SoVote

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Jun/7/22 5:27:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Sarnia—Lambton. Once again, I find myself standing in this place, along with my Conservative colleagues, to speak on behalf of my constituents of Hastings—Lennox and Addington and on behalf of struggling Canadians who are concerned about the cost of living. Just this week in particular, one of my constituents posted this on her social media: “As per our weekend routine, today I went to fill up my car and buy groceries for our family. This routine normally costs around $300. Today it was $500. Seriously, how are people surviving right now? I don't normally get so shaken up about things like this, but we've been in a constant state of transition for three-plus years now, always pivoting, always trying to figure out a new plan for the way we do things. I know there were parents out there struggling before inflation, and I can't even imagine what is keeping you up at night now.” While the current government often hand-waves its role in inflation domestically, there is one area where it could make things better: lowering prices at the pumps for Canadians. They cannot wait until carbon tax rebate season for money to buy groceries and the medication they need today. Then again, I suppose the point of the tax is to make it prohibitively expensive to drive. Of course, this completely ignores the plight of rural Canadians, who literally depend on a vehicle in order to survive. The carbon tax is only driving up fuel prices and is disabling business owners in my riding. That is why the Conservatives tried to put a halt to the bleeding by introducing an opposition day motion to reduce prices by 5%. Sadly, it was not supported. In March of this year, while speaking to that motion, I urged the members of this place to consider the official opposition's realistic, tangible and direct solutions for Canadians suffering from high prices. I noted that, up until that date, this legislature's reaction to those gas price increases was completely inadequate. Two and a half months later, nothing has changed, except that the price of gas continues to rise. In a few short weeks, this House will adjourn for summer recess while we go home to our respective ridings to work locally. As a legislature, we will have no capacity to provide relief for single parents, low-income families, seniors or small businesses. They will face continuing increases on groceries, gas and the basic necessities of life. In my humble opinion, this country is spinning in a downward spiral and we need leadership. We need to provide something to Canadians so they do not feel abandoned for the next two and a half months. Today, in our motion, we are offering a chance to put politics aside and deliver the relief that Canadians need. Every single day, I speak to constituents in my riding. They are worried. They are having trouble sleeping. People just do not feel like they can get ahead. Young families are being busted apart because of financial stress. Too many seniors are feeling helpless and ignored, and their quality of life is failing. On top of that, food insecurity is staring people in the face. On this side of the House, we have been trying in vain to provide some sort of relief, to no avail. I know my hon. colleagues have already pointed this out, but I feel it necessary to reiterate. As previously stated, when gas prices continued to increase, we asked that the government suspend the GST on fuel to give Canadians a break. We asked again for relief for Canadians by suspending the carbon tax increase on April 1, and we also asked that the tariff on fertilizer bought before March 2 be removed in order to help our agricultural producers. I recognize that it can be difficult for some people to accept a good idea when it comes from somebody else. Perhaps that is why the government stubbornly refused to follow through with the previous government's decision to purchase the F-35s, despite everyone, apart from the lobbyists working for competitors, knowing it was the right decision. Barb aside, I implore the government and this House to take substantive, meaningful and timely action to help Canadians out, because they cannot afford to wait. I know that I am not the only one seeing regular, everyday Canadians struggle with the cost of living. We in this chamber have a tremendous responsibility. It is enormous, but we must also never forget the people who sent us here. Canadians are suffering with the high cost of fuel, food and housing. The taxpayers who put the confidence in us to be in this place do not get a housing allowance. They do not have travel points and they cannot claim any meal allowance. It is no wonder that many Canadians are losing faith in their elected officials. They turn on the news and see the highlights of question period, which often is little more than theatre. I suppose this is the natural result of a legislature that puts more focus on communication and sound bites instead of good policy. A very wise man, if at times a very difficult man, saw this trend starting in the 1980s. The late member for Yukon and deputy prime minister, Erik Nielsen, lamented this shift to focus on commentary, interviews and opinion papers. The sound bite was the goal, not the substance of the discussion. Nuance was dying in front of his eyes, and in his autobiography, he tried to warn us. In a similar vein, the individual who gave the inaugural televised speech in the U.K. House of Commons, Ian Gow, said in November 1989: I have always voted against the televising of the proceedings of this House, and I expect that I always will. The brief intervention earlier of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did nothing to alter my view. Despite my strongly held opinions, a letter that I received—three weeks ago—I believe that a copy was sent to each of us and possibly even to you, Mr. Speaker—made the following preposterous assertion: “The impression you make on television depends mainly on your image (55 per cent) with your voice and body language accounting for 38 per cent of your impact. Only 7 per cent depends on what you are actually saying.” This is sad. While Ian Gow and, indeed, the entirety of the Parliament at the time thought those claims preposterous, there is no denying that the quality of debate and the level of co-operation have declined and been largely replaced with imagery, with theatre. A cursory reading of the historical Hansards will show this. The fact that the NDP felt it necessary to surrender its money-scrutinizing authority to the Liberal government in order for a promise shows this. Every single person in this room, including my good friends on our side of the House, needs to do the job we were sent here to do: to work with other parties and fight for the best interests of all Canadians. I ask my colleagues across the aisle to please exercise a minimal amount of humility. Adopting this Conservative opposition day motion would do just that.

