SoVote

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Mar/31/22 11:06:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today, on National Indigenous Languages Day, I will call you Uqaqtittiji, which is the Inuit word for “Speaker”, as I understand. I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention today. Yesterday, I had the honour of meeting with Dr. Nils Schmid, who is a member of the German Bundestag. We talked about the need for tax reform. We talked about how tax reform across the G7 needs to be undertaken because what we are seeing right now are massive loopholes where the wealthy can hide their wealth around the world and can avoid paying their fair share, in effect. The government has said that it will act on this but we have not seen the actions we need to see. When will the government be taking the steps necessary to close those tax loopholes and seriously look at tax reform so that the middle class and low-income Canadians are not the ones bearing the burden of taxation?

164 words

Mr. Terry Beech

Mar/31/22 11:07:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the issue of tax fairness. Certainly, we want to make sure that we have a system of tax fairness where individuals can, of course, be entrepreneurial, succeed, grow companies, create value, hire employees and create jobs, but at the same provide a fair distribution of the tax base so we can provide the supports that other Canadians might need. I think one of the biggest steps that our government has taken, other than investing in the CRA to go after the exact loopholes the member opposite is referring to, is signing on to support, alongside 137 other countries with the OECD, a minimum corporate tax. This prevents the race to the bottom that we have seen in many countries where countries compete against each other to have the lowest tax rate and to attract head offices and the employment that comes with that. This will generate billions of dollars of revenue for Canada and will ensure that we will continue to be economically competitive and that we are building a more fair tax system.

183 words

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

Mar/31/22 11:08:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary relates to the budget overall. I largely agree with his comments on carbon pricing. I agree with him that the British Columbia government was wrong to make the carbon price in British Columbia less than revenue-neutral. I meant to begin by saying that on Indigenous Languages Day, I wish to address the House in SENĆOŦEN, which is the language of the indigenous people of the territory I represent, the W̱SÁNEĆ people. [Member spoke in SENĆOŦEN] [English] To the parliamentary secretary, how do the Liberals credibly claim that we are to forget their renunciation of the F-35 fighter jets? Why are we supposed to be spending $19 billion on a plane that former Liberal leader Bob Rae, now doing us such honour as our ambassador to the United Nations, pointed out was completely operationally the wrong plane for Canada? The former auditor general, the late Michael Ferguson, pointed out it was going to cost at least $25 billion in 2012. It is now 2022. It is not credible that we are going to spend $19 billion on a fighter jet that is wrong for Canada. How does the parliamentary secretary justify this betrayal?

215 words

Mr. Terry Beech

Mar/31/22 11:09:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying hi to my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I appreciate her indigenous acknowledgement. I also appreciate her agreement on revenue neutrality for carbon pricing. With regard to military procurements, that is not necessarily the topic of debate that I prepared for this morning. When the budget is launched on Thursday next week, we will have four days of budget debate followed by a very diligent process of going line by line through the budget implementation act. I would be more than happy to engage in this topic and go into great detail at that time.

104 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/31/22 11:10:20 a.m.
Watch

We have time for a quick question and answer. The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

16 words

Vaughan
King

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Mar/31/22 11:10:27 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I spoke today with a family that has two children with disabilities. The father is now working two jobs to make ends meet. The mother has to stay home to take care of her children. The cost of gas, the cost of groceries and the cost of heating their home has gotten out of control. What is the government going to do to help individuals who have escalating costs and help their children live out a good life?

80 words

Mr. Terry Beech

Mar/31/22 11:11:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have similar circumstances in my riding, and all members deal with issues like this every single day. Because the Speaker acknowledged that there would be a relatively short period for a question and answer, I will not list all the things we are doing for affordability. However, I will say that one of the biggest helps that will come to that particular family, depending on the age of the children of course, is access to affordable child care. In B.C., child care costs will decrease by 50% by the end of the year and will be $10 a day by 2025. This represents thousands of dollars in savings for families, creates new jobs and allows parents to get back into the workforce and grow the economy. That is one of many ways. I have a report on affordability at terrybeechmp.ca. If the member's constituent would like to come to my website, read it and then offer feedback, I would be happy to reply.

