SoVote

Jun/7/22 1:14:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the world price on oil and gas is not set by the Conservative Party of Canada. I would suggest there is no way the Conservative Party can guarantee any sort of savings by cutting a consumption tax or a price on pollution. There is no guarantee of that. The motion talks about the housing market. At the end of the day, and we have had discussions about the housing market in Canada, the national government does have a leadership role to play. There is absolutely no doubt of that. We have done that, whether it be in the fall economic statement, which the Conservatives voted against, or within this budget, which the Conservatives are voting against. Things like the annual tax on homes that are not being used as residences or the freeze being put into place through the budget on foreign ownership related issues are all having an impact. Most importantly, for the first time in a generation, we have a government that has been very proactive on the housing file. We have invested far greater amounts of money into housing and providing supports to the non-profit sector, to provincial and territorial governments and to indigenous communities. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars that has been incorporated into the national housing strategy, which is something that did not exist prior. We have the intergenerational housing credit within this particular budget to encourage families to build onto homes or have something built on their property. This is an excellent program. We have encouraged community members to look at ways in which they can make their homes more energy efficient. For the first time in many, many years, we have a government that has been spending a great deal of resources and efforts at improving Canada's housing stock. It takes more than a national government to deal with this problem, whether it is municipalities in the areas of zoning and making accessible properties or individuals who want to purchase property. If someone is a normal resident, it is very difficult to buy an individual building lot, especially in urban centres. We can take a look at the amount of administration provinces are ultimately responsible for when it comes to housing. The federal government provides hundreds of millions of dollars on an annual basis to support low-income housing, not to mention the rapid housing program and other housing projects the Minister of Housing has put into place. The Conservatives will criticize the housing file, but when they were in office, they absolutely failed in comparison to some of the initiatives we have put into place. We can take a look at the speech that was given by the leader of the Conservative Party. Unlike the Conservatives, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will continue to focus our attention on the real issues that are facing Canadians every day of the week. It is why we are concerned about housing, inflation and many other issues, such as the pandemic. We will continue to do what we can to assist Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

526 words

All Topics

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/7/22 1:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and heard him say something we heard earlier today. I would like him to very clear about it. Is he telling the House that the reason the Liberals cannot eliminate, even temporarily, the GST on fuel and the carbon tax, or even just on fuel, is they believe retailers would collude to prevent the tax savings from going to consumers? Yes or no, is that the reason you cannot do this?

80 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 1:20:36 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the hon. member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

23 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 1:20:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we need to recognize, when we talk about consumption taxes, that there is absolutely no guarantee, and the Conservatives cannot guarantee, that any sort of savings could be passed on in that direction. I would suggest to the member that there are other things the government does. For example, a GST rebate and a price-on-pollution credit are given out so that individuals in the most need are receiving benefits. Those are the types things that I believe a government could be more focused on, as opposed to the simple solutions the Conservatives like to put on paper while they say to get rid of this or get rid of that. It is a populist attitude, and is much like when the leader of the Conservative Party says he will fire, banish or punish the Bank of Canada governor, or makes irresponsible statements of that nature. We are not going to do that on this side of the House.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 1:21:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know if the member did it deliberately or not, but referring to the leader of the Conservative Party as somebody who is a leadership contestant is offside. He should refrain from doing that.

45 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 1:22:08 p.m.
Watch

That is debate. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

11 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/7/22 1:22:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague opposite so often says, “at the end of the day”, knowing that no other parties are going to support this omnibus Conservative motion, not much is going to change. “At the end of the day”, nothing will change. However, I would like to know if my colleague opposite is prepared to do something that, “at the end of the day”, would make a big difference, for example, helping seniors. They need to stop cuts to the guaranteed income supplement immediately and agree to increase old age pensions, as we have been calling for for so long. That has fallen on deaf ears. I have no desire to hear, once again, that they have always been there for seniors and that they have handed out a one-time payment of $500. A $500 payment is a joke, given today's inflation. Increases to old age pensions: Yea or nay?

