SoVote

Jun/7/22 11:18:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Foothills' interventions in the House with regard to agriculture and farmers are very well respected. I have the utmost respect for farmers across Canada from coast to coast to coast. We need to make sure we have their backs at all times, particularly at a time when food security, food affordability and food security are of paramount concern. We will be there always to ensure we have the backs of farmers. I know the minister of agriculture is obviously fighting for farmers day in and day out.

95 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/7/22 11:18:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I pointed out to my Conservative colleagues that it was rather shameful to ask the government to lift the GST on gas, particularly since oil companies are making record profits right now. Big oil companies are the ones robbing the middle class of what little wealth it had managed to accumulate. I am wondering whether my colleague is aware that the government is supporting oil companies. That is another shameful fact. Think of the $2.6 billion the budget allocates to carbon capture strategies. Does my colleague agree that that is shameful, given what the greedy oil companies are up to?

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/7/22 11:19:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for his question. I support carbon capture strategies. I believe the carbon capture measure we put into our budget is one additional measure that we need to put into place to lower greenhouse gas emissions by working with industry. I will also add that the measures our government has brought into place since 2015 have been directly aimed at helping middle-class Canadians and middle-class Canadian families. We will continue to have their backs coming out of COVID-19 and working through this affordability situation that the whole world faces.

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jun/7/22 11:20:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend happy birthday wishes to my colleague's daughter. We know that the Conservative motion, by cutting the GST and by eliminating the carbon tax on oil and gas, will actually just lead to an increased amount on our deficit. Also, it will do nothing to stop oil and gas companies from earning skyrocketing profits on the backs of everyday Canadians. We know that speculation is the biggest factor driving oil and gas prices at the moment. Does the member agree that tighter regulation of this sector, with the establishment of a petroleum monitoring agency and an oil and gas ombudsman—something we have been urging for several years—would be a good way to ensure Canadians are getting fair prices at the pump?

132 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/7/22 11:20:53 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a government and as a society, we always must monitor any anti-competitive practices that are being put in place or practised by whichever sector of the economy where they are in place. It was great to see a number of measures in budget 2022 that are aimed at strengthening the Competition Act and giving more teeth and more resources to that entity.

66 words

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

Jun/7/22 11:21:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, happy birthday to Eliana, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge's daughter. I feel that my question really is about all of our children's future, particularly someone at 11 years old. Despite the many programs that the Liberals have put forward on climate, they cumulatively are completely inadequate to ensure that we will avoid an unlivable world for our own children. The warnings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are clear that we must ensure that emissions begin to drop globally before 2025. I ask the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge if he would accept that approving Baie du Nord and continuing to build the Trans Mountain pipeline shows that there is an inadequate understanding that we are in a climate emergency.

128 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/7/22 11:22:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I also read a report. I think it was from the IAEA, if I have the acronym correct, and there is a chart in it showing the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas emissions over time. That chart is very startling. I agree with the hon. member that this is about our children's future. This is a global issue. Canada needs to lead on it, but we also need to know and also need to understand that this is a transition in place and that we need to ensure that energy security is there for citizens across the world, along with energy affordability. Also, we need to decarbonize. That has to be our priority.

