44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/7/22 11:01:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spoke to a number of issues. Unfortunately, none of them touched upon tourism and the impact that the cost-of-living crisis is having on the tourism and travel sector.
Perhaps she should have spoken to two of her colleagues, who are in the House today, both former Ontario ministers of tourism. They know that tourism and travel are discretionary activities and that the cost-of-living crisis will impact them. Over the next four months, the tourism industry will generate 75% of its revenues, but the government has done nothing to help the tourism sector. In fact, all support programs have now ended. The best thing the Liberals can do is get out of the way and allow the tourism sector to do what it does best: welcome people from around the world.
Does the member not agree that cutting gas taxes will assist with this? For the rubber tire market, for example, it means discretionary spending. If Canadians do not have those dollars, they are not going to visit our communities, and that would be one thing to assist them. Also, we need to end the mandates. We need to return to prepandemic travel—
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 2:57:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government continue their hypocrisy and virtue signalling with their vindictive mandates as airports are in disarray, people are blocked from travelling and others remain unable to return to their jobs. We will hear in their response that they are following the science, but let me offer a quote on the government's mandates from a well-known infectious disease specialist, Dr. Isaac Bogoch: “At the end of the day, the current policy probably isn’t doing a whole lot.”
So mandates are not stopping the spread. They are not saving lives. They are hurting Canadians. When will the Prime Minister and the government end the mandates?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 4:38:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoy the work that my hon. colleague and I do on the transport committee, where we have heard expert after expert tell us that these mandates no longer make sense. We have asked the government, for months and months, to provide the specific scientific data. They have not, and they will not, and that is because it is vindictive and punitive to people who not agree with their world view.
We are still testing 4,000 people upon arrival in airports. We have lineups out the door. I have a flight on Friday out of Pearson, and I want to know from the government if I should go today and line up, because that is what is happening in our economic centre, in Toronto's Pearson airport. It is not just people who are waiting in line who are affected. It is people who are not allowed to fly. There are about five million Canadians that the government has othered and continues to other, because it is punitive.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is having a difficult time following the logic here, I would suggest that she leave the chamber or not listen, as opposed to interrupting.
This is in fact very relevant. We have the opposition focusing their attention on an issue, but the government of the day is focused on the issues that are facing Canadians. Whether it is today or during the budget debate or debate on Bill C-19, we are have been consistent on these types of issues. It is the official opposition that has not been consistent. The opposition has not been focused on these important budgetary measures because it has been focused on other issues to try to stir the pot.
I am using the issue of the mandates as a tangible example. The wannabe leader of the Conservative Party was out saying, “Let us end the mandates”, and the minions within the chamber who are supporting that leader are espousing the same policy. To say that this issue is not relevant is ridiculous, because those are the types of issues they were talking about during the budget debate. Even when the Province of Quebec still had a curfew in place, the Conservatives were focused on ending mandates.
The member for Carleton made reference to the Bank of Canada and its governor. It was very discouraging. When we talk about issues of inflation and what is happening in our economy today and the person who is likely the new leader of the Conservative Party is going around diminishing the value and the importance of the Bank of Canada and its governor, we should all be concerned. That person has not won yet, and maybe he will not win, but he is definitely supported by a majority of the members opposite in the Conservative Party, and these are important budgetary-type issues, because the Bank of Canada does play an important role. It is supposed to be arm's length.
The Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than in dealing with the issues. We have indicated very clearly that we are going to deal with the real issues that Canadians are facing day in and day out. When Conservatives talk about inflation, they try to give the impression that the sky is falling and that Canada is going straight downhill. They put their collective heads in the sand, not recognizing what is happening in the world.
Conservatives talk about inflation. The Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus are all concerned about inflation, and we all understand the reality of what is happening in our environment that goes beyond our borders. It is affecting our inflation rate. If we could stop the war in Europe, we would do that. We do not have that kind of influence. We do have a great deal of influence in working with our allied countries. However, to deny the impact of what is taking place in Europe in the illegal Russian war that is happening to Ukraine is highly irresponsible. That war is having an impact on inflation.