159 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 1:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, to my friend across the way, I should not make the presumption that the member for Carleton will ultimately prevail. I know it does scare a lot of his colleagues, but a vast majority seem to want to support him. With regard to seniors, virtually from day one, this government has been supportive of seniors. The member might not necessarily like to hear that, but we can talk about substantial increases to the GIS at the very beginning of the pandemic, when there were $300 and $200 direct payments, depending on whether someone was collecting GIS. At the very least, that went to every senior who was 65 and above. We have seen 10% increases for seniors who are 75 and over. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars invested into many non-profit organizations throughout Canada that provide support services for seniors. We have also invested a huge amount of money into long-term care and issues of mental health, and have reduced the cost of pharmaceuticals, all to the benefit of seniors.

180 words

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

Jun/7/22 1:24:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we have all expressed here, we are opposed to this Conservative take on supporting Canadians who are struggling. Are the the Liberals prepared to ensure tax fairness and make sure the rich are paying their fair share of taxes so we can reinvest that money into supporting Canadians, who are struggling so much right now?

58 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 1:24:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. From the very beginning, we saw the issue of income inequality. It is one of the reasons we put a tax on Canada's wealthiest 1% at the beginning of the mandate. If we take a look at this particular budget, we will see a luxury tax of just over $100,000 and $250,000 on boats. This is a government that genuinely believes that for us to move forward, we need to continue to support our middle class and those who need the support of government to get into the middle class.

