SoVote

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Jun/7/22 12:02:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was happy to listen to the member opposite's speech, but the NDP has truly fallen far from being the party of hard-working Canadians. In this motion, we talk about getting rid of restrictions and mandates so people can go back to work. These are people in the public service and the RCMP across this nation. There are three million to four million people who have not been able to go to work. Also, those same people cannot travel within their own country, yet all this member wants to talk about is big corporations and how they are bad for Canadians and never help Canadians. What we want to do is talk about a few things, and one of which is getting Canadians back to work. How far has the NDP fallen that its members do not even care if people can provide for their families anymore? This member should be ashamed of that speech.

159 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/7/22 12:03:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not ashamed to stand up to talk about something we will never hear from the Conservatives, which is the extent to which corporate Canada is also putting pain on Canadians. We are also not embarrassed to be proposing real solutions about that. I will suppress the unparliamentary phrase that comes to mind as an appropriate response to the member's question and just say that people who want to go back to work also want to go back to safe workplaces. For as much as there are people who are frustrated they have not been able to go to work because they did not get the vaccine, there are also a lot of people who are glad to be in a safe workplace and glad to follow the directives of public health officials. As I said, we believe government should do a better job of reinforcing faith in those public officials by being open and transparent about the information they are getting from them, but a safe workplace is also about standing up for workers. That is something we are proud to do on this side of the House.

194 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 12:04:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion talks about tariffs on fertilizer, and we all know Russia is a major exporter of fertilizer. This is not necessarily about previous contracts but contracts moving forward. Does the member have any thoughts regarding the issue? An hon. member: That is not true and you know it. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, does the member believe the federal government should be relieving tariffs on fertilizer?

69 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 12:04:59 p.m.
Watch

There are questions and comments coming from members of the official opposition, and I would just ask them to please hold off until I recognize them. They have already had the opportunity to ask a question. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has the floor.

46 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/7/22 12:05:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion simply says “eliminating tariffs on fertilizer”. The member for Winnipeg North is right to point out that tariffs were imposed on fertilizer coming from Russia as part of our effort to punish Vladimir Putin. The legitimate issue here is that there are farmers who signed contracts to buy fertilizer as part of their pricing for the year before the invasion of Ukraine, so there is a real question of fairness in retroactively imposing a tariff on farmers who had already signed contracts to get that fertilizer and who had built it into their pricing structure for the year. We are not hearing that kind of conversation from the Conservatives. They are not trying to build a parliamentary consensus. They are trying to build a fundraising list. That comes across very clearly in the motion. An hon. member: That is wrong.

146 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 12:06:06 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members of the official opposition that it is not time for questions and comments unless I recognize them, and if they have other questions and comments, then they should stand and attempt to be recognized. Otherwise, I would ask them to please hold on to their thoughts, jot them down and wait for the appropriate time to do that. Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the floor.

79 words

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

Jun/7/22 12:06:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing that I have the floor. I would like to ask my colleague, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on International Trade during the last Parliament— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

43 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 12:06:44 p.m.
Watch

Once again, it is really disrespectful what is happening in the House right now, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary not to partake in discussions going back and forth with the official opposition when somebody else has the floor. I know most members who are participating in this right now have been in the House for some time. They should know what the rules of the House are.

69 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/7/22 12:07:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to hear myself talk without anyone talking over me when I am trying to ask a question. In 2021, we floated the idea of a type of minimum tax for G7 countries to prevent competition among the tax systems and to prevent multinationals from taking advantage of that competition to engage in blackmail, for example, by threatening one country that they would move to a neighbouring country if the former did not lower its tax rate. That is a good idea that seems to break with the neo-liberalism that has prevailed for several decades. What does my colleague think about that?

110 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/7/22 12:08:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which was asked in the appropriate way. I think we have been in a race to the bottom for far too long. An agreement that would guarantee a fair minimum tax rate is a very good idea. I think it would be a good thing for companies that want to stay in Canada but are in competition with companies whose operations are located in countries with lower tax rates.