1245 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 5:36:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the end of every recession, we see a very similar pattern where we have a shortage of material and a shortage of labour and supply chains are disrupted, yet what we are debating today is looking at some very piecemeal measures to try to get Canadians back on their feet, including cutting GST on gasoline purchases. We saw Prime Minister Harper, at the time, cut the GST and that did nothing for economic growth. Could the hon. member talk about solving complex problems with simple answers versus solving complex problems with complex answers?

96 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Jun/7/22 5:37:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may remind the hon. member of a quote from Bill Morneau, the former finance minister, who said, “I’m much more worried about our economic prospects today, in 2022, than I was seven years ago”. Seven years ago, we had a Conservative Harper government.

51 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Jun/7/22 5:37:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the member for pointing out today some of the realities found in social science research about who gets listened to and who does not. It is based on their presentation and their voice, their intonation. We know that women are not respected as much, based on those realistic factors and even their competency is judged this way. It is just on the tone of their voice or the way they look. I really appreciate those insights today in the House. I wanted to talk about trickle-down theory. What I think I am hearing from the Conservatives is this idea of trickle-down. There is a lot of research that says trickle-down does not work because of the sponges at the top. What makes the Conservatives think that, if the GST was taken away from gas purchases, it would actually trickle down to the consumer?

151 words

All Topics

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Jun/7/22 5:38:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this motion today is about how we can get money back into the pockets of Canadians now. Often all members are speaking with constituents in their ridings. Every single day I am hearing from constituents, and they are in trouble. They need help, and they need the government to step up.

53 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/7/22 5:39:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion calls for action to tackle money laundering and yet, at the same time, the Conservatives also want more investments in cryptoassets, which facilitate money laundering. I am talking about Bill C-249. I am also thinking of one of the leadership candidates who is very much in favour of cryptocurrency. How does the member reconcile that?

61 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Jun/7/22 5:40:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are focusing today on the opposition day motion. With that opposition day motion, we are looking at suspending the carbon tax, eliminating tariffs on fertilizer, enabling the free flow of goods across the Canadian border and curbing speculation in the housing market by immediately launching a national public inquiry into money laundering. That is what I understand the member was asking about.

65 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/7/22 5:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I share the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington's concerns about affordability. The carbon tax increase she mentions, though, is a total of 2.2¢ per litre, and it is supported by most economists as the most effective way to address the climate crisis. Meanwhile, CBC recently reported that wholesale margins, profits for oil and gas companies, have increased 18¢ a litre, while oil and gas companies are also posting record profits. Can the hon. member share why a tax on these windfall profits is not part of the Conservative motion to help get money back in the pockets of Canadians?

107 words

All Topics

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Jun/7/22 5:41:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, taxes are rising and there is nothing left in the pockets of Canadians. I would agree to disagree with the member. We have to recall that when companies are paying dividends, where do the dividends come from? Perhaps I would pose that question back for consideration for the member to think about.