97 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Jun/7/22 1:25:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North. We are talking about an affordability crisis in the House today. I am very confident that I am not the only member of the House who is getting dozens and dozens of calls and emails every single day from constituents who are very concerned about their ability to put food on the table, put fuel in their cars, heat their homes and put their kids in the activities they enjoy the most. What we are talking about here in our opposition day motion is reducing taxes to make life more affordable for Canadians by eliminating the GST on fuel and the carbon tax. What I am hearing is somewhat unbelievable. The argument from the Liberals and the NDP is that somehow eliminating a point-of-sale tax does not put more money in the pockets of Canadians. I am not sure how one can even argue that. In fact, their argument against this is that retailers are going to collude to ensure that savings are not passed on to Canadians. I can say from experience that in Alberta, where the provincial government has removed the provincial sales tax on fuel, fuel is about 20¢ cheaper than anywhere else in Canada. Albertans are benefiting from a government that has seen the difficulties Canadians are facing, has taken action to address them and has passed savings directly to Canadians. What I am hearing from my constituents, after two years of the pandemic, is that they are exhausted; they are tired. They want to get life back to normal. While they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that the pandemic is all but over and that businesses are opening back up, they see the affordability crisis, where fuel prices are exorbitant, grocery prices are going up and housing prices are going up. A lot of this has to fall at the feet of the Liberal government. I know the Liberals like to say this is a global issue and that the war in Ukraine with Putin is causing prices to increase. However, I have been in the House pretty much every day and I do not ever recall Vladimir Putin sitting across the way and voting in favour of a carbon tax. I do not recall Vladimir Putin putting forward legislation or a bill to increase the carbon tax on April 1. Maybe I missed that. I am not sure if my colleagues around the House can confirm that Vladimir Putin is the reason the carbon tax went up 25% on April 1, despite an affordability crisis around the world and a war in Ukraine. I am not sure how we put this all at the feet of Vladimir Putin. Instead of the government offering relief to Canadians when they need it most, the Prime Minister is travelling around the world with no mask in sight, and here at home he is punishing Canadians over and over again with his draconian mandates and travel restrictions, which are not in place anywhere else around the world. That really seems to be the modus operandi of the Liberal government. It is going to punish Canadians at home and do something completely different around the world. A good example of that is the fertilizer tariff. My colleague across the way does not seem to think that this is a problem and thinks this is a way of punishing Russia. I would invite my Liberal colleagues talk to any farmer, especially in eastern Canada, and ask them if the fertilizer tariff is hurting Vladimir Putin. The only people this fertilizer tariff of 35% is punishing are Canadian farmers. Vladimir Putin, once again, is not paying this tariff; Canadian farmers are paying this tariff. Even before the war in Ukraine, fertilizer prices in many parts of the country were more than double what they were the year before, as a result, in many cases, of the carbon tax. Do members know what makes fertilizer? It is natural gas. Carbon taxes put on natural gas cause prices to increase. Canadian farmers are being punished and we have offered solutions. We have asked the Liberal government to provide an exemption on fertilizers purchased before March 2, before Russia invaded Ukraine. The Liberals said no. We then asked them if they would offer compensation to farmers who have had to pay an exorbitant price for that tariff. Again, the Liberals said no. Let me put this in perspective. Canada is the only G7 country putting a tariff on Russian fertilizer, meaning that Canadian farmers are now at a severe competitive disadvantage to our compatriots around the world. They are paying an exorbitantly high carbon tax and they are paying a tariff on fertilizer. At the same time, we are in the midst of a global food crisis. Food insecurity is probably the number one priority on earth and we are the only country on earth that is increasing taxes and putting a tariff on fertilizer. How does that make us competitive? How does that give us the ability to carry the burden of helping in a global food crisis, which our farmers absolutely want to do? They want to be there to help, but the Liberal government is doing everything possible to ensure that we cannot do that and do not meet our potential. Despite the Conservatives offering these solutions, the Liberals carry on with this activist agenda, let us say, or the theatrics they are putting on that this is somehow punishing Putin when it is only punishing Canadian farmers. However, it is not just Canadians farmers who are going to feel the impact of this. If Canadian farmers have to reduce their use of fertilizer simply because they cannot afford it, yields are going to go down and the prices of commodities are going to go up. We have already seen the price of groceries go up. In many cases they are up 15%, depending on the product. This is only going to get worse. We are not only talking about countries that have been relying on Ukrainian commodities such as barley, wheat and sunflower oil; this is going to be felt here at home. My NDP colleagues have been talking about food insecurity here at home in Canada. A lot of that is the result of Liberal policies. The Liberals are the ones increasing the cost of those groceries by increasing the carbon tax, putting a tariff on fertilizer and having additional red tape, making it very difficult for our farmers to do the job they do best and better than anyone else in the world. We are the only country with a government, in a food security crisis, that is asking Canadian consumers to pay more. It is the only government asking farmers to pay more. How does this make any sense whatsoever? I want to get to another part of our opposition day motion. I talked about fertilizer, but I also want to talk about the carbon tax. The carbon tax is something for which the Conservatives have offered a solution. My colleague from Huron—Bruce offered a private member's bill that would eliminate the carbon tax on farm fuels, Bill C-234. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in assessing the carbon tax, has said a few things that I think are very enlightening: The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, the carbon tax increases inflation and the carbon tax does not reduce emissions. This is everything the Liberals are saying the carbon tax will accomplish, and the study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer has refuted all of those claims. Why are we charging this carbon tax on our Canadian farmers? We put forward a solution in Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done the math. In the first year of the carbon tax, Canadian farmers paid on average about $14,000 a year. With the increase on April 1, that goes to $45,000 per average farmer. The Liberals are going to say there is a carbon tax rebate and eight out of 10 families make more off the carbon tax. Again, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an arm's-length officer of the House, has said that is not the case. In Bill C-8, with the carbon tax rebate, farmers get $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses. They are getting pennies on the dollar for what they are contributing to the carbon tax. Farmers are price-takers. They cannot afford to carry the burden of the carbon tax when we are asking them to improve yields and their efficiency. It does not make sense. At a time when we are talking about global food security, we also need to talk about affordability. Our farmers, producers and manufacturers need to be able to do what they do and do it efficiently. I have talked about the carbon tax and the fertilizer price, but there is another issue where the Liberals continue to throw on red tape and obstacles, which is going to be coming out in the next little while. It is front-of-package labelling. That is a direct attack on beef and pork producers in Canada. The United States has already identified this as a trade irritant that will impact our beef exports and increase grocery costs here at home, making things even more unaffordable for Canadians. In conclusion, our motion is very prudent. It would ensure that we address the affordability crisis facing Canadians, and, most importantly, help our farmers, producers and ranchers, who are doing all they can to address a global food security crisis, ensure that groceries are affordable for all Canadians.

1637 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 1:35:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have noticed that the motion calls for eliminating tariffs on fertilizer. Some Canadian companies have reorganized their supply chains, have said they agree with Canada and do not want to buy Russian fertilizer or Belarusian fertilizer, and have gone somewhere else and paid a higher price. Does the member not believe that they too should get a break from high fertilizer costs?

65 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Jun/7/22 1:36:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, they were going to find those new resources only because of the tariff put on Russian fertilizer by the Liberal government. Again, we are not arguing that there should not be sanctions on Russia, but they should be sanctions that actually impact Russia and its economy. This tariff is only punishing Canadian farmers. If we have realized anything through COVID, it is that we must diversify our trade agreements and be much more self-sufficient. The tariff that the Liberals put on Russian fertilizer is the only reason farmers are paying higher costs. I might add too that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance did not even realize that Canada purchased fertilizer from Russia before putting on that tariff.