118 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Jun/7/22 11:23:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Mirabel. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved on the Conservative Party’s opposition day. This motion comprises many of the motions that have been moved by the Conservatives here in the past, most of which were defeated. They decided to take all these motions and lump them together, claiming that they were right and everyone else was wrong. I will begin by quoting Albert Einstein, hoping that my colleagues will not be offended that I am citing a scientist. He said that “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”. Let us be clear. Inflation is a real problem that concerns our constituents, but we need more than simplistic solutions to deal with long-standing patterns and complex phenomena. It is not enough to resort to libertarian monetary fads, such as cryptocurrency, to overcome rising prices caused by demand outstripping supply in the context of a labour shortage. Also, the word “cryptocurrency” is strangely absent from the motion, unless we should be expecting an amendment from the hon. member for Carleton. We will see. We are dealing with a real conflict in terms of the distribution of wealth and equity. I am not saying that this is the crux of the problem, but it is one of them. There appear to be three fundamental differences between Canadian and British Conservatives. First, British Conservatives defend sovereignty. As we know, it was the Conservatives who orchestrated Brexit. Second, they did not fire their leader. Third, they are concerned about their most disadvantaged citizens. Boris Johnson’s government plans to levy an exceptional 25% tax on gas and oil company profits in an effort to return the revenues to households experiencing the greatest difficulties. Canada’s Conservatives, on the other hand, are proposing that we suspend the goods and services tax on gasoline and diesel. That is pure demagoguery. Obviously, many Canadians get angry when they go to the pumps. Their anger is the most understandable and legitimate in the world and, for many of them, this simple solution may appear to be eminently sensible. They likely think that it would give them a bit of breathing room. The problem is that this is a false solution to a real problem. As long as oil companies control prices, they will obviously be able to increase them. Oil companies understand full well that, despite people’s anger, they have no other option right now than to go to the gas station and fill up their tank. If we were to suspend the tax, the oil companies would only increase their prices. It is that simple. That is the problem. Even if consumers were to pay less in the short term, which is not guaranteed, prices would soon increase. One could even say that this motion moved by the Conservatives is a gift for their oil company friends. An hon. member: Oh, come on! Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have unsettled my colleagues with this surprising revelation this morning. In this morning’s Journal de Montréal, Michel Girard, in an article entitled “Les pétrolières nous pompent des milliards”, or oil companies are siphoning billions out of our pockets—another article that will prove to be unsettling for some—reported on the expected and past profits of several major oil companies. Suncor Energy pocketed $11 billion in 2022, Imperial Oil made $6.2 billion in profits in 2021, and Valero Energy made $6.5 billion in profits last year. Internationally, Shell is expected to pocket more than $40 billion this year. Moreover, the energy sector subindex has risen by 43% since the beginning of the year, and that followed a 42% increase in 2021. I will now address the Quebeckers and Canadians who are listening to us. Here is the proof: Your inflation is their loot. It is that simple. We need a transition plan out of fossil fuels. We have been saying that for a long time, and we will continue to say it. We need to take action. Obviously, it will not happen overnight. We do not want to lay anyone off tomorrow morning. There are workers in the sector. The aim is not to lay them off, but it goes without saying that decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels means decreasing our dependence on fossil fuel price fluctuations. That is just logical. Today, as drivers are going broke, shareholders are celebrating. Sadly, there is nothing in the Conservatives’ motion about that. Still, the oil companies are not the only ones to be making record profits we could easily describe as obscene. Consider banks, with their astronomical senior executive salaries and profits in 2021. Combined, the National Bank, Laurentian Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, TD Bank, Scotiabank, CIBC and Desjardins Group earned $60.68 billion in profits. That is a 39% jump, or about $17 billion more, over the previous year, which was also a pandemic year. The Royal Bank of Canada was the biggest profit maker, raking in $16.05 billion, an increase of over 40%. It was followed by TD Bank, with $14.3 billion, an increase of 20%. Scotiabank pocketed $9.99 billion, an increase of 45%. The Bank of Montreal posted profits of $7.75 billion, an increase of over 52%. CIBC took in $6.45 billion, an increase of more than 68%. National Bank made $3.18 billion, an increase of more than 53%. Only Laurentian Bank did not do as well as in the previous year. Now let us look at salaries. The CEOs of these eight financial institutions took home $88.87 million, compared with $71.52 million in 2020. Not everyone is experiencing the crisis in the same way. According to Canadians for Tax Fairness, 111 publicly traded companies headquartered in Canada recorded profits over $100 million in the first nine months of the year. Thirty-four of these companies posted record profits during a crisis. Let me repeat that: during a crisis. The top earner was TC Energy, formerly TransCanada, whose Keystone project has been in the news for years. The company made $3.5 billion in profit on sales of $9.7 billion in the third quarter. Meanwhile, SMEs are going into debt. We need to levy a tax on profits exceeding $1 billion for banks, insurance companies, oil companies and big box stores. The tax revenue should be used to fund assistance programs, particularly for SMEs. That is how wealth is redistributed. That is also how the impact of the crisis is evenly distributed. The Biden administration in the United States has proposed a tax on the super-rich to finance its postpandemic investment plan. There would be a tax on unrealized capital gains, in other words, a tax on dormant income, which would apply to approximately 700 taxpayers and would raise hundreds of millions of dollars, guaranteeing that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share to finance the historic investments needed for a strong recovery. Last year in Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that a tax on excess profits earned by big firms in 2020, during the pandemic, would have generated $7.9 billion for the federal treasury. One promising solution that should be considered is a global minimum tax. In June 2021, the G7 finance ministers met in London and reached an astonishing landmark agreement to establish an international corporate tax rate of at least 15% and improve the distribution of tax revenues from multinationals. I only have six seconds left, but I still have so much to say. Before I take questions, I will conclude by thanking my colleagues for listening so carefully and by stating that the Bloc Québécois will not support these bogus solutions to real problems.

