44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/7/22 1:50:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention today, although I am not exactly sure where he was getting his information from. The government has certainly pointed towards the war in Ukraine as something to explain the global increase in the price of oil, and of gas more specifically.
However, as it relates to inflation, I think it is fair to say, and I would certainly say, that there have been a whole host of things over the last two years that have played into that. I am willing to accept that, and I am willing to state that. Would the member also be willing to state the fact that inflation is not a problem that is unique to Canada? As a matter of fact, in looking at all the developed countries, we see that Canada is among those at the bottom end in terms of the rate of inflation that we have seen over the last year or so.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 3:47:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 5:11:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying, “Wow.” As if it were not enough that all of these items have already been dealt with in the House through various different opposition day motions over the last few months, the Conservatives have suddenly decided that it would be in their best interests to bring forward what the Conservative opposition leader referred to this morning as an omnibus motion. It is as though they do not actually think there is a chance that this would ever pass, yet they still bring it forward to the House in an attempt to do, I do not know what, because there are so many issues in here that anybody can literally get up and speak to. There is no ability to be concise and try to improve one policy or another. It is literally an airing of grievances, and it is so unfortunate to see the Conservative Party use its opposition day to do this.
Having said that, I have been listening to the debate for the last several hours, and at the heart of the debate is affordability, which is a really good discussion and debate to have, so I will focus my comments primarily on the affordability issues right now and what I see as the difference between the government's position and the opposition's position in terms of how to deal with that.
For starters it is very important to put on the record, and I know that several of my colleagues have done this today already, that the inflation problem we are seeing is not unique to Canada. As a matter of fact, Canada, among the developed countries, is toward the bottom in terms of the level of inflation. I am not suggesting for a second that it is acceptable in any way or that it is not creating a lot of hardships, because indeed it is, but it is important to address the problems in their totality.
This brings me to a comment that was made earlier today by the member for Simcoe North. In response to my question about affordability and about inflation being a global problem, his response was basically that just because other countries have an inflation problem, the reason they are experiencing those problems is that they had the same monetary and fiscal policies throughout the pandemic that Canada had, which I found very fascinating. The member is basically telling the House that he disagrees with the position that developed countries throughout the world took in fighting against the economic hardships that were endured during the pandemic. It is what he basically said. It makes me reflect on where Conservatives would have preferred to see not just this government and Canada go, but indeed developed countries throughout the world during the pandemic.
It is pretty clear through the member for Simcoe North's comments and what I have been hearing today, and for that matter over the last two years, that Conservatives would have preferred an approach that just left everybody to themselves to deal with their own individual hardships throughout the pandemic. Luckily, the Canadian government and governments throughout the developed world disagreed with the member and the Conservative Party when they decided it was in the better interests of Canadians and the western world to make sure that we invested in people to get through this pandemic.
Did that lead to some issues with respect to supply chains and inflation? I think everyone can agree that to some degree those policies played a role. Now is the time for government, and we are seeing this throughout the western world, in developed countries and in Canada as well, to start developing and implementing new monetary policy to help deal with some of that inflation.
I also found it very interesting when the member for Thornhill stood and somehow tried to suggest that when it comes to affordability, young Canadians are, in her words, fleeing Canada for “the British dream” and “the American dream”.
Is the member for Thornhill not aware that the inflation rates in the U.S. and Britain are actually much higher? In fact, compared to Canada, which is at 6.8%, the inflation rate in the United States is at 8.3%, and in Britain it is 9%. This hyped-up rhetoric by the Conservatives to somehow try to suggest that this is a problem just within Canada and that only people living in Canada are experiencing it just is not the reality of the situation. That is quite obvious in the comments that have been made by the member for Thornhill and indeed other Conservatives.
I also just cannot wrap my head around the fact that a member of Parliament would come in here and suggest it is the government's plan to make prices higher, that it is intentionally trying to make it more difficult for Canadians in terms of affordability. The member for Thornhill was asked a great question by the member for Kings—Hants and of course completely sidestepped it and did not address the question.
The question she was asked by the member for Kings—Hants was why she thinks the GST should be eliminated for everybody. Would it not make more sense to ensure that any kind of reduction in taxes or rebates, however one would model it, was targeted at those who needed it the most?
Indeed, the member for Kings—Hants was absolutely correct. I do not think any member of Parliament, knowing what our salaries are, really needs to have the GST eliminated from their purchases. I think the member for Thornhill would agree with that. Why she was unable to provide an answer to that question really hits at the heart of what the Conservative agenda is here. The agenda is to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. This is what Conservatives have always done.