169 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/31/22 11:21:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight what the member posed in the form of a question to the Conservative Party. It took many years, but with the change of government in 2015 we were finally able to build a consensus to have CPP contributions increased. As a result of doing that and getting agreement with the provinces, led by the leadership here in Ottawa, when the people who are paying into the CPP retire, they will have more money in their pockets. The Conservatives consistently call that a tax. Could my friend provide his thoughts on how bizarre it is to call contributions toward a pension for future retirement benefits a tax? It is not fair or just.

118 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/31/22 11:22:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. Yes, certainly, there has been a failure in that regard. The reality is that CPP premiums are a payroll tax shared between employers and employees. However, they also represent a kind of forced savings plan, which people need. For instance, the plan makes seniors less reliant on the guaranteed income supplement and other assistance measures once they retire. I want to take this opportunity to highlight the excellence of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and the Quebec pension plan, as well as my great pride in the fact that we do not have to depend on the federal fund.

117 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/31/22 11:23:37 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I enjoyed his analysis of the incoherence of the Conservatives' motion today. How can we talk about balance without talking about revenues? We know that tax havens exist and that billions of dollars are being diverted from the public coffers thanks to these tools of the wealthy. We also know that rich people in Canada are accumulating more and more of the wealth generated by Canadians and by Canadian workers. Does my colleague have anything to say about that?

91 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/31/22 11:24:31 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. First, we also proposed getting revenues from the excess profits earned by the big banks during the pandemic. I addressed that several times here in the House, and we think it is a good idea. Then there are expenditures, of course, revenues, but also growth. In addition, we need to start the energy transition. There is a new industrial revolution going on, and we are missing the boat because our Conservative friends keep talking about oil. They should be talking about growth and innovation instead. The Conservatives only talk about innovation when they are talking about carbon capture, and then they tell us that oil is green. We will need to talk more about the growth of the future, because we are totally missing the boat.

132 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Mar/31/22 11:25:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the Conservatives' motion is incoherent, but I do not agree that the federal government has no need to intervene in a crisis like the one we are experiencing with mental health. In every province, including Quebec, the conditions in the mental health sector are unacceptable. Does the hon. member think that Canadians should not have the right to expect national standards, regardless of where in Canada they live?

76 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/31/22 11:25:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, how astonishing. A Liberal who does not agree with the idea that the federal government should mind its own business? That is no surprise to me. The federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter. It does not manage hospitals or health care systems. It is not good at it. Just the idea that the same government that runs the department of education could get involved in health care is enough to keep me up at night.

