44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 22, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his recent victory.
What we are fully aware of, and I think Canadians are quite aware of it as well, is that during his leadership contest, the member started off by talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a solution for people to invest.
I already hear the heckles coming from across the way because they do not want me to bring this up, but I have a sincere question for the Leader of the Opposition.
He started to change his position on it and pretty much stopped talking about it right around the time that cryptocurrencies took an absolute dive and anybody who was investing would have seen their investments absolutely devastated. Therefore, I have a genuine question for the Leader of the Opposition.
Has he had an opportunity to reflect on that position and perhaps has he evolved his position on that and would he be willing to share that with the House?
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is very experienced. He talks a lot in the House. He should know that we are not to refer to the presence or absence of anybody in the House. Suggesting a member cannot afford to get here in person certainly would, at the very least, indicate that the individual is not here.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled before I even make my point of order.
The member just said “partners in crime”. Is he suggesting that the Liberal government and the Liberal bench is participating in criminal activity, and to that extent, is the NDP partnering on that crime? That is extremely offensive, and the member should remove that comment immediately.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
He referred to the NDP as “partners in crime”.
11 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referred to the NDP as “partners in crime”. In doing so, he is suggesting the Liberal bench, the government and the Liberal members of Parliament, are engaging in criminal activity. He is also extending that to suggest the NDP are partnering in that criminal activity.
I suggested to you moments ago that you make the suggestion to the member to remove that comment. You asked him if he wanted to do that. Instead, he doubled down on it. I would suggest you ask him once again—
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start with a couple of things. First, I heard the member say that no other trading partner has a price on pollution or a “carbon tax” as he referred to it, which is not true. Fourteen out of 31 of the OECD countries do tax pollution, including Japan, the United Kingdom and France.
The member also talked at great length about the price on pollution or a carbon tax in B.C. However, my understanding is that B.C. has its own carbon tax. Indeed, B.C. is not utilizing the carbon tax that is imposed, because it chose to do its own model, which was the premise of this entire exercise of pricing pollution, so the member is slightly perhaps misleading by making that comment.
Finally, at the beginning of the member's speech, he talked about the supports that would be put in place as a result of the bill, but that perhaps spending this money would add further to inflation. I do not reject the economic theory behind that. I recognize that he said he is going to be supporting the bill, but is he suggesting that we just abandon people because if we spend any new money on them we are just adding to inflation? Is his suggestion that, because it will contribute to inflation, we should just not spend money on people?
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to what the member was saying, particularly when he was talking about housing. A lot has been coming from the other side of the House on this, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, who talked about gatekeepers. He seems to focus a lot on these gatekeepers at the municipal level that are preventing development from happening, as if that is the golden ticket to the housing crisis we have now. I do not believe it is, and I am curious if the member can comment on that.
I would also like to hear the member's thoughts on co-operative housing. He mentioned it in his speech and offered it as one solution. It is a solution that, at least as I have seen in my riding, can be very effective at getting tenants and those who are in co-operatives to genuinely participate in the organization. It becomes a sense of pride and ownership to participate in that.
I wonder if he could comment on whether or not that is his preferred model of affordable housing when it is being built or if he envisions something different.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation, which, from what I am hearing, all members in the House will be supporting, or at least that seems pretty clear from the NDP and the Conservatives. I think people realize that this is something important. It is something that is critical and it is something that people need right now.
What are we talking about? We are talking about a six-month increase of the GST rebates that are given to individuals. This would have a real, meaningful impact for people, in particular those who are struggling the most and those who really need it. For single individuals who have no children, the total GST rebate would be $467. Married or common-law partnerships would see $612, and then there would be $161 for each child under the age of 19.
This is about trying to help individuals, particularly right now, when we know we are experiencing this inflationary problem that has developed over time as a result of a number of different things that have been going on in the world, a number of things outside of the control of any individual country, and we have landed where we are.
We know that we need to take care of each other, and that is what this really comes down to. It comes down to taking care of each other and supporting each other through programs. That is what government is all about. The government is here to establish programs and policies that can have an impact throughout society.
If we took the approach of “every person for themselves”, which, unfortunately, it appears in retrospect that the Conservatives wish we had taken when it came to the beginning of the pandemic, we really would not need much in terms of government. We would not need government to be there to support Canadians and to support each other.
We have heard a lot, and I want to reflect on a comment that the member for Elmwood—Transcona made a few moments ago in answering a question from our friend from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and he phrased it perfectly. We hear the Conservatives talking about EI and CPP as payroll taxes. They are not payroll taxes.
CPP is a pension plan. It is a plan that is paid into by the employee and the employer. It is a pension plan that many people rely on when they get to the age of retirement. When politicians, in my opinion, start toying with the idea of playing around with that fund or not properly ensuring that it has the resources or funds within it, it means that we are going to have problems, from a societal perspective, later on when we find out that it is underfunded.
Likewise, EI is employment insurance. This is an insurance policy. It is funding a policy that allows people to be able to withdraw when they need it the most, if they become unemployed or other circumstances put them in the position of needing it. I do not agree with the assessment of calling it a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax. Neither of those programs is, yet we hear that.
I heard the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, the neighbouring riding to mine, pine back to the days of the UCCB, the universal child care benefit that Stephen Harper introduced. They pine about that program as though it is the gold standard for social programs of helping Canadians. The universal child care benefit was a program that literally gave every child, through their parents or guardians, a specific amount of money. It did not matter how much one made. It was not tested based on someone's need whatsoever. How can that be regarded as a social program?