I hear the member for Regina—Lewvan laughing right now. I would encourage him to get up when it is question time and explain to the House and to me why it is that he, the member for Thornhill and Conservatives generally speaking are so much in favour of the idea of ensuring that he and I get GST tax cuts. That is exactly what they are asking for in this, so I would like the member from Regina, when the time comes, to explain to me why he thinks he and I should get a tax cut. I do not think we should. I do not think we need the GST eliminated from our purchases right now.
I can definitely see the need for a good policy discussion on the many Canadians out there who are struggling, the ones who Conservatives get up on a daily basis and talk about. They refer to them by name quite often in the House and talk about how they are struggling with the increased prices at grocery stores. Those are the people who would benefit from the policy objectives the Conservatives are suggesting through the GST cut. It is not the member for Regina—Lewvan, the member for Thornhill, the member for Simcoe North or myself, yet they continue to promote that idea.
I can respect the NDP's desire and passion to push forward the agenda when it comes to taxing businesses more that have made excess and huge profits during the pandemic. I respect that and agree with it, but I do not understand why they will not just accept the answer.
The member for Scarborough—Guildwood stood up and answered the question from an NDP member directly, who then just stood up and asked it to another Liberal. We are already doing that. We have already increased the excess profits tax on companies that have made a windfall during the last two years. I know it is not enough, because the NDP's job is always to ask for more. It would not matter what was given; its members would want more. I get it. It is part of their job and I respect it, and I am sure they will continue to do that.
I obviously will not be voting in favour of this. There is absolutely no way any Conservative is expecting any member in this House other than themselves to vote in favour of it. This brings me back to the beginning of my speech, which is to ask why they are bringing forward this motion they know will actually help nobody.
1432 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 5:22:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is suggesting that I am out of touch. That member and her party want a GST cut for everybody, including her, including me and including the people who are making ridiculous amounts of money right now as a result of going through the pandemic and the people who have experienced a lot of windfall from that. The reality of the situation is that we do not need a GST tax cut. I do not need it, and I will go out on a limb and suggest that she does not need it. However, there are people out there who do need supports, and that is where the government is focused. It is focused on providing support to the people who need it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 5:24:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for starters, about two weeks ago, I voted in favour of the NDP motion to eliminate the oil subsidies. I am not sure if this particular member did.
I would totally agree with him. I do not disagree with him. There are other companies out there that have seen windfalls and huge profits during the last two years and that, quite frankly, through the proper policy, should be contributing more, in particular to assist those who are on the other end of the spectrum.
We have to remember that what the pandemic has really done to our society and the fabric of our society is that it has driven the wedge between the haves and the have-nots further. I think we need to work on addressing that, instead of working on addressing how we get a GST cut for members of Parliament and everybody out there, in particular those who do not need it.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 5:25:55 p.m.
- Watch
No, I cannot explain that, Madam Speaker, because I am not a medical expert. I know that this particular member from the NDP has been playing this game lately of skating very close to that line of what his constituents and indeed his supporters would deem to be acceptable or not acceptable, but I would suggest to the member that it is in his best interest to listen to the advice of the experts. If we do not believe the experts and if we have lost faith in the institutions, as the Conservatives continually do, time and again, in questioning the institutions, which is extremely problematic for the democracy that we have, that is when we are going to run into a problem. I would encourage the member to be very careful about what he is doing.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 6:23:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak towards the end of his speech, as one of his examples, about the way that the government was approaching banks in terms of the excess profits that they have been making over the last couple of years. He would seem to suggest that there are supports that are being given out to banks as we speak.
However, the reality of this situation is that there is an excess profit tax that is specifically being applied to banks and other businesses that saw windfall profits during the pandemic. Can the member at least accept the fact that the government has introduced that measure to make sure that banks in particular are paying their fair share as it relates to dealing with the problems that we had during the pandemic and the supports that had to be distributed during the pandemic?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 7:10:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London made a really good point earlier on when she said that the discussion happening in the House really did not have anything to do with the main estimates. I am wondering if the member will bring his speech back to the estimates or if he is going to continue with justice policy and legislation.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:01:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the intervention by the member today and I find it quite fascinating that previous Bloc MPs have risen and said that we are not moving fast enough with various things, in particular in relation to green infrastructure.
The Infrastructure Bank is funding so many of these projects. We just have to go online to see that, but the member is now complaining that municipalities and the provinces are asked to submit their plans and their applications for 10 months from now. I was a mayor of a city and a city councillor and I know very well that if a municipality has a project on the go or is interested, 10 months is more than long enough to get council approval to proceed with an application and put together the basic framework for an application to submit.
