SoVote

Mar/31/22 1:04:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, costs and inflation are definitely top of mind for Canadians today. The federal government, since it was elected late in 2015, has taken a number of measures to try to make sure that we reduce income inequality and make life affordable for Canadians. The latest thing we have done is to introduce the national child care plan. That is a historic plan. When I was first elected, I never thought we would see a day when national child care would be implemented in Canada. Today I am so proud to be part of a government that is implementing a national child care program that will reduce costs by 50% by the end of this year for all Canadian families that have children in day care. We will continue to be concerned about the cost of living for Canadians and we will do everything we can to continue to support Canadians as we move forward.

156 words

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Mar/31/22 1:05:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member's comments on the third element of this motion, which is the government refusing to provide relief to Canadians by temporarily reducing the goods and services tax on gasoline and oil. If I pull up my pickup truck and fill up for $200, I get $10 back. If I fill up my Toyota Corolla for $20, I get $1 back. I still get 500 kilometres with both vehicles. I would be interested in the member's comments as to whether she thinks that is fair.

93 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Mar/31/22 1:06:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we had a very important discussion and debate around the increasing price of oil and gas in this country. We had an important debate around implementing a tax holiday. Our government will continue to be very concerned about gas prices and prices overall in this country and we will continue to support Canadians—

56 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/31/22 1:06:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House of Commons, even in a virtual manner, to address the opposition day motion today on what I think is an important element for us to talk about: economic and fiscal policy. What I am going to do in my 10 minutes is to try to tackle some of the elements in the actual text of the motion and also to provide some of the recommendations and thoughts I have as a member of Parliament about things that I think all parliamentarians should be thinking about in the days ahead as we start to work our way out of COVID and look to how we can maintain fiscal balance but also continue to pursue the social programs that Canadians expect. Before I get into the text of the motion, I want to take us back to the period before the pandemic, from 2015 to certainly just the early part of 2020, and how this government approached spending and its parameters around what it felt was important. The member for Burnaby North—Seymour, who is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, made what I thought were really important remarks this morning when he talked about the government coming in at a time when the Harper government had really underfunded a lot of really important programs. He spoke about not just economic deficits but social and infrastructure deficits that had essentially protruded over time. When we look at the level of spending the government took on during that time frame, it ran relatively modest deficits of around 1% of GDP at a time when the economy was continuing to grow. We would remember that, following the global economic crisis in the 2008-09 period, there was a lagging economic recovery that had been evident under the Harper policies. We really saw a lot of economic growth from 2015 to 2020. I will remind colleagues that unemployment was at a 40-year low just before the pandemic, and although the government was spending deficits, the economy and economic growth was far outpacing the cost of the debt taken on at the time. Essentially, we came into the pandemic with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We were in a very strong fiscal position to be able to tackle what was a once-in-a-generation type of pandemic. We had not seen this level of uncertainty since the Spanish flu and the influenza crisis just following World War I, so I want to remind Canadians and colleagues that this government has been able to walk the line between not only investing in Canadians but also maintaining important fiscal balance in the same sense. I will go to the text of the motion. The first part speaks about “excessive government spending” during the pandemic. I think it is an open debate whether or not that was indeed the case. Other colleagues, and also perhaps the Minister of Finance, have said that, if we are putting out a fire, we are usually not critiqued on how much water we use to eliminate the fire. It is easy for armchair quarterbacks on the opposition side to sit and suggest that the government spent too much, but private sector economists, Canadians and the people who needed support during this extremely difficult time would tell us that these were important investments to ward off the economic scarring that would have happened in a similar light to what happened during the 2008-09 financial crisis. Of course, the job of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to critique and hold the government to account, but I think on the whole the government was responsible in making sure there were programs in a timely manner that were there to support Canadian businesses, Canadian individuals and even the provinces and territories because we had a strong fiscal footing going into the pandemic. Therefore, I would take issue with the fact that there is text in the motion that talks about “excessive government spending”. During the magnitude of the challenge we have just gone through over the past two years, which I would remind my colleagues we are not completely out of, I think it was proportionate to what we saw. I also want to remind my Conservative colleagues that, in the 43rd Parliament and leading into the election in September, they were proposing to spend more money than what the government had allocated in its platform commitments. I remember sitting, virtually, during the height of the pandemic, listening to Conservative members get up and say in one breath that the government was spending far too much