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/7/22 1:37:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who spoke at length about agriculture, which is near and dear to my heart because there are a lot of farmers in my riding of Shefford. The Bloc agrees with the Conservatives on the fertilizer issue. However, I would like to talk to my colleague about drought, which is causing problems for a lot of farmers. Climate change is a crucial issue. My colleague talked about the importance of eating properly. If we are to achieve true food sovereignty, we need to work on farming here. To protect that, we also need to tackle climate change. Farmers are also asking for support as they try to go green. It is important to encourage that for a lot of our farmers. The tax is not what matters to them. They want us to work on climate change and reward good green practices.

147 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Jun/7/22 1:38:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree, but I think the part that we are missing here is that there is an assumption that Canadian producers are not doing everything they can to protect their land, their water, their soil and their livestock. They want to be as efficient as possible, because that is how they remain environmentally sustainable and socially sustainable, but the one critical point is to remain economically sustainable. Yes, our farmers are always concerned about being stewards of their land. They are the ones who are on the ground. I appreciate that this is an important message as well.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jun/7/22 1:38:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing we do agree on is that we need to provide relief to Canadians from skyrocketing inflation. We agree on that, but how we get there has been challenging. We have seen skyrocketing oil prices and we have seen bank fees go up and we have seen grocery costs go up. We have seen record profits for big corporations , including oil companies, grocery companies and banks. Conservatives do not believe that they should be paying their fair share of taxes, more taxes, and giving that back to Canadians through doubling the GST or the child tax benefit. My concern is that my colleague's proposal could still lead to skyrocketing oil prices. That does not preclude the oil companies from raising their prices. Does he believe that they should be paying more taxes and contributing more to Canadians, given the fact that they are making record profits right now?

152 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Jun/7/22 1:39:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the NDP dance on this issue. With their proposals to increase the carbon tax because it is not doing enough and needs to be higher, they should be celebrating really high gas prices, but now they are trying to dance around it because now the politics are against them. Canadians have to pay more than $2 a litre, likely in his riding, and they have to figure it out. Maybe they do not really support really high gas prices, the climate change and the carbon tax and whatnot. They have to make a decision here: Either they want to tax Canadians to the point of unaffordability in a crisis or they do not. Our position is to give Canadians a break as quickly as possible, get rid of the middleman, which is big government, and give Canadians a break in their pocketbooks.