I am curious if the member can comment on one or two municipalities that he knows for which 10 months would not be long enough to put together a plan for that application.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:25:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to bring up an issue the member talked about. I have also heard quite a bit about it from the NDP over the last several months, and it is with respect to fossil fuel subsidies. I do not disagree with the NDP. I do not disagree with the member. In my personal opinion, I would love to see fossil fuel subsidies end tomorrow.
I am on the same page, but I have a problem with their narrative when they start saying that fossil fuel subsidies have increased. This information comes from the federal government deciding to invest money into dealing with abandoned orphan wells during the pandemic. That is what the money went to. These are wells that have been abandoned because either provincial regulations were not there to deal with them or the companies no longer exist. The federal government stepped in and said we will take some of the responsibility of dealing with these wells.
I know it plays the narrative the NDP like to purport in the House of the subsidies going up, but does the member really think that spending money on dealing with abandoned orphan wells, which is incredibly important environmentally, is really a subsidy for the oil sector?
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:36:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the last intervention. I appreciate the fact that the member for Elmwood—Transcona was talking about the estimates and government policies. I respect the fact that he disagrees with some of them, but it certainly was a departure from the previous speeches that we heard from across the way, which literally had nothing to do with the estimates.
I should say that I am splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants.
I will go back to the answer the member for Elmwood—Transcona provided me when I asked about government intervention in dealing with environmental issues from industry of the past. Although I agree with him that we certainly would not like to see that moving forward, unfortunately that has been the reality of pretty much everything since the Industrial Revolution. My city is still dealing with former tannery sites that are leaching material into the river along Kingston. The reality of the situation is that quite often, unfortunately, we do not know the consequences in advance of the environmental impact the economy is going to have on particular sectors, and it falls on the public to deal with that.
Certainly, I would love to set up a system, and I think we have a lot of stewardship systems in place at various levels of government, to help deal with that sort of thing now. However, we cannot just leave these abandoned oil wells because we think somebody else should have dealt with it; we need to deal with it. That is where a lot of the money is coming from when the NDP refers to the subsidies in the fossil fuel sector.
I respect the fact that the member for Elmwood—Transcona also brought up the fact that some of it had to do with carbon capture. As much as I would like to see us move away from this concept of carbon capture, because I honestly think it looks as though we are now grasping at opportunities to profit from carbon, so there is not going to be an incentive to move away from it. I get that, and I do not see carbon capture as a future, but I realize we are going to be using oil for the foreseeable future in some form or another, because we are not going to be able to flip a switch tomorrow and be completely off of oil. In the meantime, if there is something we can do to help invest in these technologies to help capture some of that carbon, I am all for exploring the various different options we have out there.
As we know, we are in a crisis right now when it comes to our environment. Personally, I do not think we should be picking and choosing which environmental policy is better or worse. We can certainly put them on a scale from what we see as best to worse, but I really think we should be throwing our weight behind as many different opportunities as possible. That is how I see a productive outcome for this. If that means that carbon capture is part of that now, I am okay with it. I want to see us get to a net-zero place, but I realize we might have to find ways to deal with some other forms of carbon in the near future.
I also want to talk about the Canada Infrastructure Bank a little, because I know it is a bit of a political lightning rod. I apologize for picking on the member for Elmwood—Transcona, but he was the last one to bring it up. He suggested that it is just about buying buses. That is not the case.
I would encourage the member, all members, and the public for that matter, to go to the website cib-bic.ca to see the various different projects that are being funded by the Infrastructure Bank, everything from Alberta irrigation to Algoma Steel retrofits and hydroelectric expansion. Yes, there are buses in there, but there is so much more in addition to that, such as upgrades to terminals, increases in broadband, highway improvements, retrofits with respect to various different large-scale operations, fibre links, particularly in indigenous communities, and the list goes on.
They suggest that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is there only to help municipalities get electric buses, and yes, that is one of the things in there. I imagine, out of the billions of dollars that have been allocated and spent from there, that it is a tiny fraction of it when we add it all up, because there are so many other very important projects happening. I hate the thought that we are trying to diminish the value of this bank, specifically for political gain.
Public transportation, green infrastructure, broadband, trade and transportation, clean power and indigenous infrastructure are the main objectives of the Canada Infrastructure Bank and what the bank is able to fund and move forward on. Members do not have to remember the website, but just google “Canada Infrastructure Bank”. They will get to the website almost immediately and see the projects going on in all the different provinces within Canada.