1362 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Jun/7/22 11:33:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I do not know if he really took the time to read the motion, but the solutions we are proposing are perhaps not long-term solutions as he suggests. I still feel it is important that we discuss them. However, in the short term, for all Canadians and those living in his riding, measures like temporarily suspending the GST on gas and diesel would benefit taxpayers in his riding. We understand that it is a short-term measure, but if we want to give our constituents a break, I feel it is important that we do it.

107 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/7/22 11:34:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, there is no problem with the part about fertilizer, and I want to make that clear. That is probably one of the things that is having a very big impact on my riding as well. The member is talking about giving people a break, but this motion would give a break to the oil companies. There is “short term”, and then there is “short term”. It will only take the oil companies a few months to realize that they can raise prices. They will be even happier. We will end up with the same price at the pump, with more money going to the oil companies and less to the government.

120 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 11:34:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the work that he continues to do on international trade. I did not quite hear the last few seconds of his speech. Is the Bloc Québécois planning to vote against this motion, given what we just heard about the oil companies not needing a break and the Conservative proposals not really going to help Canadians?

70 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/7/22 11:35:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct; the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. I am also happy to see my former colleague from the Standing Committee on International Trade, and I give her my regards. That said, I am appealing to our government colleagues. The energy transition ball is also in the government's court, and I would encourage them to listen to us. There needs to be a real transition. As my colleague said, the oil companies are making enough and do not deserve any more profit. We urge the government to take action in this area as well.

106 words

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

Jun/7/22 11:36:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed hearing my colleague's comments. Does he agree that, if we truly want to support ordinary people in crisis, we need to make the rich pay? They need be taxed fairly so that the government can invest in our social systems and support the people, families and communities who are going through very difficult times.

59 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/7/22 11:36:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, because I would have liked to speak to that point if I had had more time. If I understand the question correctly, in terms of those who are struggling the most, that is exactly what we must do. We need to help those with the lowest incomes. We also need to help seniors by giving them a real pension increase starting at age 65, not a one-time cheque. In other words, we must help the real victims of inflation, with fairer taxes, taxes on obscene profits and on the ultrarich. That will get us somewhere.