54 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Jun/7/22 5:41:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to our opposition day motion because the cost of living is the number one issue in this country. It is unbelievable to me to think that a year ago 60% of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills every month. Let us think about the increased costs that have happened during the pandemic and the multiple carbon tax increases from the government in the middle of a pandemic when people were losing their jobs, not to mention the exacerbation of everything under all of these COVID mandates, which are driving the cost of supply chain activities up across the country. All of these things are fundamental to the increased cost of living. I am hearing from constituents in Sarnia—Lambton who are calling me, and it is heartbreaking. I have John, who is 73 years old. He is retired and has had to go back to taking two jobs to make ends meet. His wife is suicidal, thinking about the fact that they cannot afford to live. That is one story, but there are many others I could go into. This is all for what? If we look at what is in the motion today, there is a lot to unpack. I am only going to focus on a few things. Let us start with the carbon tax. I heard the member of the Green Party talk, and his facts were not on point. Eleven cents a litre is the increase that we have had to date, and it is going to get worse. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the tax on gas is 25% of the issue. The government has the power to do something about this today. France and Japan have eliminated taxes on gasoline, recognizing there is a shortage in the world and the price is high. This is something that could be done today. However, the government continues to not just increase the carbon tax but to have a tax on that tax. There is huge revenue for its coffers, but the average Canadian is suffering. What did we really achieve for climate change out of this? We have achieved nothing, absolutely nothing. The Liberals have never met a climate change target. B.C. has had a carbon tax for 12 years, and its emissions have not gone down. Quebec has had a program for 12 years, and its emissions have not gone down. The government's emissions have not gone down, but it is punishing Canadians by continuing to raise the price on carbon tax, which is driving up not only the cost of gasoline but also of everything that has to be transported using gasoline. We hear disinformation and misinformation on a daily basis in the House. The Liberals stand up and say that 80% of Canadians are better off, but that is not what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. He said that 60% of Canadians are worse off with the carbon tax, and by 2024, 80% of Canadians will be worse off. We need to be honest with Canadians as they can see, when they are filling up their tanks and when they are paying their bills, that the costs are going up. On the topic of the vaccine mandates, I very much appreciate the importance of vaccines to prevent COVID-19. I appreciated, in the heart of the pandemic, the many measures that were put in place. However, 55 countries around the world have dropped the mandates. The World Health Organization has said this is no longer effective for fighting Omicron or any of the current variants, yet the Liberal government continues to have these mandates in place. That is causing a shortage of all kinds of employees across the country. Truck drivers are just some of many. They were already short 14,000, and then with the mandates that increased. I had women from the Canadian Federation of Truckers explain to me that one truckload of butter used to be $7,000 when they picked it up in the U.S. That is now $14,000, and that cost gets passed right on to the consumer. That is the reason why, when people go to the grocery store, single moms, seniors on a fixed income, and all of the people who are living below the poverty line, they do not have the ability to absorb it. I know the Prime Minister does not care. He has his trust fund. He does not have to worry about his bills. He is not concerned about the money. The Prime Minister is punishing Canadians with these failed policies. It is not just individual Canadians. Let us talk about tourism. We visited today with the duty-free folks. They saw a 95% drop in the revenue of their businesses due to the border mandates. Instead of lifting the mandates, like all the other countries are doing, the Liberal government has doubled down and extended them into the heart of the tourism season. It is totally unacceptable, and it is accomplishing absolutely nothing. Most of the people in the House have had all their vaccines, and all of them have had COVID one or two times. I am double vaccinated, and I have had COVID three times. It is not an effective technique, and these restrictions are causing problems at the airport and problems at the land border. It is impacting tourism and costing Canada economic activity. Those are things the government could change with the stroke of a pen. With the stroke of a pen, it could help the tourism industry and drop those mandates. They are accomplishing nothing. We see the hypocrisy, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health stands up on the issue of ferries and says that, as long as someone's journey is less than 24 hours, they can be unvaccinated. The member for Cumberland —Colchester asked how many flights in Canada are less than 24 hours. The answer is all of them, so I ask why the mandates are not being dropped. This is killing economic activity, and it is hurting Canadians. This is something the government could do immediately. That is the kind of solution that is in this motion. We are saying to put politics aside. This is the last chance before we rise for the summer. Let us get it right. Let us work together, and let us drop the mandates to get back to good economic activity. I must not leave without talking about the farmers and the government's punishment of farmers. I understand the war of Russian against Ukraine. Everybody in the House has stood in solidarity to say we need to help Ukraine and we need to put sanctions against Russia, but it was clearly pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture that fertilizer was already purchased by Canadian farmers, and they have already paid the money to the Russians. The Russians already have the money, and now Canadian farmers are getting a 35% tariff. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars they are having to pay, and we have asked the Minister of Agriculture to exempt them back to March 2, but the government has refused. Do the Liberals not understand where food comes from? There is already a concern globally about food security. Ukraine is one of the major suppliers of wheat in the world. The whole supply chain of food is at risk, and when Canadians farmers could be increasing their production, what is the government doing? It is punishing them, not just with prices of fertilizer and the tariffs on that, but also with the carbon tax on heating their barns for their animals and running their equipment. There is no relief in sight. It is totally unacceptable. I would say that, when it comes to other things the government could do, it tries to pretend that, even though inflation is at an all-time high in the last 30 years, it is somebody else's fault. I have just pointed out things it could do about the carbon tax and the tax on the tax, and things they could do for farmers. What about affordable housing? It is simple. It is all about supply and demand, so we have to increase supply. The government has had seven years to address housing affordability, and what did it accomplish? It doubled house prices. That is utter failure. Young people cannot ever have a dream of owning a house right now, and while there are solutions that our party has put forward, which the government could take advantage of, it has instead chosen to create a savings account that is tax free. Do Liberals not understand that young people do not have any money to save? This is a totally fruitless exercise. It is not going to change anything. Some of the housing minister's programs that were put in place were taken advantage of by 9%, or perhaps nine individuals. I cannot remember. That is a failed plan. There are thousands of young people across the country who want to revisit the dream of owning a house, but the government has let them down. My hope is that Liberals are going to look at this motion and look at the specific things they can do today to cut costs for Canadians because they are at the breaking point. It is my plea that Liberals will vote with us on this motion and that they will take these actions, because we need to be there for Canadians. Everybody in the House was elected to stand up and serve Canadians, and I want to see action from the Liberal government.