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

Jun/7/22 1:40:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this chamber to talk about the Conservative opposition day motion on a very important issue affecting Canadians: affordability and the cost of living. Before I talk about the motion, I would just like to set some context for individuals who are here. Food prices have increased 9.7%; in many cases fuel is up, depending on what time it is measured, almost 65% to 70%; in some cases diesel has doubled in about 12 months; and retail prices, the prices paid for clothing and other goods, are also significantly higher. It is also important to recognize that we were on an incredibly high trajectory of inflation before the war in Ukraine started. Inflation was at a 25-year high of 5.5% in February, before the Russian Federation's invasion in Ukraine. To suggest that it is all explained by the war misses the point that we were on a quite high inflation trajectory before that war started. For full disclosure, I will concede to the members across the way that there are multiple reasons for inflation. Of course there are supply chain issues and of course there is the war. However, there are also serious structural issues that are leading to inflation. By its definition, a consumption tax is inflationary. The Bank of Canada even says this. At least half a percentage point of inflation can be attributed to the carbon tax, according to the Bank of Canada. The challenge that I have, or perhaps some of the members on this side of the House have, is that every time questions about inflation or costs of living or affordability have been raised, they are waved away and explained away by referring to these external factors that are out of the government's control. I do not believe that to be true. Yes, there are things that are outside of the government's control, and I just mentioned a few of them, but there are simple things that the government could do to provide immediate relief to Canadians. The challenge is about not acknowledging that inflation is perhaps not transitory. If we take a long enough view, everything is transitory. Even life is transitory, if we take a long enough view. The challenge is that the facts are changing on the ground. The government is now out of step with the rest of the world because it has yet to acknowledge the challenge of inflation and the tools that it has to deal with it. In fact, just last week President Biden wrote an op-ed to the American people. In it he vowed to take action on inflation immediately and provided a three-point plan on how the federal government in the United States was going to deal with it, acknowledging that of course the central banks have a role to play. Secretary Yellen said last week in an interview that she was wrong about inflation, that inflation was persisting longer than they had thought. We have also heard this from the Federal Reserve chair in the U.S. We have also heard it from Bank of Canada officials, who admitted that they had all underestimated inflation, but we have not heard it from the Liberal government. The government refuses to even acknowledge that it might be behind the curve. I think Canadians would appreciate a little bit of humility in hearing, “Look, we were a little slow on the inflation front, but we have tools that we can use to combat inflation.” The question I have every day is this: How long does inflation need to persist or how high does inflation need to get before the government realizes that it must act? We have put forward an opposition day motion, which I think some would even call an omnibus motion, with some interesting ideas. In the interest of constructive discussion in this House, there may be some ideas that individuals feel strongly opposed to, but they are ideas. The government could feel free to take any of these ideas it might like and act on them. We do not need to pass this entire motion. It does not sound as if we will have support from some other parties, but certainly there are some reasonable ideas. I would like to highlight a couple that speak to me. With respect to suspending the GST on fuel, both regular gasoline and diesel, the price for diesel has doubled in 12 to 16 months. That also means that the HST the government receives on diesel has doubled. The revenue the government is making has doubled because the price has doubled, and it is applied right before people pay the final price. In fact, the government has never made as much money as it is making right now. That is why I have significant concerns about the idea that the answer to inflation is for the government to tax companies more so it can take that money and do something with it. The government does not need that money. It has never made as much money as it is making right now. If we consider the budget of 2021 and what we believe the government will be making in revenues over the next five years and compare it to budget 2022 and the revenue it is going to be receiving now, it has found an extra $170 billion. The question is this: What is it doing with it? Why is it not returning that money to Canadians? It is coming from Canadians in the first place. I think we have to be a little more realistic and pragmatic, because increasing taxes on companies is not going to all of a sudden solve our inflation problem. We have a bunch of extra revenue now and we still have inflation, so making the government bigger is not the answer to our worries. The hon. colleague from Foothills talked about fertilizer, and because of the significant farming community in Simcoe North, I will mention it just for a moment. I have phone calls every day, and I visit farms to talk to farmers in my riding. They are all saying they want to help Ukraine and do their part and that they do not mind paying a fertilizer tariff on fertilizer that is purchased after March 2. However, they prepaid for fertilizer in December and are still being hit with this tariff. The government did not even understand the impacts of that tariff before it brought it in, nor did it have very clear and defined rules, which shows a lack of understanding or an unwillingness to understand the farming community. There is an element of this motion that talks about money laundering. Some members will wonder why we are talking about money laundering and will think it is incredible to be talking about money laundering when it is such a long-term problem. Well, the best time to plant a tree, if not yesterday, is today. The Cullen commission is coming out with an 1,800-page report, which I hope becomes public very soon, about the challenges of money laundering in British Columbia, but it is going to expose a significant challenge nationally that we must take head-on. We have to understand the impact of money laundering, especially on our real estate sector, because it distorts our real estate markets. In Orillia, which is in Simcoe North, we have seen a 300% increase in the price of housing in six years. That is unsustainable. I believe some of that is due to the distorting effects of money laundering in our big cities, because people are now moving out and looking at other places. It is in this context that I think most of the ideas in our motion are quite reasonable. We may not expect the motion to pass, but I hope we have a great debate and I would welcome the government to take any of these ideas as its own. In closing, I will make a brief comment about leadership. True leadership is recognizing that perhaps one's original plan needs to change when the facts on the ground change. True leadership is showing a level of humility by acknowledging that humans can sometimes get things wrong. There are some interesting examples from the previous government, but I will only mention three: It decided to change its mind and tax income trusts in the face of different facts changing on the ground; it reversed its decision on interest income deductibility; and when the global financial crisis hit, it reversed its ideological position on running deficits and saved Canada from significant financial ruin. I am thankful to have been afforded this opportunity today.

1464 words

All Topics

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

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

Mr. Adam Chambers

Jun/7/22 1:51:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the member across the aisle. I will make two quick points. One is that inflation is measured differently in all of these different countries, so it is very hard to compare them. Yes, inflation is a challenge in all of these other countries, but—

52 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83