so that they were applicable to more people. There were many times when some of the people most hit by the pandemic were not actually eligible for many of the government programs.

149 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Mar/31/22 4:44:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is great to have such a high-minded debate on such an important issue, and on this side of the House, we appreciate the member's comments referring to so many of our colleagues who made some important points about this motion. I thank him for repeating what we have said here. I am going to correct him with regard to CPP. CPP payments from the employers and employees are going up 10% and the payouts are staying the same, in case he does not realize that about CPP either. When are we going to get to balance? We talked about the amount the government has spent in the last couple of years, which is $560 billion, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that over $170 billion of that was not necessary at all for the pandemic. It is excessive government spending that was not required in order to get us out of the hole the pandemic put this country in. Before a pandemic, $170 billion was the most that has ever happened. This will be the highest deficit in Canadian history. The member talked about all kinds of stuff. If he does not think it is because of the regulatory burdens the government is throwing on their backs, including the payroll taxes that are rising without benefit to the employees, why are companies leaving Canada?

231 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Mar/31/22 5:06:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see that my colleague and the entire Conservative Party care about Canada's economic balance. I believe that we can find solutions, but if we were to stop spending and invest in oil, we would be digging ourselves an even deeper hole. Does my colleague agree that we must first help the least fortunate, those who are most in need and who have been most affected by the pandemic? I am talking about seniors and low-income families who need social housing. There is a housing shortage. It never ends. It is getting worse and worse every week. Should we not do more to help these people? If we want to permanently fix this problem, we need to decrease our dependence on oil and petroleum and develop new green energies, such as wind and solar energy. Does my colleague agree that we need a permanent, stable and sustainable recovery?

156 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Mar/31/22 5:24:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned Dollarama. I will ask him a question with regard to the pandemic and the costs that some companies are now passing on. Dollarama made over $600 million in profits during the pandemic this past year, and it is increasing its shareholders' return by 10%, so if someone is not a shareholder of Dollarama, they are going to go there soon and have higher costs. There will be higher prices at a time when Dollarama has record profits and is giving record dividends to the shareholders, who I can guarantee most likely are not shopping at Dollarama.

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Mar/31/22 6:36:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Canada has been supporting Canadians. Our goal has been to minimize serious illness and overall deaths with minimal disruption to society. With the recent emergence of the BA.2 variant, we are seeing rising cases and differing levels of severity in regions across the country. This reminds us that COVID-19 is still circulating. The Public Health Agency of Canada provides guidance and advice on recommended public health measures. This is done at both individual and community levels. The agency's guidance has been informed by scientific evidence, expert opinion and established public health practices. It aims to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and protect the health and safety of people living in Canada. Across the country, there is variability in how jurisdictions are assessing risks and adjusting approaches. However, we continue to recommend using individual public health measures, such as wearing a mask in indoor public settings, as the COVID-19 situation evolves. We expect recommendations for these measures, of course, to change. Vaccines and therapeutics continue to be important cornerstones of our pandemic response. We are fortunate that vaccination coverage rates in Canada are high, but there are still more opportunities to enhance our protection. Vaccine-related requirements and restrictions have helped keep Canadians safe. They have supported safe working conditions and spaces for federal public service workers and travellers on federally regulated transport. They have also been a tool to support vaccine uptake to help prevent serious illness and to help prevent our health care system from becoming overwhelmed. With vaccines widely available and higher levels of immunity due to prior infection, Canada is in a much stronger position now than we were at the beginning of the pandemic. Our best advantage going forward will be maintaining a state of readiness. This includes all of us keeping our COVID-19 vaccinations up to date and getting a booster dose when eligible. Canadians should also continue to make informed personal choices to protect themselves, their families and their communities based, of course, on their local situations and personal circumstances. Using individual public health measures in a layered approach and, along with vaccines and therapeutics, results in fewer hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19. Provincial and territorial governments and regional local public health authorities will continue to make decisions about when it is necessary to maintain, ease or reinstate public health measures. In doing so, they will consider indicators of readiness, the most recent evidence, the current situation and other factors. As Canada moves forward with its ongoing pandemic response, a risk- and evidence-based approach will continue to be used across jurisdictions.

446 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mr. Bryan May

Mar/31/22 6:58:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the harsh truth is that Canadians with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty. The COVID pandemic has only intensified that pressure. The Canadian disability benefit is a priority for the government, and it will be a key component of Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan. The benefit will have the potential to help hundreds of thousands of working age Canadians with disabilities and their families. As we work with our provincial and territorial partners and other stakeholders to develop the best possible benefit, I want to remind colleagues that the Government of Canada has been there for persons with disabilities throughout the pandemic. We funded a one-time payment of up to $600 to help persons with disabilities weather this crisis, and Service Canada issued payments of this benefit to 1.75 million Canadians for a total value of $815 million. Again, I thank the member for her advocacy on this incredibly important issue.

161 words