To try to click our heels and think that mandates and the coronavirus would be gone and we would have nothing more to worry about would again be irresponsible. We just have to take a look at what is happening internationally.
Even today some members will say that someone can be on a boat for 24 hours but that cannot be done on a plane. Have members ever been a boat, compared to a plane? There is a big difference between being in a fuselage, where there are 220 people or whatever number of people, and being on a ferry between, let us say, Vancouver Island and the city of Vancouver.
We within the government benches continue to review and look at the situation, listen to what science is telling us and work with health experts. That is what is dictating our policies. Remember, the Conservatives have been saying to end mandates for months now.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: One member is saying “Hear, hear!”
Even when the Province of Quebec had a curfew, Conservatives were still advocating getting rid of mandates or mandatory masks. The Province of Quebec just got rid of mandatory masks. Are those health experts also wrong?
This is the type of focus we see from the Conservatives. Maybe it is because of the leadership convention that there seems to be a vacuum within the Conservative caucus today. There is no consistency.
When we take a look at the policies being brought forward from this government, whether they are legislative initiatives or budgetary initiatives, we see that they are having an impact for Canada from coast to coast to coast. Look at some of the numbers.
Conservatives will criticize us. It is truly amazing. The Conservatives will say that we are spending too much money, but in the last federal election they committed to spending more money than what we committed. They criticize us on the deficit, yet the Conservatives were projecting more, and that was only a number of months ago.
What is the actual reality? When looking at the reality, one needs to do a comparison and take a look at it. As we continue to receive and spend tax dollars, how is Canada actually managing? Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and the G7 includes some pretty important countries, including the U.S.A.
We have actually recovered 115% of the jobs that were lost as a direct result of the pandemic. Again we are doing much better than the U.S.A. We have been able to do this because we worked with Canadians and stakeholders when going through the pandemic and in planning the budgetary expenditures that formulated our estimates so that we would be there to support them in real and tangible ways.
I have given many speeches in the House giving examples of that support. Is there any wonder that we have been able to recover 115% of the jobs lost when we actually supported small businesses? We did this by providing rent subsidies, wage loss subsidies and better access to loans.
I would ultimately argue that because of the actions of the government in working with the different stakeholders, we prevented many companies from going bankrupt. We allowed for small businesses, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy, to be in a better position to hire back when the opportunity came.
A lot of the expenditures for which the Conservatives will criticize us were there to support people in having disposable income, whether it was supporting the poorest seniors in the country through the GIS or individual seniors 65 and older through the OAS, not to mention the literally tens if not hundreds of millions that were allocated to non-profit organizations that support our seniors.
We can also take a look at students and the doubling of summer jobs for young people and a continuation of that program within this budget. I remember the Conservative days when they cut back on that expenditure.
These are the types of initiatives that the government worked on, from the Prime Minister to the cabinet to the individual members of the Liberal caucus. We did that because we believe it is important to take the ideas and thoughts from our constituencies and bring them to Ottawa to ensure that the budget reflects what Canadians want to see in a national budget.
We have been successful by listening. We are concerned about inflation, as my constituents and all Canadians are. Canada's inflation rate is at 6.8% and yes, we are concerned about it. Whether it is the GIS, the OAS or the Canada child benefit, the benefits programs are all indexed to inflation. If people are 75 and older, they are getting a 10% increase in the OAS.
We are concerned about the 6.8%, even though it is actually less than the United States' inflation rate, which is 8.3%, or the U.K. inflation rate, which is 9%, or Germany's, which is 8.7%, or the OECD's, which has an average of 8.8%. Just because our rate is lower than all of those countries does not mean we are giving it any less attention. We understand that it is hurting pocketbooks, and that is why we see a number of budgetary measures that are going to help provide some relief.
We constantly see Conservative members vote against all of those measures. On the one hand, they talk about cutting taxes, and cutting more taxes, and looking at ways to cut tax. As a side point, when we provided them with a chance to do that by cutting taxes for Canada's middle class, they voted against it, but they sure like to talk about it. At the end of the day, they can be all over the map on a wide variety of things and have their focus on two issues in particular that I mentioned, but we will continue day in and day out to focus on the issues that Canadians are facing.
1540 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