Instead, this government has been focused squarely on putting money into the hands of those who genuinely need it the most. When we look at it, it is not just about supporting individuals. It is smart economic policy. What happens if we give a $100 or $150 payment to a millionaire, somebody who does not need it, quite frankly, through the UCCB? What happens? They will likely put it in a TFSA or they will put it in their bank account and collect interest off of it and it just sits there, because they do not need it.
What happens if we give it to somebody who genuinely needs it? They are going to go out and they are going to spend it. What does that do? That helps, creates and stimulates the economy.
When we pine back to the days of the universal child care benefit, as the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes did, that is not smart policy. It is not smart policy from the societal perspective of supporting each other, and it is not smart policy from an economic perspective. When we invest in people and we take care of each other, we will all be better off. We will see our economy grow in a way that is sustainable and that supports one another.
To that end, one of the arguments that I have heard come up a few times, and I heard it from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, are the concerns over the inflationary impacts of a program like this. I think it is a valid question to be asked, because we know that, when we inject more money into the economy, we run the risk of inflation being attached to that. I think it is a valid question.
However, I would encourage them to go out and talk to some of the individuals, economists, who understand and know this. I will read two quotes from two economists. The first is from Armine Yalnizyan, an economist and Atkinson fellow, and this is what this economist said:
In truth the measures are so modest...that they amount to just over 0.1 per cent of nominal GDP and less than one per cent of current growth, hardly a tail that could wag a dog.
She also said:
Along with the childcare fee rebate, financed by the feds and promised by the Ontario government to start in April (money that has yet to arrive in mailboxes), there’s a lot of talk but not a lot of cash flowing to households. There’s no chance current federal measures will spur inflationary over-spending anytime soon.
Here is another one from David Macdonald, the senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:
These transfers are unlikely to have much impact on inflation as inflation is being driven by external factors like the price of gasoline, supply chain issues and the like. These measures are quite targeted and to get the full value of all three, you'd have to be a family making under C$35,000.
In the best case scenario, you could receive about C$2,300 for that family which only amounts to 6.5 percent of income when inflation is running at 7.0 percent....
These measures aren't boosting incomes well above inflation, they are just helping lower income families afford the price increases that have already happened.
These are two economists who are putting to rest, at least in their professional opinions, the notions about inflation and what this could do to inflation, although I think it is a very valid and genuine question to ask, especially in the current climate. However, I hope that those two members, in particular, take comfort in knowing that these two economists do not agree that it would necessarily have a impact.
I do not want to take up much more time than I absolutely have to. I do not want to speak long enough that I have to come back and speak the next time that this comes up for debate. I want people and I want members to have the genuine opportunity to speak to this. I really hope that this is one of those bills that we can see pass quickly, because it really will have an impact on the lives of those who genuinely need it the most.
We need to assist those who need it the most, and I really hope that the House will not play politics with this issue. I hope we will let people have the opportunity to speak to it, but then, within a reasonable amount of time, get to a point where we can send it to committee, have it studied there and then come back, because, at the end of the day, this is about supporting the individuals who need it the most.
I really hope we can work together, because it appears as though we already all support it anyway.
1506 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to hear Conservative members talking about programs that are tested based on need. That is a great step in the right direction, and certainly a move away from the model of the universal child care benefit.
Perhaps I did not quite understand the member clearly when he referred to families that are making $308,000. My wife and I combined are making that, and we do not get the money back that he is talking about. I do not know where he is getting that number. Maybe he could help me with that.
Quite frankly, I do not believe that people who are in my position need to get that money. I am not looking for it. I also believe that most people who are in my position would agree that when we get to a certain level of financial stability, there is not the need to rely on these payments. Instead, we could better direct them to those who genuinely need them and provide more to those who genuinely need them, and that is exactly what the Canada child benefit did. It looked at how much individuals made and gave money to individuals to help with their children, based on how much they made. Once they hit a certain threshold, they no longer got it.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I cannot commit to amending the bill. I am not on the committee. I certainly do not have a veto power over the committee or how it works.
If the member is bringing up a very important point about the circumstances in Quebec and how the measures might apply differently, and it sounds like he is, I would suggest that there would be an opportunity at committee for the Bloc Québécois and those who are representing Quebec to bring this issue forward and to talk about it so that individuals could be properly taken care of. If what the member is suggesting is valid, then I do not see why the committee would not properly study it in order to bring forward solutions to address it.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I do not care whose idea it was. I do not care if it was the NDP's idea to increase the GST, or if it was done through negotiations or whatever. We are helping Canadians. It does not really matter at the end of the day. I doubt the individual who is receiving the cheque in time to help buy more groceries really cares that it was the NDP that pushed for this, nor do they care that the Leader of the Opposition fought for various different parts of this. All they care about is what supports their government is giving them in their time of need. If the NDP members want to take credit for it, they can fill their boots, because I am perfectly fine with that. My position on this is that we help Canadians to the best of our ability.
To his question about corporate greed, which the NDP continually brings up, I am not shying away from the topic. I hear the NDP bring it up a lot. I would love to hear more about it. If the member for Burnaby South wants to sit down with me and explain his positions on it more and talk about what he thinks some of the solutions should be, I am more than willing to listen.
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the member for Scarborough—Guildwood is looking for help building a deck, I am sure the member for St. Catharines and I can go over and help him. Maybe the Speaker can come too. I do not know about the quality of the deck or how it will turn out, but I am more than willing to do my part.
The member raises an excellent point, and that is why it is our job to encourage and ensure that people are aware of why it is so important to file taxes. Filing taxes is not just about paying money and making sure one has paid their fair share, or trying to avoid taxes here or there. It is also being able to tap into these very important programs that are designed and dedicated for individuals who need them in a time of need. By filing their taxes, people will be able to demonstrate that when it is time.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