The other thing that I have heard relates directly back to the estimates because, quite frankly, the supports that the government has been moving forward with over the last couple of years and continues to in this budget are to help Canadians deal with the rise in costs and, in particular, the cost of living increases. We are focused on providing supports to those who need them the most, rather than trying to provide blanket tax reductions like the Conservatives were calling for earlier today with the removal of GST on certain products.
We believe that it is most important not to attempt to apply the same tax reduction on everybody or provide boutique tax credits. As we know, we got rid of the boutique tax credits that Stephen Harper had before, because our focus is more on helping those who need it the most. Guess what? When we help those who need it the most, does anyone know what they are doing with that money? They are not putting it in tax-free savings accounts; they are actually spending the money, and the money continues to generate economic activity in our communities, our provinces and throughout the country.
It is a win-win. It is not just about giving supports to those who need it the most. It is also about helping to generate economic activity, because we know the individuals who need the money the most are those who will be spending it.
One of the huge misconceptions in this place, at least as it comes from the Conservatives in this direction, that I have heard repeatedly over the last number of weeks is with respect to the rates of inflation. If we were only to listen to Conservatives, we would think that inflation was a Canada-only problem. Inflation is a problem right now throughout the globe. In fact, Canada is below the OECD average when it comes to inflation. We are actually doing better in terms of inflation than most developed countries in the world.
I do not want to suggest for a second that that means people are not struggling with the rising cost of living. What I am trying to say is that this government is absolutely committed to doing whatever it can to bring those costs back down for Canadians, so that people can see some relief from those rises in costs.
I will conclude by saying that I strongly believe that the direction the government has been moving in in its budgets, what it did with supports during COVID and how it supported businesses and individuals coming out of COVID through the various measures, have all been to the good. Have they led to some economic challenges? Yes, and we have certainly seen that throughout the world, in other developed countries as well. Is the government focused right now on turning its attention to dealing with the affordability crisis that is happening with many people? Absolutely, and this budget goes to that. The elements contained within the estimates go to supporting Canadians, because we genuinely believe that a stronger economy is going to happen only when we have a strong middle class in place and people are able to prop up and support our economy and keep it moving forward.
1428 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:46:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not have the specifics as to why the exact budgetary items are in there, but what I will say is that, back to the exchange with the member for Elmwood—Transcona, the NDP, as we can see, through the exchanges that I have had with its members and the exchanges that we see during question period from time to time, there is still some animosity there, for lack of a better expression, with respect to where we see the end goal.
What the NDP was able to do in that supply and confidence agreement is that it was able to say that there were a few issues that it was very passionate about, that it was going to bring those to the table and that it was going to push and advance its objectives on behalf of Canadians.
If only the Conservatives had done the same thing, this member may have, if we had a supply and confidence agreement with the Conservatives, been able to push forward that agenda. I wonder if he brought that up in a similar discussion with the Conservatives.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:48:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, speaking of track records, the Bloc Québécois quite often, through unanimous consent motions, voted in favour of all of those supports for Canadians. This member and, if memory serves me correctly, the Bloc even, on a couple of occasions that were not unanimous consent motions, in particular in the last Parliament, supported these measures.
I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and he might be having regrets, but the reality of the situation is that he voted in favour of it. For him to be so critical at this point, it would have been great if he was able to share some of that foresight with the government that he suddenly has now, in advance of the money being spent, when he voted in favour of it.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:50:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a revolutionary way of building infrastructure. I think of the third crossing of the Cataraqui River, which is a 1.4-kilometre-long bridge that is three and a half years into production, to be done later this fall in my riding of Kingston. It was the exact same idea, although not funded through this particular bank. It was a partnership between all three levels of government and the contractor.
They would come together and they risk-managed together. They developed the project together. They will build the project together. They will deal with changes in the supply and availability of steel or concrete, for example, and they will deal with it all together. It is, quite frankly, a revolutionary way, in my opinion, having been in that position, of working on large-scale infrastructure projects where municipalities, in particular, are very hesitant to go it on their own, because they might not have the experience in it or they might not have the ability to deal with cost overruns, for example. It truly is, at least in my community, making a big difference.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 9:26:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the member's perspective on the role of the court being a sacred institution within our democratic process. Most importantly, we need to maintain a certain degree and level of respect of the court, and to work with the court. I do not disagree with his comments that our job is to help and react when it comes to making better legislation based on, perhaps, an outcome from the court.
Does he apply the same logic to other institutions within government or at arm's length from government? Does he see the same value in ensuring that we hold these institutions and the fundamental objective of the institution in high regard as well, so as to not publicly go after, criticize and try to jeopardize those institutions, such as the Bank of Canada?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 11:10:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