1629 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 5:51:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am the proud chair of the agriculture committee, and yesterday we had the member for Beauce ask a question of Yulia Klymenko, who is a member of parliament from Ukraine. The question was asked of whether she was in support of the 35% tariff that has been placed on Russian and Belarusian products. She was absolutely clear this is an important policy because we do not want to support Russia at all. In fact, many of the Conservatives have called for that policy, and they have said that the government should be working to try to help support Ukraine. I asked the member for Beauce earlier what his position was. He said that the government should be indemnifying farmers who made the purchase before March 2. I actually agree with that, and I will continue to work with the government to see if there is something that can be done, but why would the policy be changing? The motion says right here that the Conservatives want to get rid the tariff altogether. What is the Conservative position?

180 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Jun/7/22 5:52:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for agreeing that the right thing to do is give an exemption. I am not sure why his government has refused to do that. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture stood in the House and refused to answer that question. The Conservative position has been clear. We stood up and called for the exemption prior to March 2. We all realize that after that, when people purchase things, the money going to Russia is going to fuel the war. We need to do more. There has been a lot of talk. I, personally, in Sarnia—Lambton, am helping to bring 100 families from Ukraine to Sarnia and provide relief. Where are the planes the government has promised for that?

127 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/7/22 5:53:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues the member raised is affordability and the cost of living for Canadians. Many Canadians are, in fact, struggling and are trying to recover from the COVID pandemic. The reality is that big banks are making billions of dollars. In fact, Scotiabank netted $10.1 billion in profit and gave out billions of dollars in dividends to its shareholders. For BMO, it is the same thing. Other big, wealthy corporations are also netting huge profits, and Loblaws is one of them. In fact, it even refused to increase wages by a whole two dollars for its workers. My question for the member is this. Will she support the NDP's proposal for the government to increase the GST rebate, along with increasing the Canada child benefit by $500?