105 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/7/22 11:37:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot for that excellent speech. I have here the Conservatives' opposition day motion. The motion is quite detailed and long. It includes all their failed initiatives from this parliamentary session. For their sake, I am glad it all fits on a letter-sized page. It includes a number of whereases that are hard to argue with, especially the ones about the high cost of living. That is a simple fact. We know inflation has gone up and the price of goods has gone up. The whereases are fine. Things are off to a good start. For example, we know the price of gas is over two dollars. We are aware of that. People in my riding are worried about it. The same goes for the price of food, which has gone up over 9%. Other goods have gone up even more. We know that. The motion also says that heightened inflation is projected to persist longer than was reasonably believed a while ago. Obviously, economic projections are made with the best information available at the time, and nobody predicted the war in Ukraine. The point is, it is true that the cost of living is higher and will remain higher for some time. Based on the solutions offered in the motion, however, it is clear that, although they identified the symptoms of inflation correctly, the Conservatives do not understand the causes. They did not do their homework, and the facts cannot lie. Facts can be checked. The Conservatives are laughing, but they will learn. The facts show that household demand has continued to increase, but it is not much higher than it would have been without the pandemic. Habits have changed and people are consuming less services and more goods, which has led to supply chain issues. This is true in Canada, it is true in Quebec and, because we cannot ignore the rest of the world, it is true in the majority of other developed countries. On top of that is the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine has most certainly had an effect on supply chains, an effect that is still present today, for example, on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Russia is using supplies of grain, food and fuel as a weapon of mass destruction, which has made food prices here skyrocket. This weapon is also being used to make developing countries suffer because they are being held hostage. This is very real. If we look at the figures, we can see that 70% of the factors driving the price increases are what we call supply-side factors. Neither we nor the Bank of Canada have any influence over these factors. That is our economic reality. It is unpleasant, hence all the grandstanding we are seeing, but that is our economic reality. The Conservative motion proposes solutions to all these supply shock problems. The first solution is to end all federal restrictions on travel, masks and so on. There are not many federal restrictions left, but a few still remain. That is already out of touch. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health, and last week we heard from Dr. MacDonald, a professor at Dalhousie University who specializes in pediatrics and infectious diseases. I asked her if she thought that politicians should stop meddling in health measures and including specific health measures in motions in Parliament. She replied that she agreed, that it did not make any sense. She said that parliamentarians should stop dictating health measures and that these decisions should be made by public health authorities. This is true of the Conservatives' motions, but it is also true of the Liberals, who may be using the health measures for political purposes. This has to stop. That is one reason this motion is problematic. It is not the Conservatives' job to dictate health measures in a motion. There is also the cost of living. We know that the cost of living is going up. The Conservatives are saying that we need to do something about it and that they will propose something smart. Since March 2022, the solution of the motion's sponsor, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, has been to support the member for Carleton in the leadership race. We know they are popular. They are saying that what they will do, since everyone is suffering, is fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. What a brilliant idea, as if firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada is going to help people in Mirabel and Beauce, or our farmers. They want to fire the leader of one of the most credible central banks in the world when 70% of inflation is not his responsibility. As for the other 30%, the Conservatives who said he was not taking action are now complaining because he is taking action by raising interest rates. The last time a party or a government was irresponsible enough to propose such a thing was in 1961, when Prime Minister Flemming, who was a Conservative, shockingly enough, said he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, James Elliott Coyne. What happened? The government did it by passing legislation, because it was illegal. However, the Senate slammed the door on their faces. Things must be going badly if the Senate is giving lessons on democracy. The Senate told the government that the head of a central bank cannot be fired. Nevertheless, that is where today's Conservatives are headed under the member for Carleton. They are going to be given a lesson on democracy by the Senate. Lucky them. There are solutions, and we have proposed some. The first is to tax oil companies in order to fund our public services and launch assistance programs. I am sure the Conservatives will say this is a Bloc fantasy. There is only one entity in the world that is proposing to abolish gas taxes, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada. However, on May 26, the U.K. proposed a 25% windfall tax that is expected to bring in $6 billion U.S. I did not make this up; their Conservative friends in Britain proposed it. On June 4, the Biden administration suggested a similar tax, which is now being studied. India is also thinking about this. How amazing to think that India is a step ahead of the Conservatives. The Conservatives' solution is to lower taxes. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said, the oil companies are going to lie low for a few weeks, like they did in Alberta. Then, once the public relations crisis is over, they will raise prices. They know full well that people are not going to run out and buy electric vehicles tomorrow morning, and that they will have to keep filling up their tanks. The Conservative motion will not help farmers in the member for Beauce's riding, I can promise him that. What should we do instead? First, we need to increase seniors' purchasing power. Where in the motion is the increase to the federal pension for seniors? Nowhere. There needs to be a program to support the people who are most affected, such as farmers, who cannot buy a Tesla combine. Where is the targeted program for them? Nowhere. There needs to be a program to help taxi drivers, including Uber drivers. Where is that program in the Conservative motion? Nowhere. We need to address the labour shortage. There was nothing in the budget tabled by the Liberals, who are no better. Where in the Conservative motion are the solutions to the labour shortage? Nowhere. We are talking about real people who are being affected by these higher prices. Where is the proposal for increasing the GST rebate and issuing cheques more frequently every month? It is nowhere to be found, either from the government or from the Conservatives. We asked that fertilizers that had been ordered and paid for before the crisis in Ukraine started be cleared for delivery. That is not in the motion, although we do support the part about the tariffs on fertilizer. It just goes to show that there is always a little light in the darkness. Where is the Conservatives' proposal for fixing social housing? We need 60,000 units in Montreal just to start getting back on track. Where is the Conservatives' proposal for sending that money to Quebec, since the Liberals think sending money to Quebec is even harder than building housing? Nowhere. Where is the money for real housing, for real families who are on a real budget, with real children who go to real schools? Rather than helping people, the Conservatives are fixating on the governor of the central bank. Where is the tax credit for experienced workers in our supply chains? It is nowhere to be found in the Conservative motion. Where is the Conservatives' proposal for handing over control of the temporary foreign worker program to Quebec so that farmers in Oka, Mirabel or Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines get the people they need, so that the process is efficient and there is no need to conduct the same labour market impact assessment twice? Nowhere. Where is their aerospace policy that will help us become more efficient at research and development, seeing as Canada is the only country with such a large industry and no aerospace policy? Nowhere. The Liberals will tell us that they gave $800 million to Bell Textron. We know that, and we are happy about it. However, Canada still has no policy. This Conservative motion is devoid of substance. As for the Liberals, they will do what they always do, which is stand up and tell us that they have increased family benefits indexed to inflation. However, indexation is always one year behind, and people are living with 6% to 7% inflation right now. There are solutions out there, and we have proposed some, but they are nowhere to be found in this motion.