money, which goes to the excessive spending piece they are talking about now, and in the same breath would come back and say the government is not doing enough and it needs to do even more. That inconsistency around how best to move forward is why I think the Conservative Party continues to not have a true idea of where it necessarily sits on this issue. I want to talk about fuelling inflation. The idea in the text of this motion is that the government spending during the pandemic has fuelled inflation. I think, in part, it has, but this is a much more nuanced question. Governments around the world have invested to try to ward off the worst economic implications. We know that had to happen. Otherwise, we would have had an economic collapse. This has to do with the supply chains that were impacted. This has to do with climate change. The member for Abbotsford's community and certainly the communities close to him were severely impacted by the atmospheric rainstorms that we saw in British Columbia, which then created supply challenges. Climate change is having a major impact on global inflation, as well as is the war in Ukraine. I would also argue that low interest rates contribute to this. There is a fiscal piece to this, but there is also a monetary element, where the Bank of Canada significantly lowered its interest rates, which also stimulates investment and spending, which is also part of what we are seeing now. There is a piece of this motion that talks about the taxes continuing to increase with reference to the carbon price. What the motion does not mention, of course, is that the carbon price is designed to give money back to Canadians. On a per capita basis, money is returned so that it actually incentivizes change in behaviour. As the chair of the agriculture committee, I will recognize that in some instances, in particular, our farmers have been impacted in the sense that they may pay a higher proportionate cost. That is why we have made adjustments in the economic update, which we are still trying to get through the House as the Conservatives continue to delay, to get measures that will actually give rebates to farmers who many not have otherwise had the opportunity to get around those challenging circumstances. There is also a provision around relief to Canadians through the GST. I had lots to say on that with the member for Abbotsford about a week ago. I think there is merit at looking at affordability. I think the manner in which the Conservatives are proposing to go about this allows members of Parliament, who are some of the higher income earners in the country, to benefit from something. It is not targeted. I think there are more targeted ways we can try to focus on supporting individuals who truly need the help, given the circumstances we are under. The last piece, and this is the piece I tend to agree with, is that “the House call on the government to present a federal budget rooted in fiscal responsibility”. I do fundamentally believe that is an important element that this government is going to have to tackle in the days ahead. There has to be a balance between social progress, which I believe in, and the programs that matter, and having a plan for how those can be sustainable over time. I would agree on that point. I also agree that the economy is very hot right now because of the investments that we have made and because of how we have been able to support businesses. Unemployment is at historic lows right now. Members opposite and members in the House writ large have talked about the importance of immigration to make sure that we can fill job vacancies that exist in the country. I do think we have to be mindful about not continuing to put liquidity in an already hot economy, which is ultimately going against the principles of monetary policy when the Bank of Canada is signalling that it will be increasing interest rates in the days ahead. Just quickly, on no new taxes, I think the Conservatives are either going to have to come clean that they do not necessarily want to support some of the social programs that are being talked about, whether it be dental care or pharmacare, or they are going to have to say that there is going to have to be a revenue generation to pay for those. Whether that is growing the economy or looking at ways to work in a multilateral form so that we do not price ourselves out in a competitive sense around tax policy, there are going to have to be serious questions around revenue to make sure that these programs that are being introduced are sustainable over time. Let me just say again, as I have said in the House before, I think this country has a tremendous opportunity on foreign policy. We have the propensity to feed the world. We have the propensity to provide energy to the world. We have the propensity to provide critical minerals that are key to the energy transition. There is a great opportunity on foreign policy, but it is also an important economic driver that can help pay for some of the very important social programs the government has introduced and is planning to introduce in the days ahead.

1704 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Mar/31/22 1:16:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the start of his speech, the member spoke about the Liberal government's goal of maintaining a balanced budget while also adhering to the very worthy plan of safeguarding social programs. However, I wonder why this government is depriving itself of the gargantuan profits made by the big banks in 2021, nearly $60 billion. Why are the Liberals opposed to eliminating tax havens?

67 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/31/22 1:17:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the government is contemplating those types of policies. Let me say, though, which I often say to my NDP colleagues, that there is merit in looking at individuals who have the propensity to pay more to help contribute to social programs, but we need to do so in the sense that we are in a global economy. The best way to move forward is working in a multilateral forum with other countries so that we create things like a minimum corporate income tax and do not basically create an environment where we do not have foreign direct investments and companies do not want to come here. We have to always guard against that, and working in a multilateral forum globally is the best pathway forward.

