44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 16, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, in which he talked about the economic consequences of the climate crisis. I wonder if he could comment on the fact that even today, in 2022, the government continues to give billions of dollars in subsidies to oil and gas companies.
Does he not think that we will pay for this later in terms of climate change adaptation?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with my hon. colleague. There is not a single case to be made for any government in the world to be subsidizing the oil and gas industry or the production of fossil fuels. Not only is it unnecessary, but it is also counterproductive to what the world needs to be doing, which is reducing our carbon output.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 4:24:23 p.m.
- Watch
While I appreciate the long questions and the long answers because the debate is interesting, let us try to keep them a little shorter so we have the opportunity to get as many people in as we possibly can on the debate. Unfortunately, we are out of time for this member and will have to move on to the next one.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Winnipeg South Centre, especially at this moment.
We are coming through a pandemic, and its impact on the country's balance sheet was a once-in-a-lifetime stress on the nation's fiscal framework, with unprecedented demand and need, and there was urgency to protect individuals and businesses whose very financial survival depended on a government that was positioned and prepared to help immediately. We responded effectively and urgently, but perfection is elusive. We were not perfect, but I think there is a consensus that, under the circumstances and with the urgency that was felt by government, we did a good job. However, we cycled back to individuals and businesses, took their feedback and rolled that into an iteration that was responsive to what we heard from the people who mattered the most, and those are Canadians.
The role of government was at the centre stage of determining the appropriate response to this pandemic, and I think that the entire country learned to understand the collective responsibility that lay in front of us during this unprecedented time. To effectively deal with this once-in-a-lifetime set of circumstances, we had to respond not only in a way that was sensitive to the needs of today but also with an eye to what comes later. The fall economic statement understands that, because there is inevitably a balance between wealth creation and wealth distribution.
We are very good in this country at debating whether or not we think we should spend the nation's resources on health care or education, or maybe we should give more money to symphony orchestras. We can have honest debates about that, but those debates would be sterile if nobody was producing the wealth. That is the job of the private sector, and the spirit of entrepreneurship has so well characterized our capacity to grow as a nation in ways that offer opportunity to our citizens.
There is a difference in the way the three political parties respond to this balance, which we need. The NDP, I think, has historically been pretty good at determining ways in which we can justly distribute the nation's wealth, but I do not hear an awful lot of talk about how we create it, who should create it and the necessary framework within which it can be done effectively. I would like to hear more from my New Democratic friends and colleagues about the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit. I do not hear those words very often. From the Conservatives, I do not very often hear talk about a just and equitable distribution of wealth.
If the Liberal Party, my party, has been successful, really since the very earliest days of Confederation, we have been successful because we have found the sweet spot in the centre between those two imperative values of creating and distributing wealth. The reason we have been successful, I think, is because that is where Canadians are, and we have been able to tune in to what we believe to be the centre of the Canadian electorate and Canadian thinking, as we have to be.
The fall economic statement recognizes the importance of that balance, and the finance minister has said so repeatedly. I believe that we, as a party in government, are very well positioned to understand the sensitivity of that balance, and that is evident in the fall economic statement. It is very important to recognize programs in that way and in that context, and I think that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has done an excellent job.
She knows from her own experience. Having been raised in Alberta, she understands the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy, past, present and future. The prairie economy is very exciting, and having been a prairie dweller my entire life, I see it.
My father used to say to me when I was a very small boy, “Jimmy, what is good for the farmer is good for our family.” I have said that many times in this chamber and in the Manitoba legislature, where I also served, because, without understanding the production of food and value-added crops, trade with the world, and the value of the contribution of producers to the Canadian economy, we will not understand the driver of not only economic growth and the creation of wealth, but also of what is essential for the sustenance of a healthy life.