79 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Mar/31/22 11:26:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to rise after a speech as eloquent as that of my colleague from Mirabel. Today we are seized with a motion about what the Conservatives would like to see in the next budget, including budgetary balance or, at the very least, an agreement on the path and deadline for reaching it. People will not be surprised to learn that there are several ways to achieve this. I can understand why they find it difficult to differentiate between different parties' measures. Let us say that since the NPD-Liberal agreement, it is harder to tell orange from red. However, one thing is possible: Between now and April 7, some reds will turn blue from anger or from realizing that they are further right than their party. It will be interesting to see that change happen within the party. In any event, I am glad I am not in the Liberal caucus. We shall see in due course, as they say. There is one thing that continues to stand out for me as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. When the Liberals are in power, they see a partisan advantage to putting off things until later, always later, even if the measure is urgently needed. The Conservatives are also so predictable. Last week, they proposed a solution to rising prices that did not address the real problems our constituents are facing. The Conservatives are using the oil and gas industry and are loyal only to this industry. It will get increasingly hard for them to sell that to Quebeckers or even to Canadians in other parts of the country. This morning, I want to start by talking about how the most vulnerable have been abandoned and promises to seniors have been broken. It is infuriating to see our seniors struggling to live on what little money they get from the government, while their savings melt like snow in the sun, as we are seeing these days. It is heartbreaking and shameful to know that seniors have never been worse off. I launched a petition in my riding and am pleasantly surprised by the response we have had. We have not yet counted all the signatures, but at least 2,000 people sent in their signed householders to express their dismay at the lack of health transfers. I hope that the government gets the message. Being unable to respond quickly to emergencies is a big deal. Can we expect more and better services from this government? Members know that, when it comes to problems related to federal bureaucracy, I frequently urge them to intervene on behalf of their constituents and meet their needs. People wait, and wait, and wait some more. Finally it is their turn and then they have to wait for their cheque. The problem is that some people have bills to pay and obligations to meet. I have been told that people have been calling the EI office since November and have still not gotten an answer. That has disastrous consequences. The problem here is bureaucracy. People are having a hard time even finding out the status of their EI claims. The same goes for immigration and passport applications. The government needs to change things and find solutions in that regard. This situation has a direct impact on people's problems and, in many cases, their wallets. I am not sure that the bank would agree to wait for a mortgage payment or that a landlord would be pleased to have to wait for their rent cheque. People are victims because the money is sitting in Ottawa. I do not think that people can live off credit for very long, but that is the reality for many people. One day, this government will have to stop putting off effective, common-sense measures and look at fixing what is no longer working. I am sure that, next week, the government will once again shower the oil industry with millions of dollars, which is a bad choice. When will the government realize that consumers have changed their habits? Businesses are having a hard time adjusting too. Demand has shifted noticeably, and we need to be able to meet that demand. I am quite discouraged. However, I do hold out hope that the House may one day agree on an economic recovery that includes solutions compatible with Quebec's goals. Financially it would be viable. It is called energy transition. Will the Minister of Finance be a pioneer in the financial world by adopting green finance measures? My colleague from Mirabel might want to expand on that because it makes sense. For example, there could be an announcement about prohibiting RRSPs and pension funds from investing in businesses tied to fossil fuels. Many countries have already adopted this approach, and it would be a great way to demonstrate support for the energy transition. I would be curious to know how much money the government and banks have invested in oil and gas since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015. They have invested far too much. What we do know is that Canada has never come close to meeting its targets, ever since the agreement was adopted. There is a cost associated with this, and we are paying for it in areas like health, as people are getting sicker and sicker because of the effects of smog, for example. Speaking of health, the Bloc Québécois supports the joint request of the provinces and Quebec to increase federal health transfers from 22% to 35%. This is a reasonable request, since we know that that contribution had been set at 50% in past agreements. This contribution would go from $42 billion to $60 billion, an increase of $28 billion per year. There is a consensus in Quebec and Canada that health transfers need to be increased. Only the Liberals are standing in the way of solving the chronic underfunding of the health care system. Let us get back to the energy transition. The many problems related to the environment justify staying the course on this necessary energy transition. We could demand that the government adequately support an electric vehicle supply chain for the electrification of transport to help individuals, businesses, governments and federal Crown corporations make this transition. If we demand that electric vehicles be available in sufficient quantities, we can help ensure that our market meets its delivery deadlines now. Let us keep the incentive programs in place long enough for people currently waiting for a car to qualify. There is a problem with that right now. Let us call on the federal government to table its national strategy on critical and strategic minerals and announce a strategy for the battery industry so that we can launch an industry cluster of electric and smart vehicles and enable the resource regions to prepare to manufacture near raw materials to supply these battery plants. Let us shift the paradigm where we send our critical and strategic minerals to the foreign battery industry. Obviously, the issue of semi-conductors is just as important. How is it that we are unable to produce them in Canada and we are relying on foreign countries, such as Taiwan, whose production have slowed? It seems to me that we have all the critical and strategic minerals we need to be able to manufacture semi-conductors. Quebec and its heavy transports are the envy of many provinces. Let us support the transport economy and especially innovation. Let us support research into advanced materials that help keep our industries competitive. These are solutions that will help us to be more productive. Higher productivity means more money in the government's coffers. That will make it much easier to achieve a balanced budget in the long term. We must tackle the labour shortage. The job situation is good and unemployment rates are relatively low, which is good news. However, there are not enough people to fill the jobs available in this economic recovery, and that is problematic. Why not prioritize measures such as transferring money to the provinces so they can recognize the foreign credentials of many foreign workers? That way, these people could could step into positions that are difficult to fill because of a shortage of workers with the required skills. With regard to transferring the temporary foreign worker program to the provinces, you do not have to be as smart as the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to realize just how urgent that is, especially for agriculture. We have to ensure that master's and post-doctoral students obtain permanent residency before they finish their studies. It is a great incentive that will help attract and retain talent trained here in order to meet labour needs. This is an urgent issue in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the CEGEP will readily explain that we must retain talented people whose knowledge will contribute to our ability to innovate. The federal government is so slow on immigration. Companies are getting many contracts but are forced to turn them down because they do not have the staff. It was a huge help to our industries in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and in many regions when the cap was increased to 20% in designated sectors, in particular the tourism and food industries. When will the government start fast-tracking immigration applications in the sectors experiencing labour shortages? The situation right now is unacceptable. One example is the steel sector back home. Wait times are seven to 10 months for Ontario, which is around 10 kilometres away from us, while wait times for Quebec are 27 to 30 months. That is unacceptable. Naturally, people are giving up and crossing to the other side. I could talk about supports for businesses, Internet access, cell service, land use or regional autonomy, especially through the creation of a territorial innovation fund by and for the regions. I could also talk about local agriculture. We have the power to make decisions and to choose what we want to work on right now. If the government truly wants to make the green transition and balance the budget, it needs to set Quebec up for a real economic recovery that reflects the future we want to build.