133 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Jun/7/22 5:53:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her advocacy for those who are struggling. Listen, this is not a one-shot solution. There are multiple solutions that we need to bring to bear to address affordability. However, there is inequity, and one thing that I found really inequitable I heard today. The government paid out $20 million for businesses in the downtown core of Ottawa that suffered during the convoy, but do members know what it did not do? It did not give $20 million, which is the total ask, to all the border crossing duty-free shops in the country, which have lost 95% of their revenue. That is inequity. That needs to be addressed.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/7/22 5:54:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have already asked one of her colleagues this question, but perhaps this member could answer it. I have previously spoken with several economists, including Bernard Landry, who was one of my mentors. We have already been in situations where we would have liked to eliminate the gas tax. As he explained, the problem with this approach is that there is no way of ensuring that what is being removed would not go into the pockets of the oil companies. We have no way of ensuring that that money would get to consumers. Could the member explain how she would make sure this happened, or what she would do to guarantee that the consumer was not the one left to pay again?

124 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Jun/7/22 5:55:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are many things we can do. For example, we can eliminate the tax on oil and give the money back to the people. This is very important. It may not be that important to some, but right now there are many Canadians who cannot pay their debts. I think that is the kind of solution we need to put in place.

64 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Jun/7/22 5:56:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if we control the food supply, we control the people. We have seen the Liberals increase the carbon taxes on fuel and have seen them increase the excise taxes. All those increases on fuel will increase the cost of food. If we got rid of the excise taxes and the carbon taxes, it would be a temporary fix. In the long term, we need to increase supply. Can my colleague tell us what kind of incentives could be put in place to increase the supply of fuel, as opposed to what is going on now and what is about to come with the fuel standards, with even further restrictions and higher fuel prices?

115 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Jun/7/22 5:57:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, these are failed policies of the Liberal government for oil and gas. Canada should be independent. We have the most environmentally sustainable oil and gas products in the world, yet we prefer to buy from Saudi Arabia for $15 billion and send the jobs there, instead of building pipelines here, instead of supporting our oil and gas and instead of returning that economic growth here for Canadians to prosper. That is what we ought to do. That is what the Conservatives recommend.