The prairie economy is so much more than that. It is trading with the world. It is providing value-added services to nations around the world that rely on Canada to be the supplier not only of food, but also of what powers our economy. Let us take canola as an example. Who would have thought, even 10 or 20 years ago, that the power contained in canola would help power the world, in addition to it being such an integral part of the food supply that keeps us healthy and keeps us strong? With respect to the future of the energy sector, we have very important debates about that. There is no question in my mind that the prairie region will also lead that growth, just as we have in the past.
Therefore, I am very optimistic about the understanding that is apparent in the fall economic statement. The minister and our government understand this question of balance and of timing. So much of what we do is about how we pace reform, and it has to be commensurate with the population's embrace of that pace. That requires sensitivity. We have to have our ears open all the time. We have to take the message to these regions that produce the wealth and be prepared to change course as circumstances change.
I want to make one more point. It is not only about the substance of these important debates, but it is also the style and the tone with which we deliver our messaging. I was in the House yesterday, and I could not believe what I saw hiding behind a curtain. There were members of this chamber who called for the quorum, while others were conspiring behind the curtain, to see if they could embarrass the government. I could not help but think to myself that it looked like a grade six stunt.
Why is it that we think that we can get away with that kind of behaviour? We shout at each other, some more than others. I am not a very good shouter. I think one can be very effective whispering, and actually maybe even more effective because, if we are whispering, they have to pay attention. The style in which we engage in these debates in this chamber also characterizes the capacity to move on.
I am very happy that this fall economic statement understands the importance of balance between taking the nation's wealth and distributing it equitably, and putting a lot of emphasis on the capacity of the private sector to create that wealth.
1199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see my hon. colleague from Manitoba in the chamber doing very well. I appreciated very much his speech. I especially appreciate the very respectful tone he had toward farmers. To be honest, I do not often feel that we are getting the respect that farmers deserve from the government, so I did greatly appreciate the member's remarks.
My family have been farmers for over four generations. What I am hearing from the farmers I know and who I grew up with is that the carbon tax is deeply impacting them. Our food prices are high. One of the reasons is that the gas we need to produce that food is going up in price, and part of the reason it is going up is because of the carbon tax. I just wonder how the member squares his respect for farmers with his government imposing a very punitive carbon tax, which is increasing the cost of food production.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we can call it a carbon tax, or we can call it a price on pollution. The emphasis is important. There have to be market mechanisms to impact behaviour. Even small-c conservative economists and Conservative politicians of today, yesterday and, presumably, tomorrow, understand that is a very important component in the basket of initiatives governments ought to be taking to make sure we are maximizing our potential to move to a more sustainable production of energy, as the world is being directed by the decisions made in the marketplace every day.
I agree with my hon. colleague and friend on how important protecting the producer community is. She and I are from Manitoba. It is part of our lifeblood. It is part of the way we live, and it will be an integral part of our future.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre in the House and so hale and hearty. I know he has had some challenges in the last few months.
His speech was eloquent, as it always is in the House of Commons. He brings a very effective message, I think.
I wish the bill, the fall economic statement, was actually as good as his speech. Tragically, it is not. There are major elements missing, including the fact that the government is really not taking any action at all on the massive overseas tax havens we have. Yes, they were started by the Harper Conservatives, but the practice has been continued by the Liberal government, and it is tragic. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that it is over $30 billion in taxpayer money that could go to housing, that could go to supporting seniors, to supporting access to education, to supporting our health care system, or to expanding our health care system. It could provide so many supports for Canadians of all ages and end some of the crises we are seeing in indigenous communities and in housing.
I want to ask the member how he feels when he sees the government missing that key component of cracking down on massive corporate tax evasion so that Canadians can have their needs met and be supported at this critical time.
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by complimenting my hon. friend. I have said this to him privately and I am going to say it publicly. He is a role model for me in his capacity to speak French. I do not know when he began the study of it, but he sure is good at it. I am envious, I must say. For those of us born anglophone, looking for every way in which we can improve our facility in the second official language is something to be admired, and I admire him for it.