131 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/31/22 1:18:05 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. The lack of housing is the biggest issue in my riding. All too often I hear about 18 people living in a three-bedroom unit. This is an all-too-common story from Nunavut. Will the government commit to making sure that the wealthy pay their fair share so my constituents do not have to continue to live in deplorable conditions that help prevent real reconciliation?

68 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/31/22 1:18:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the particular housing situation in Nunavut would be more nuanced than the one in my riding of Kings—Hants. However, the government certainly has committed publicly to investing in indigenous housing specifically in the days ahead, and I take notice that this is important to the member opposite and her constituents, as well as to many others across the country. In perhaps a lesser sense, in terms of basic shelter, housing prices in Kings—Hants have gone up I think 40% year over year. This is a challenge being faced across the country, and the government has to work with all three levels of government and the private sector. Particularly focusing on social housing would be an important element in the days ahead. We have to have important conversations about the revenue to pay for such programs, but I do support that principle.

149 words

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

Mar/31/22 1:19:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Liberal Party brings a lot of solution-oriented remarks to this chamber. I always appreciate his interventions. He noted that the carbon tax impacts agriculture disproportionately. I would argue that extends to rural and northern communities of the country more broadly. I am wondering if the member can articulate further some ways he thinks we can support agriculture and support our rural and northern communities in giving them relief from the carbon tax.

79 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/31/22 1:20:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, likewise, I always enjoy the interventions from the member for Kenora and his insight. This government recognizes that for certain industries and certain individuals, depending on where they live in the country, there are fewer options. Being in a rural area myself in Nova Scotia, I know that my constituents may not have the same access to public transit and different elements as others, so there is a lot I could address. On agriculture, the government has recognized that the price some farmers are paying exceeds what they may be returned under the current model. That is why we introduced Bill C-8, which has monies designated specifically to go back to farmers to continue to keep the price signal there and continue to encourage innovation, not necessarily to harm farmers in any way. I hope the member opposite will have conversations with his colleagues so we can advance that bill and make sure support is given to his farmers and many others across the country.