1690 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Jun/7/22 11:47:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech about the economy. However, this is just a motion. It is not the Conservatives' budget. It is just a motion designed to help all the people in our ridings, be they in Nova Scotia or Quebec. It is just the Conservatives' straightforward way of trying to help all Canadians.

58 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Jun/7/22 11:48:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a great person and I thank him for his question. They have the right idea. They identified a problem and they want to find solutions. However, the Bloc Québécois and I find that these solutions are short term and not a good fit for the situation. These are not the right solutions. I realize that this is not a Conservative budget, thank God. However, it does give us some indication that, if the Conservatives were in power, oil companies would take precedence over the people of my riding.

97 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 11:48:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with what my colleague just said in the House. He talked about the importance of coming up with solutions. Does the Bloc Québécois have some solutions and some concrete, long-term economic policy ideas that can help us develop well-thought-out policies in the House?

54 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Jun/7/22 11:49:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just spent 10 minutes proposing solutions that were not in the motion, as I said. The Bloc Québécois has obviously been proposing plenty of solutions. However, the government keeps saying that inflation is temporary, that we are in a supply and affordability crisis because of what is happening in Ukraine. In question period every day, when ministers read their talking points prepared by the Prime Minister's Office, they keep saying it is temporary. Today I am suggesting concrete solutions for people who are experiencing these problems right now. Obviously, long-term solutions do exist. We have been asking for an aerospace policy in Quebec for 10, 12, 15 years, and we have yet to see one. We are proposing solutions. I spent 10 minutes doing just that. Obviously, we are in a crisis, and this calls for crisis solutions, which need to be brought in immediately. Unfortunately, the budget was devoid of these kinds of solutions.

164 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/7/22 11:50:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I think we can agree that, in this time of inflation, while some things are indeed out of the government's control, there are some measures it could be taking. What is missing from the Conservative analysis is a real assessment of the role of the private sector and how it is contributing to inflation. We must not forget that aspect in our analysis. I wonder if my hon. colleague could elaborate on that.

84 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83