We all want fairness in tax policy and in public policy that extends even beyond our shores to the extent that we are able. We have been saying, and we continue to say, that if we cannot establish a fair tax system, we will not carry the confidence of Canadians. There are many ways in which that can be done, including the ways that my hon. friend suggests.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I agree with him. He is very eloquent.
I would like to hear his thoughts on the fact that the economic statement is yet another example of centralization. I think he mentioned the importance of small and medium-sized businesses for the economy and the entrepreneurial base. The Bloc Québécois also talks about this a lot. Quebec is home to many of these businesses. I think that centralizing all resources in Ottawa is detrimental to both the public and private sectors, and especially to our SMEs across Canada and in Quebec.
The federal government's tendency to centralize is problematic, and I would like my colleague to comment on that.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is a fulcrum that changes over time. To centralize or decentralize is a function of circumstance and I do not think that we should be rigid or ideological about which way we choose, because circumstances change all the time and we have to be nimble enough to know where we want to be and how to get there with some fundamental values at the centre of what drives policy. I mentioned those in my short remarks about wealth creation and wealth distribution. We have to respect jurisdiction; otherwise, nothing is going to get done.
I understand where the question is coming from, but I also believe that, rather than giving an answer that could be framed as ideological or framed always within the context of decentralizing or centralizing, it is better that we be nimble and responsive to the particular circumstances of the moment.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 4:39:55 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Housing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, The Economy; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Natural Resources.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to put words on the record regarding the Liberal government's fall economic statement. It is arriving at a time that is very critical in Canadian history. We are faced with inflation which is at a 40-year high. Food costs and inflation have not been this high since before I was born. My generation has never seen this type of economy, where people cannot afford food, cannot afford homes and inflation is putting people into poverty.
When I listened to the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, I was hoping that I would hear some solutions, but I did not hear any real, concrete solutions to address the very difficult circumstances that many of my constituents are facing. For example, last year was a terribly cold, long, brutal and punishing winter and it is predicted that this winter will be much the same. That is very bad news for Canadians because we have heard that energy prices, particularly for gas-heated homes, will increase by 100%, at a minimum, on gas bills. Six out of 10 Canadian families heat their homes with gas. Millions of families and seniors will be paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more on their gas bills just to stay warm this winter, just to heat their homes.
I am from Winnipeg and home heating is not an option. It is not an option to just throw on an extra sweater. People die if they cannot afford heat. It is very serious. Before the pandemic, there were significant numbers of seniors already living in poverty, particularly widowed women living alone, barely able to afford their rent and food. Now their gas bill is going to increase 100%. It is going to double. Some areas of the country are going to see a 300% increase.
What makes it worse is the government is raising the carbon tax. It is planning to increase the carbon tax this spring. It has increased it every spring for a number of years and it is planning to triple the carbon tax in the next number of years. We are going to see 100% increases, doubling home heating, and an increase in the carbon tax as well.
What does that mean? We are seeing the impacts of what the carbon tax, inflation and the cost of living crisis is doing. There were 1.5 million people in Canada who went to food banks last month. This is a record-breaking number. I visit the food banks in Winnipeg. I know the food banks in Toronto have been very vocal. There is news across the country in every city that food banks cannot keep up with the demand. Children are going hungry. Seniors are going hungry. They worked all their lives, contributed to our tax system and now they cannot afford food in Canada. Over half of Canadians are skimping on their grocery bill. They are having to buy less food because the situation is so dire. Twenty per cent of Canadians, one survey showed, are skipping meals. We are hearing this often with single mothers who are going hungry so their children can eat.
This is Canada. This is not the Canada that I grew up in. This is not something my generation has ever experienced before. I remember hearing about times like this from my grandparents. They recounted their experience in rural Canada during the Great Depression of being incredibly poor, having no options or government services, but we have so many government services. We are paying higher taxes than ever before, and yet here we are.
There was a headline recently in The Canadian Press which said something to the effect that children are going hungry in Canada. That was a headline in Canadian news, that children are going hungry in Canada. This is not the Canada that I know. I do not think it is the Canada the Speaker recognizes either.