1735 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/31/22 11:36:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a great deal of his time on the issue of immigration. If we take a look at what we have seen over the last couple of years, I think that we can be fairly proud of the system while always looking for improvements, of course. For example, I believe it was in 2020, with all of the refugees who settled throughout the world, a third of them settled here in Canada. Last year, we had over a half million. That is over 500,000 immigrants who settled or were granted permanent residency here in Canada. Yes, there is always room for us to do more. We have seen a very progressive approach to dealing, for example, with Ukraine and the refugees from there. There have been 12,000-plus since the beginning of the new year, and a streamlined system is now being put in place to enhance those numbers going forward. Can the member provide his thoughts on my comments?

166 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Mar/31/22 11:37:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the key word in my colleague from Winnipeg North's remarks was “system”. That is the problem right there. It is frustrating to be an MP in the regions because the system does not provide services in the regions. According to a survey carried out across Quebec and Canada, the Université du Québec en Abitibi—Témiscamingue ranks among the top five universities with regard to living conditions. My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will be pleased to learn that UQAT has such a good ranking. A person's time at university is a wonderful time in their life, and it is important for students to have a good quality of life. Young people want to stay in our regions for the long term, and we are training them with that in mind. International students want to come to this country and settle in our regions, but they are being discriminated against and turned away, mainly because they come from countries where the standard of living and GDP per capita are not high enough. Africa is a victim of this discrimination. There is a problem with the system, and we need to fix it by addressing the matter of wait times.

216 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Mar/31/22 11:38:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. I hate to interrupt members, so I did not do so, but I am a stickler for the rules in this place where we speak of matters that are relevant to the bill. I would like to bring his attention to the actual motion, which reads: That given that, (i) excessive government spending has increased the deficit, the national debt, and fuelled inflation to its highest level in 31 years, (ii) taxes on Canadians continue to increase, from the carbon tax to escalator taxes to Canada Pension Plan premiums, (iii) the government refuses to provide relief to Canadians by temporarily reducing the Goods and Services Tax on gasoline and diesel, the House call on the government to present a federal budget rooted in fiscal responsibility, with no new taxes, a path to balance, and a meaningful fiscal anchor. I invite the member to address those points as he failed to do so in his remarks.

164 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Mar/31/22 11:39:59 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is all part of an economic philosophy. We keep hearing about two options: budget cuts or spending increases. There is a third option, one that I have put forward before, and that is coming up with ways to increase productivity to bring in more money. It is a philosophical issue. I am a firm believer in state intervention, which can increase budgets and really make the energy transition happen. It will be interesting to see what emerges from the new NDP-Liberal coalition agreement. Perhaps we will see a new government philosophy that is keener on invoking closure, as we saw yesterday, thereby allowing the Liberal government to do whatever it wants. If that happens, it could end up being much harder to make that energy transition happen, and that is a problem. I believe in the value system that enables a country to take advantage of times when huge amounts of money are coming in to better redistribute wealth and engage in long-term change strategies. We learned that from Keynes. I am not at all in favour of the solutions put forward in the Conservatives' motion. I think we need long-term solutions, and I have made several such proposals, which the Bloc Québécois have championed and I am proud of.

220 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Mar/31/22 11:41:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are worried about the Conservatives' approach to tackling the affordability crisis. Does my colleague think the rich should pay their fair share through higher taxes? Does he think that would help tackle inequality?

37 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 50