78 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/7/22 12:08:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this Conservative opposition day motion because I think it identifies a very real problem facing Canadians: inflation generally, and the price of gas, the price of food and the price of housing. Unfortunately, it does something the Conservatives are wont to do recently, which is ignore the ongoing pandemic. It asks us to ignore health experts in favour of so-called freedom from mandates. I would just remind members of the House that in my home province of British Columbia, in the last week of May, 44 people died from COVID. We have many people, some of whom I know quite well, who are suffering from long COVID, and many members, or certainly many citizens of British Columbia, are receiving things like cancer treatments that compromise their immune systems, so there are lots of reasons why we should continue to listen to the health experts and not simply adopt some political position on mandates. I would agree with the Conservatives on only one small aspect, which is that I think the government has an obligation to show its work, as we say, when it comes to mandates. I believe that public health officials will do what is right, but the government needs to show us the evidence it is using for the decisions it is making, which it was pretty good at during the early stages of the pandemic, but seems to have forgotten about now. Having identified the affordability crisis, of course the Conservatives like to say the solution is more money in Canadians' pockets. Strangely, there is some agreement here. I believe there are some Canadians who need more money in their pockets. The problem is this: Which Canadians need that money in their pockets? The Conservative solution is to make sure that the pockets that get filled are those of large corporations and not the people who are actually facing an affordability crisis in their families. When it comes to gas prices, let us look at the profits of oil companies. In the first quarter of 2022 only, Imperial Oil recorded $1.17 billion in profits. This was its best record in 30 years. Suncor recorded a profit, in the first quarter only, of $2.95 billion, which is four times its profits last year. What is going on here is profiteering. These are companies that are taking advantage of the international situation, of the climate crisis and of all kinds of things to line their own pockets. The Conservative solution here, first of all, is a bit ironic, because it is to increase the deficit by decreasing our tax revenues. It is also to trust that the oil companies would not just fill that space with their own price increases and scoop up all the benefits of any tax reductions. There is no mechanism to prevent that, and we have seen the record, over and over again, of the oil companies: they will take any advantage to increase their profits. The Conservative solution risks lining the pockets of big oil and providing nothing for families who are struggling with high gas prices on a daily basis. The New Democrats have instead called for an excess profits tax not just on oil companies, but also on big banks and large food retailers. Scotiabank recorded profits of over $10 billion last year, the Bank of Montreal had over $8 billion, Loblaws had a net profit of $1.2 billion, and Sobeys, a smaller player, had over $600 million in profits. The Conservative proposal would increase the deficit and inflationary pressures, and there would be nothing about these record profits being racked up by the big corporations. It would take away necessary revenues for providing some help to those who really are hit by the affordability crisis. We know who is hardest hit: It is the seniors living on a fixed income, people with disabilities, indigenous people and northerners. We must never forget that these impacts are strongly gendered, I will say, in that when we look at women over 65, a vast majority of them are living in poverty, especially single women over the age of 65. When we look at single-parent families who are living in poverty, the vast majority are headed by women, so when we are talking about these impacts of affordability, we have to remember that they hit particularly hard at Canadian women, no matter their age or their family status. I want to thank the member for Nunavut, who continually raises the food insecurity problem in the north, for bringing our attention to it again today. The biggest impact of these rising costs for Canadian families is food insecurity. I want to draw the House's attention to the report released yesterday by Food Banks Canada. Canada, one of the richest countries in the world and one of the major food-producing countries in the world, now reports that 23% of Canadians, over seven million Canadians, reported going hungry in the past year because they could not afford to buy food. One-third of Canadians earning less than $50,000 a year reported having to skip meals because they did not have enough money, and 43% of indigenous people, to the enormous shame of this country, reported food insecurity that caused them to go hungry for more than one day. What is the solution? Food banks do their best to fill that gap in our income system and in our food system, but