168 words

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

Mar/31/22 1:21:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join this important debate and discussion today. Before I get into my formal remarks, I want to tell members that I am wearing a very special tie today. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I want to make note of this because this tie was gifted to me yesterday by a good friend, Anthony, who, as members know, works in the lobby for the NDP. He is a great man. Of course, we disagree on many policy initiatives and I am very disappointed that his party is supporting the government for the next three years, but I wanted to make note of the tie and hopefully embarrass him a bit in the process. I cannot hear him laughing quite yet, but I am sure I will shortly. Also, he did not give one to the member for Kingston and the Islands, which is the cherry on top, I have to say. I am pleased to be splitting my time today with my friend and colleague, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, who does a fantastic job representing her constituents in British Columbia and Canadians across the country in her role in the shadow cabinet of supporting small businesses and ensuring that we have a robust recovery across the country. I am very much looking forward to hearing her remarks today. This motion is very important for me and the Kenora riding and people across northwestern Ontario and across the country. As we have heard from many members on all sides of the House, inflation is getting out of control and the cost of living is driving through the roof. We know that food prices as a whole have increased by 7.4%, with beef up almost 12% and ham and bacon up 15%. It is getting harder for people to put food on the table because prices are going up and wages are not keeping up. As we have seen in reports from the PBO, this has been driven in part by the reckless government spending we have seen from the Liberal government. It is continuing the spending beyond the point that was necessary throughout COVID-19 and the height of COVID-19, and as a result, Canadians are now facing the highest inflation they have seen in 31 years. It is the highest inflation I have seen in my lifetime. I want to focus specifically, off the top, on gas prices. Gas prices in my riding always tend to be a bit higher than in other regions of the province and the country, being that it is in northwestern Ontario. However, it is getting especially difficult now. This week, gas in Dryden was 185.9¢, in Red Lake it was 191.9¢ and in Sioux Lookout it was 193.7¢. In Fort Hope First Nation, the gas price this morning was $2.65 per litre. When we hear the government talk about reconciliation and wanting to ensure that it has an important relationship with indigenous Canadians, it is hard to look at something like this with the cost of living on reserve. The remote community of Fort Hope is just one example of many in my riding, and it is hard to square that circle, because a lot of the government's policies, such as the carbon tax, choose to keep taxes high. Based on the remarks today, as I mentioned earlier, it seems like the Liberals are not fond of our motion. However, it seems like the policies the government is bringing forward from a fiscal point of view are hurting a lot of northern, rural and indigenous Canadians the hardest, and we are seeing that in my riding. The government claims that Canadians are going to be better off when they get their rebates for the carbon tax specifically. However, I respectfully note for members across the aisle that many Canadians right now cannot wait for that rebate. They are struggling to get to the end of the week and the end of the month, and for this rebate, although it will be coming, this is too long for them to wait. They are paying for it right now. Also, the PBO report has actually refuted the minister's and government's claim that most of the costs would be recuperated. Indeed, households subject to the tax are actually going to experience a net loss, so even after waiting for that rebate to come back, it will not be enough to fill the gap. This is especially important in my riding because we have very few transit options for busing. Subways are non-existent. It is certainly far different from University—Rosedale or many of the ridings represented by government members. In my riding, as I have mentioned before, many people have to travel a number of hours just to see specialists or go to the hospital, either to Winnipeg or many more to Thunder Bay. That is even farther to drive, but based on a lot of the rules around health care, they have to stay in the province so they have to go to Thunder Bay. Just recently, Red Lake, because of a shortage of health care personnel, actually had to close its ER. The community of Red Lake, with 5,000 or so people, for 24 hours did not have access to an emergency room. The closest emergency room would be about two and a half hours away, in Dryden. Needless to say, if someone had a serious emergency, it would not end well. We are thankful that nothing happened over the last weekend, but the threat will remain there as the shortages exist across the region. That is why fuel is so important and gas is so important. It is actually getting incredibly prohibitive for people to travel to access critical services such as health care. In my remaining time, I want to bring this back to the motion today, because I think we are not asking for very much in it. What the motion is saying is pretty simple, and we have not been asking for much over the last couple of weeks and months. We have suggested providing a GST holiday on gasoline. We also suggested a suspension of the carbon tax increase that is coming on April 1. The government has shut the door to those discussions. Frankly, respectfully, I think we are bringing forward reasonable proposals and trying to help alleviate the cost-of-living crisis and help ensure that people can keep more money in their pockets. I am having a hard time understanding why members on that side of the House do not seem interested in having this discussion right now. Today, specifically in the motion, we are asking for the upcoming budget, as my colleagues have noted, to be rooted in fiscal responsibility and to not add any new taxes. Frankly, it is the least we can do at this pivotal moment for many families across my riding that are struggling. They are just asking for the government to help them, and that is why we are bringing forward this motion here today. We want to lower taxes to give a little more peace of mind and to take one more cost away from the equation. I ask government members here today to think about that and remember this: In my humble opinion, money is better spent by the people who have earned it than by a government that thinks it has a right to go in and tax it. I ask my colleagues on the other side to think of that. We are hoping that the 2022 budget will not include any new taxes, of course. I hope that all my colleagues in the House will support this practical motion today and ensure that our budget does have a debt management strategy, because Canadians are struggling to get by. They are struggling to afford the basic necessities. It is time for the government to step up to provide relief to ensure that we do not leave Canadians in rural and northern communities and in many indigenous communities across northwestern Ontario behind.

1370 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/31/22 1:30:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always find the hon. member for Kenora very level-headed in his approach and in the manner in which he presents his position on matters. I do not say that to contrast him with some of his colleagues. I say that because I genuinely appreciate it and I want him to know that. One of the primary things that I find problematic in this motion is that the second bullet specifically refers to the CPP, the Canada pension plan, as a tax. It is not a tax. This is money that is generated by the employer and the employee. The contributions are calculated annually, and the employer and employee both pay into this in order to provide pensions for individuals later on in life. It is a form of retirement savings that has nothing to do with taxation. Can the member provide comments on why he thinks the motion is worded like that?

156 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

Mar/31/22 1:31:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I take the member for Kingston and the Islands's point. I have heard that point raised by a few members here today. I think it goes back to my comments around the carbon tax rebate and the simple fact that Canadians need the dollars right now. They are struggling to get by right now. It is hard for them to make it to the end of the week and they are not sure if they are going to be able to continue putting food on the table. Given the cost-of-living crisis right now, we do not need more deductions from the take-home pay of Canadians. That is why we are calling for a halt to these premiums. I think it is a very tangible, practical measure that is going to benefit Canadians right now and into the future.