84 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Jun/7/22 5:57:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I am very pleased to speak to this motion, and I thank the Conservative Party for bringing it forward. The rising cost of living is affecting everyone, including people back home in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé. Gas, groceries, housing and necessities have all gone up in price. People need housing, they need food and they need to travel to get to work, but they are increasingly struggling to afford all those things. I think it is our job, as parliamentarians, to find solutions to this problem. What bothers me a little about this motion, though, is that the Conservatives have again found a way to bring up lifting the health restrictions. They talk about inflation, but they put a spin on it so that they can revive an issue that we have already discussed many times in the House. Each time, we have argued and defeated these motions calling for the health restrictions to be lifted immediately. I think it is ridiculous to drag up the issue again with this very long motion. We have debated this issue extensively and concluded that it should not be a political choice, but a scientific one. It is a bit unfortunate to see the Conservatives putting forward a motion like this again and trying to link it to the rising cost of living affecting all of our constituents. As a solution to help people, the Conservatives are suggesting in this motion that consumption taxes be suspended, that the health restrictions immediately be lifted once and for all, and that the carbon tax be eliminated. That is their solution to help people deal with the rising cost of living: eliminate a measure brought in to fight climate change, politicize an issue that should not be politicized and reduce government revenues. My colleagues have already shared the Bloc Québécois's position on these measures. Since our position has not changed, allow me to reiterate them. I think that inflation and the rising cost of living are the result of a complex structural problem that will not be fixed by one-time half measures that have little impact. As I was saying, these measures could immediately reduce the government's revenues, and I think that we could find stronger, more sensible solutions that would deliver quick, concrete results. I am not the best at math, but I can do basic calculations. If a measure reduces the government's revenues, then the government will not be able to fund reliable public services and programs that provide direct assistance to individuals. I do not know whether my colleagues are experiencing the same thing, but I am getting a lot of calls for help in my riding. Constituents are calling on their member of Parliament to help them deal with the rising cost of living. I think that we need resources to achieve our ambitions in this case. It would be unrealistic to think that implementing one-time measures on the cost of goods will truly help Quebeckers and Canadians deal with global inflation, which is affecting a variety of products and services and which will require long-lasting measures. In reading between the lines of the motion, I came to a simple realization. These proposals will not really help people deal with the rising cost of living. What I understand, and I hope I am wrong, is that this measure to abolish the carbon tax will only help the oil and gas companies. I will say this again and again, as often as I have to: The oil and gas companies do not need federal help right now. Take the energy company Suncor, for example. Last year, in the first quarter, it had net profits of $821 million. This year, in the first quarter, it made almost $3 billion in profits. I honestly do not believe that this company needs to be exempted from paying tax. I do not think that abolishing this tax is really going to directly improve the lives of citizens or households. Furthermore, some provinces already have their own systems that work well. For example, Quebec's carbon market is effective, and it is good for the environment. As I said, getting rid of these kinds of measures will not put more money in our constituents' pockets. Inflation is real, we know it, and it is putting households in Quebec and across the country in a real jam. Real solutions go deeper. To get there, we have to think about how to create wealth while respecting the environment and, most importantly, how to share that wealth. This situation is not going to fix itself. I do not think band-aid solutions will get us there, certainly not when voter confidence in elected representatives in general is lukewarm. I do not think putting these inadequate solutions forward helps anyone. It just fuels voter cynicism. It is our job to bring a little more wisdom and rigour to the proposals we put to the government. I heard my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable say yesterday that Quebeckers are suffering from the rising cost of living, and he is absolutely right. The Comité des citoyennes et citoyens Mitis organized a march that was held last Friday in my riding. The participants were essentially asking for appropriate measures. About 20 people who often live in precarious conditions braved the rain to ask for help, to ask us to take action and to ask the federal government for a little assistance. As they marched, they chanted a slogan: “I found a place to live, but I can't afford to eat.” We need to take a moment to reflect on the fact that my constituents were basically telling us that they have to choose between food and shelter. That is what people living on low incomes are worried about right now. Supporting this motion would mean abolishing the carbon tax. That is the solution this motion proposes to these individuals, and it makes no sense. Have we lost sight of how serious this is? Maybe. Let us talk instead about meaningful solutions that can be applied quickly to truly help our constituents. If we wanted to seriously address inflation, we could consider taxing the wealthiest members of society. This is not a new idea. During the last election, the Bloc Québécois proposed creating a special temporary tax on the wealthy to have them contribute to the economic recovery and, to some extent, pay down the pandemic-related deficits. We are not the only ones who think this is a good idea. Last year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that a tax on excess profits earned by big firms in 2020 would have generated $7.9 billion for the federal treasury. That $7.9 billion is something to think about. I think it is a good start. The President of United States has also proposed some good ideas, including a tax on the super-rich to finance his postpandemic investment plan. This tax on unrealized capital gains would apply to roughly 700 taxpayers and would raise hundreds of billions of dollars, ensuring that the wealthiest Americans contribute their fair share of the historic funding needed for a strong recovery. Last winter, some Quebec business people even proposed another special temporary tax, one that would apply to businesses that kept operating or made a profit during the pandemic, in order to help those that were severely affected. There are plenty of good ideas out there, so we could set aside the idea of eliminating carbon tax. As I was saying, I do not believe that that is the type of solution that will improve people's lives, because the carbon tax was created to fight climate change. There are many other subjects I wanted to address, such as the fact that higher gas prices are affecting people back home, such as taxi drivers, truckers and farmers. I have mentioned that my father was a trucker. He recently told me that he thought he might stop driving his trucks because gas is too expensive. It is terrible to see entrepreneurs give up on their dreams while oil companies get richer.

1406 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 6:07:57 p.m.
Watch

Before we continue, someone here in the House has turned the volume on their headset up so high that I can hear it from here. I encourage members to look around and turn the volume on their headset down if necessary. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

48 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83