we cannot keep asking charitable, hard-working volunteers to solve the food insecurity crisis. We need to step up and solve that crisis by putting more money in the pockets of those who face food insecurity, immediately and in the long term. Conservatives point to that problem of food insecurity in their preamble, but then when we look down into the solutions in today's motion, there are none. There is nothing to actually help people who face food insecurity, unlike New Democrats' proposed measures to put money in the hands of those most vulnerable to food insecurity right now and in the long term. We have always called for an increase to OAS and GIS benefits for seniors. Seniors cannot do anything about rising food prices, because most of them already spend all of their fixed income. Their only choice is to eat less and put their health at risk. Again, we would like to see an increase to OAS and GIS. We have called for an immediate hike to the Canada child benefit. Even a modest hike as we are calling for, of $500 a year, would provide an increase on a monthly basis to families with kids trying to meet food costs. We know there are lots of parents who go hungry and will not report it so they can feed their kids. They skip meals. They do not eat the nutritious meals they need as adults, so they can provide that food to their kids. An increase right away to the Canada child benefit would help meet that crisis, and would continue in the long run to help people with food security. A doubling of the GST tax credit for low-income Canadians would go a long way in the short and long term to helping to meet that crisis of food insecurity. It is interesting that the data that was released yesterday by Food Banks Canada also shows that 60% of those who use food banks report that housing costs are the main reason they are at the food bank. They cannot afford to buy healthy, nutritious food for their families because they are already paying way too much of their limited income to meet their housing needs. This time, the Conservative motion acknowledges the affordability crisis in housing, but it proposes a national inquiry in money laundering as if this would have some impact on the provision of affordable housing units. I believe that we need to crack down on money laundering, absolutely. I do not think we need an inquiry to know what we need to do. Nevertheless, I cannot find the connection between the Conservatives saying there is a crisis in affordability and that we should have an inquiry into money laundering. It just does not make any sense to me. New Democrats, instead, favour measures to curb the use of housing for speculative investments. We need to crack down on corporate landlords who are gobbling up affordable housing in many cities across Canada, and then renovicting the people who have lived in that affordable housing and forcing them out onto the street or into their families' overcrowded housing units. We also need to crack down on real estate investment trusts. Real estate investment trusts get privileged tax treatment. They get tax breaks for buying up affordable housing. I just cannot imagine why we think that is good public policy in this country. I would love to see us eliminate the special tax treatment for real estate investment trusts. Obviously, we would have to phase in something like that, because people have done a lot of their financial planning based on it, but still it is something in the short and long term that we could do to address using the housing market for speculation and profit. Instead, we should be doing something that I have always called for as a New Democrat and that we have always worked for. That is to get the government back into the business of building non-profit housing in very large numbers. The market will never provide the housing that we need at the low end. It will continue to build high-end housing until the cows come home, as they used to say where I was raised, but it will never provide those affordable housing units. Non-profit housing could provide the housing security that is necessary for families. They do not necessarily have to own a single family house to feel secure in their housing. They could get a unit in a non-profit housing co-operative, for instance, and raise their kids in that security. It also creates a sense of community: of people who live together and have a common interest in taking care of their housing needs. New Democrats are not the only ones who make the obvious link between the high cost of housing and homelessness, but it is something I do not hear the Conservatives talking about. It is something I rarely hear the Liberals or the Conservatives talking about. When I look in my community, I see the unfortunate complaints that are coming up about people feeling unsafe in the streets because of homeless people. What is the solution? First of all, I do not think homeless people are the problem, in terms of safety locally. The solution is housing in the short term, so that those people are not forced onto the streets. Of course, the member for Winnipeg Centre has been very vocal, this week and always, in calling for the government to immediately fund a low-barrier, safe shelter place for indigenous women in Winnipeg Centre, and it is a good example—