144 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Mar/31/22 1:32:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Do the Conservatives realize they are being inconsistent with the motion they are moving this morning? When we talk about increasing health transfers—a unanimous request from the provinces—the Conservatives usually agree with us. When they say that overspending needs to end, does that mean they will now oppose this? Similarly, when we ask for increases to old age security, will they be against that, too? Is my colleague aware that, if we tie our hands with today's motion and say that there will be no new taxes, we are closing the door on imposing a tax on businesses that have made exorbitant profits in the past two years? That money could be redistributed to people who need it to buy groceries. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

148 words

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

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

Mar/31/22 1:34:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that many people in northern Manitoba, much as they are in northern Ontario, are struggling with the increased cost of living. I know that many in my neck of the woods are also making it clear that Canadians are paying more than their fair share and that the richest among us, who have made incredible profits during this pandemic, are not. Would the member agree that if we are going to talk about fairness, it is time to tax the rich?

87 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

Mar/31/22 1:35:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member from my neighbouring riding, just across the border. Obviously, everyone needs to pay their fair share. To the member's point when she said to tax the rich, I do not know specifically what she means when she says that, so I am not going to elaborate on that. We need to ensure everyone is paying their taxes, but what we are saying in our motion is that all Canadians need to be paying less.

84 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Mar/31/22 1:35:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Kenora, for his great intervention and speech. It is always a pleasure to rise in this House, and today it is in response to the announcement of the tabling of the first NDP-Liberal budget on April 7, to represent my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country and to speak on this Conservative opposition day motion, which looks to make recommendations to give people a break from higher taxes and out-of-control debt. We have made many recommendations to help Canadians, to help get our fiscal house in order and to have fiscal anchors. I will be gladly speaking to some of these points. I hear from constituents every day who cannot afford basic necessities and cannot afford housing costs, which are up over 30% in the past year alone, and I hear from businesses and not-for-profits that are being squeezed by higher costs. This situation is becoming critical for many people. We have heard one word from the government a lot in the last few weeks: “tired”. The government likes to say that it recognizes that Canadians are tired: that they are tired of federal COVID-19 restrictions, tired of paying so much at the pumps and tired of an escalating grocery bill. However, we never hear anything from the government afterwards about giving any peace of mind to Canadians, or any hope. There is a reason for that. It is because it would involve reversing the government's stated choices. Provinces are reopening and are removing restrictions and mandates, but the federal government chooses to not even set a date. It chooses not to bring forth any data or any metrics on how it is making decisions around this issue. This is holding back the economic recovery of Canada and creating uncertainty for my residents and businesses in Kelowna—Lake Country and across the country. Small businesses might be coming out of the pandemic struggling with debt, labour shortages and squeezed margins, but ministers in Ottawa still choose to raise their taxes. Consumers might find it harder to manage grocery or gas bills, but the Prime Minister chooses to leave tax relief off the table. Let us not kid ourselves about who these choices harm the most. It is the poor, the vulnerable, struggling young people, families and seniors. The Liberal elites, multinationals and large real estate investors seem to have nothing to complain about. They have fared well during the pandemic. A report released a few weeks ago from the government's own finance department showed that single parents, lower-income households and recent immigrants are more likely to see 50% or more of their earnings offset by higher taxes, clawbacks in benefits or a combination of the two. Calls are coming from inside and outside this House to halt taxes and take action on inflation, but the Liberals still refuse to listen. As made-in-Canada inflation continues to rise, even former advisers to Liberal finance ministers, such as Robert Asselin, are calling for the government to rein in its spending to reduce our inflationary levels. It was not long ago that ministers in the government called our rise in inflation rates “transitory”. Well, inflation has transitioned—from bad to worse. Other governments in the U.K., Germany and the United States have set out plans to tackle inflation, and it is long past time for the government in Canada to do the same. Failure to deliver a budget that will reduce inflation will be a budget that will fail to reduce our cost of living. With government’s coffers growing as a result of inflation, there is no reason to celebrate, yet with families facing an increase of more than $1000 in their annual grocery bill alone, Liberal insiders choose to brag in the press about the extra tax revenue they are collecting from them. People are being squeezed with lower paycheques due to the January payroll tax increase and rising costs on everything. That is why we are bringing forward this motion to call on the government to not implement new taxes and to bring forth a path to balance to aid them. I am sure there is no member of this House who has not heard from their constituents about how they are being hammered by high gas prices. Constituents in my part of the country have seen prices rise as high as $2.145 this month. If parties here today had joined in our call