1871 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/7/22 12:19:18 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up. I have been trying to give him some signals to let him know that it was coming to an end. The hon. member will have an opportunity to say more during questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

57 words

End
Kamloops

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/7/22 12:19:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I do not know where to start here. As I understand his speech, the member said reducing the sales tax is repugnant and should not be supported because it contributes to the overall deficit. Is it not the whole point that we are trying to put money back into people's pockets based on their consumption? I do not understand that. The member has spoken at length about the government's response when it comes to a failure to tax this and failure to tax that, yet for every single vote of matter, whether it is for shutting down debate in the House or curtailing debate, his party stands up and supports the government. Given his issues with the government and all that it has stood for, which he pointed out today, will he be supporting the government tonight? I ask because it sounds like he should have no confidence in the government.

173 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/7/22 12:20:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question because it gives me time to talk about the confidence and supply agreement we reached with the government. Some of the goals in the confidence and supply agreement are things like providing dental care, which will help poor families take care of their kids and help seniors take care of their teeth. What is most important to me in that agreement is the early launch of a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy, which will get secure housing built for first nations across this country. There are many reasons in that confidence and supply agreement to support the government, but there are no reasons that I would support a cut to the GST or HST that would only benefit the wealthy and the big corporations.

134 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 12:21:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the points the member raised, because I have been a long-term advocate for it. In fact, back in the late 1980s, we advocated for Weston, a community in Winnipeg's northwest end, to develop the Weston housing co-op. It has been a long time since we have seen the development of co-ops, but for the first time, we are seeing how the Government of Canada can ensure that we see co-ops grow across this country. There is a great value to that. I always say that in a housing co-op, one is not a tenant but a resident, and that is a huge difference. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts and perspective on housing co-ops giving many people the opportunity to have a sense of ownership in an affordable fashion.

149 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/7/22 12:22:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question on co-operatives. I am a big fan of co-operatives, and there are lots in my riding. One thing I would like to see Canada Mortgage and Housing do right now is invest in the redevelopment and rebuilding of co-ops. Many of the co-ops in my riding are quite old, are quite low density and have only relatively large family-style units. People who want to stay in those co-operatives need that redevelopment. If we build some new one-bedroom units, they can stay in their communities. People have learned that co-ops provide housing security in the long term.

116 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/7/22 12:22:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what worries me about this Conservative motion is the tax that could benefit oil companies. If we truly want to be free from the rising cost of oil, then we need to be less dependent on oil overall. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot illustrated this quite well. Right now, we need to be talking about investing in a green energy transition and divesting ourselves of oil. How does my colleague explain his support for a government that, unfortunately, continues to invest in Bay du Nord and in the oil industry? Also, we have not truly embarked on a transition. How does my colleague feel about the Liberals' failure to take action on the energy transition, which is an important step in distancing ourselves from this industry?

130 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/7/22 12:23:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my answer is quite clear. Outside of the confidence and supply agreement, we have complete freedom as New Democrats to oppose the government on things like its failure to respond adequately to the climate crisis. I would point out that the motion in front of us today really exacerbates the climate crisis by providing a way for big companies to get more profits that they can reinvest in oil in the long term, instead of addressing things like food insecurity and homelessness in this country.

87 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Jun/7/22 12:24:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the opposition motion before this chamber. While obviously I cannot speak for other members of this place, I can state that the affordability crisis in many parts of my riding is critical. I am reasonably certain that other members of this place also hear similar concerns from some of their citizens. The recent rise in interest rates is taking as much as $700 or more out of people's household budgets. Gas and diesel prices are also taking a huge toll. I recognize that there are members who represent ridings where gas and diesel prices probably do not matter as much, perhaps those with a large urban city and good public transit. I know that often in this place we debate how the carbon tax only drives up the price of gas and diesel, causing hardship on many Canadian families. I also know that in response, the Prime Minister will often say that this is not true because of carbon tax rebates. Here is the thing. Someone who lives in a large urban city and seldom uses a car, even if they own one, probably does come out ahead with the carbon tax rebates. However, we seem to have hit a situation here in Canada where, under the Liberal government, vast amounts of policy are geared toward those who live in urban centres. We must be mindful that we collectively represent the national interests of all Canadians, and many Canadians, particularly in parts of my riding, absolutely depend on owning a vehicle that must be driven daily. In parts of my riding, there is still no high-speed Internet, despite seven years of Liberal promises to the contrary. In fact, there are even a few areas where people cannot get a wireless signal. Many secondary roads may only see a snowplow once a day in harder winter conditions, if that. People not only need a car, but need one with all-wheel drive and significant ground clearance to navigate these roads in the winter. I should also add that in many of these small rural communities, public transport is not available. Even Greyhound is now gone. For most, there might be one grocery store or possibly two. Prices were always a struggle in these communities due to a lack of competition and high transport costs, but right now, with record high inflation, things have never been worse. Many families are really struggling right now. I heard about a senior on a fixed income who volunteers at a local thrift shop. She has been volunteering there for many years and understands how important these thrift shops are to low-income families. She can no longer afford the gas to get to her volunteer job at the shop. I have heard about young families that had to cancel their summer vacations because of the high price of gas. Many local small business owners have spoken about having to pass on the much higher shipping costs, which makes them less competitive with online retailers. I have heard from contractors who bid on jobs that they have to commute to complete them. Now the higher costs have eaten away at their profit margins. Everywhere I look, I am hearing from citizens who are being hit hard by the lack of affordability. High inflation and higher interest rates are causing the perfect storm. Again, I feel the need to point this out: This is not the case everywhere in Canada. Wealthy citizens are largely not impacted by this. Likewise, for those people in larger cities where they are less car dependent, I am certain they are less severely impacted. However, we must recognize that we are here for all Canadians. While I am on my feet, I would like to mention that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, who will be giving an excellent speech that I am sure this chamber will approve. We must recognize that we are supposed to be here for all Canadians. That includes people who live in smaller communities, such as Princeton, Merritt, Keremeos, Cawston, Olalla and Logan Lake. Of course, there are also unincorporated rural areas where these problems are even more challenging. This opposition day motion cannot cure all of the challenges facing Canadians who live in these areas, but these measures could and would provide some assistance. They send a message of hope that people who are elected and sent to Ottawa are listening and that we are trying to do what we can to make life a bit easier for Canadians who are not wealthy and who live in rural areas. Let us make no mistake that these challenges disproportionately impact those who live in rural areas of Canada. These are good people who send a significant amount of their paycheque here to Ottawa. They watch a federal Liberal government that does not think twice about giving $12 million to a multi-billion dollar grocery corporation so it can buy new refrigerators. I mention this point because imagine what it feels like for people struggling financially in a small community like Hedley, where there is no high school and they must drive their kids to school, to hear some members of Parliament say these proposed savings do not add up to much. To them, every dollar counts. Let us keep in mind that many citizens who live in rural areas often do so because those are the only areas where they can find affordable housing for their families. They hear the Prime Minister say that gas prices are exactly what he wants, but in a place like Hedley, where people must commute to either Princeton or Keremeos and where a car or truck is the lifeline for services, school, groceries, supplies and a job, what do they do? Sometimes in this place I think the Prime Minister has forgotten places like Hedley and that those who live there absolutely need and depend on owning and driving a car. They should not be demonized for that fact. The proposed measures in the motion would help them and would send a valuable and important message: that in a time of need, this Parliament tried to help, or at least those who will vote in support of the motion can take some comfort in knowing they tried to do something. Those who oppose it can, I suppose, ask themselves differently. The bottom line is that I believe these proposed measures are a small but important step to help make life more affordable. Other G7 leaders are taking these actions to help make life more affordable for the citizens they serve. I am calling on all hon. members of this place to take action, vote in support of the motion and send a message that we are trying to make life more affordable for our citizens, who are struggling right now. The Prime Minister once said better is always possible, but after seven years under the Prime Minister, the reality for many Canadians is that more expensive is always possible, because their costs are going up and up and nothing is getting more affordable, despite the promises of the Prime Minister to the contrary. We have a critically urgent situation in many parts of Canada, and it is indeed now the time to take action by voting in support of the motion, in support of giving Canadians a break at the pumps and in support of our farmers, so they can keep their input costs down, particularly for fertilizer, and can plant food and feed the world. The Russians have been bombing key strategic areas in Ukraine to block wheat transports. This is a crisis of affordability not just for Canadians, but for people around the world. Canadian farmers can be part of the solution, but they cannot do this if they cannot get some certainty and cannot plant accordingly. We can also start to address long-term issues. Despite what other members of this place say, money laundering has been a major focus of the Cullen commission in my province of British Columbia. The Cullen commission has now reported to government, and the first thing that happened with money laundering in casinos is the government tightened things up. Guess what happened then. Suspicious transaction reports in Ontario immediately doubled. When one jurisdiction within Canada starts to tighten its rules, we will see that pushed to other areas. The Government of Canada owes it to every Canadian to make sure it is doing everything it can, particularly when so many millennials feel the system is rigged. They feel they cannot get a mortgage because they have been excluded by the Liberal stress test. They feel that other speculative forces, such as money laundering, are entering the market and making things difficult. They will feel alienated if we do not allow them to get a home. There are some common-sense measures in the motion, and I hope that all hon. members will look at them. We may not be able to make life easy in a time of struggle, but we can always make it easier. We can let Canadians know that Parliament, the House of Commons, is on their side.

1548 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 12:34:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a very specific question for the member, for clarification purposes. Clause (c) says that the Conservative Party is now proposing to eliminate tariffs on fertilizer. In other words, one could actually purchase fertilizer from Russia and not have to pay a tariff. Is that really what the Conservatives are saying in this motion?

57 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 83