to introduce a 5% GST reduction on gasoline and diesel, the government would have been given the opportunity to reduce the average price by approximately 8¢ per litre. Unfortunately, the other parties voted against this motion last week. What we are asking for today is common sense to help people. It is a practical way we could improve lives today. Another way Conservatives are looking to provide relief is by calling on the federal government to end its upcoming April 1 tax increases. The first April Fool's Day tax increase is on excise tax on alcohol products. The kicker with this is that it is based on the CPI, meaning it is based on inflation; therefore, the increase would be higher than ever before. It is basically a tax increase on inflation, and what is worse is that it is automatic. It does not have to be debated and voted on by parliamentarians every year. Wineries, cideries, breweries and distilleries in my riding cannot afford increases to the excise escalator tax after two years of pandemic damage to their bottom line. This measure affects dozens of small businesses in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country that have deep roots in our agriculture history. We have craft beer tours, winery tours and a cider festival. This is an emerging sector, and there are dozens of businesses in my riding that would be affected. The tax increase will ultimately have to be passed on through the supply chain and to consumers. That is why I was pleased earlier today to second a bill from my colleague, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, that would eliminate this escalator tax. Poor policies and poor leadership by the Liberals caused rolling COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns and left producers with the least profitable avenues of sale, such as government liquor stores. Even with restaurants, hotels and farm gate sales slowly returning, they have a lot in their bottom lines to recoup, and recovery will be sluggish. Their efforts to survive should not be penalized with more taxes and new taxes, as domestic producers who have not been applicable will have to start paying on July 1. We have to remember the average small business took on $170,000 in new pandemic debt and was hit with payroll tax increases on January 1. These costs came directly off their bottom line. When both the finance minister and the small business minister, who have not had to make payroll or read financial statements in their past careers, are making decisions that will affect people’s lives, we can see why they have no clue about how businesses are being squeezed. The second April Fool's Day tax increase is to the federal carbon tax, and we have called for it to be halted. The government's decision to proceed with raising the floor of the carbon tax is entirely out of touch with people who are just trying to fill their car with gas or heat their homes. The government's choice to then worsen this situation by adding 11¢ a litre to Canadians' gas prices is really to act without compassion. It is choosing to commit to an ideological agenda rather than appealing to common sense The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently reported that the government is taking in more in carbon tax than it is rebating, and many people will receive far less than they pay. The carbon tax is not reducing emissions and is nothing more a windfall for the government on the backs of Canadians and small businesses. In addition, if Canada was more energy dependent, we could be helping our allies right now. Lastly, I want to touch on another financial penalty that will affect every Canadian: the growing size of our national debt. A recent mandate letter of the finance minister stated that creating any new permanent spending should be avoided. With this new Liberal-NDP backroom coalition, this will be another broken promise. We are calling today for a meaningful fiscal anchor. Kelowna—Lake Country was recently visited by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's national debt clock. The Liberals broke the former debt clock when it went over $1 trillion. Every second, $4,531 is being added to our national debt. By the time I am done my fifteen-minute debate today, Canada’s national debt will rise an extra $4,077,900. Any member in this House who ignores the responsibility of this House to manage this is leaving the future of our children and grandchildren at risk. Choosing to offer relief today to Canadian families and seniors with immediate savings on daily costs while ensuring our financial stability for the next generation is how this House should be choosing to act. A commitment to an ideological tax-and-spend agenda will not help either of those goals. I hope all members of this House will support our motion today to give people hope and give them a break.

1601 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/31/22 1:45:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can also refer to the debts of the other G7 countries, because the reality of the situation is that it is more important to base the value of the Canadian economy against the economies of our trading partners. To value what the Canadian economy is genuinely worth is to value our debt-to-GDP ratio. The reality is that we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, so that actually means that we are in the best fiscal position when compared to our G7 partners in terms of where we can go to rebuild our economy. I am wondering if the member can weigh in a little on those facts.

118 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Mar/31/22 1:46:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that my future grandchildren, which I do not have yet, will be paying off this debt, as will the future grandchildren of other people in this House. We have to be cognizant that someone will have to pay back this debt that we are creating right now. We are not setting up our children and grandchildren very well here. Regardless of what others are doing, we have to focus on Canada and on the fiscal prudence of this country. We need to get our fiscal house in order. Yes, we need to help people who really need help, but at the same time we also need to be looking ahead. We need to look ahead for how we can increase investment in Canada and increase the prosperity of Canadians.

134 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 50