The government has gone on and on saying that the carbon tax is going to help stop hurricanes, forest fires, heat domes and all these things. I am concerned about climate change, too. I am the generation that learned about climate change in school.
We are in a situation where the government is raising the tax on our major source of energy. Again, six out of 10 homes heat with gas. Canada could be an energy superpower. We have some of the largest gas reserves in the world. We have gas and we produce much of the world's food, and yet prices for food and gas to heat our homes are so high that people are going into poverty. It does not make sense.
What kind of federal government do we have that cannot take leadership and see our natural resources for what they are? We are very blessed in this country. People should not be going hungry or cold when we are blessed with these resources.
The Liberals are arguing in favour of raising the carbon tax again. We know that the government has spent over $100 billion on climate change. It is planning on tripling the carbon tax, which increases the price of gas to fill one's car, gas to heat one's home and to create, deliver and store food. For all of the things that we need to survive in this country, the carbon tax raises the price.
The government spent $100 billion on climate change. It is increasing the carbon tax on Canadians. How much of an emissions reduction have we seen in seven years? The Liberals have had seven years for their plan to show emissions reductions and to give people like me who care about emissions reductions hope, yet there have been no emissions reductions. There has been no positive impact on reducing emissions in Canada despite spending $100 billion and tripling the carbon tax. There has been no impact on reducing emissions. Something is very wrong here. Clearly, it is not working. The Liberals do not have a climate plan. They have a tax plan and it is taxing people into poverty.
I was in the grocery store the other day and I encountered some very friendly constituents who I represent. They are from a farming family. They asked me about the carbon tax and the impacts. They did not really understand. I am from a farming family. I do not think people realize that to grow our crops, we use huge machinery, massive combines, swathers, tillers, and all types of things. We need fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides. This is all to feed now eight billion people on earth. These massive machines need a lot of fuel, fossil fuels, just to grow the crops. Then we have to ship them and process them. We turn them into food that we can eat. We ship them to the grocery store and then store them in grocery stores that are powered by gas heating, more often than not.
Then people pick up their groceries. People wonder why food prices are high. Yes, there are supply chain issues. I think everybody acknowledges that. If the price of fuel to create that food is increased, what do people think is going to happen to the price of food? It is going to go up.
We keep asking the government. We had two demands specifically for this fall economic statement. They were very simple things. One was no new taxes. We asked that there be no tax increases. We know there is a payroll tax increase coming up on January 1. Of course, the carbon tax is going to be increased yet again in April. We said no new taxes.
There are no commitments in the fall economic statement not to raise taxes on Canadians. Those are coming during the worst inflation in 40 years. Food prices have skyrocketed and 1.5 million people are using food banks. The government is going to raise taxes on Canadians, the tax on energy and the tax on our paycheques. When people cannot afford food, the government is going to raise taxes. We cannot support it because the government will not do a simple thing and cut taxes or at least commit to not increasing them.
We asked the Liberal government not to increase spending. The Liberal government has spent over half a trillion dollars of deficits since it has been in office. That is more than any prime minister before this government combined. All the debt from all the prime ministers and leaders of this country combined is how much it has spent in seven years. Almost 150 years of deficits in seven years is how much new money has been pumped into the economy. Of course that has an impact on driving up inflation. More money in the economy chasing fewer goods means higher prices. This is the same as it has been for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
The Globe and Mail had a great opinion piece about this. The Globe and Mail is far from a Conservative publication. We are now seeing publications talking about how the Liberal government's spending has led to an increase in inflation. All of its spending is causing Canadians to go into poverty.
We have asked the government to stop new spending. For every dollar it is going to spend, it needs to find a dollar of savings. It is pretty simple stuff in a crisis situation, and yet that also was not met in the fall economic statement. Again, 1.5 million people are using food banks and the government cannot commit to stopping the increase of taxes, let alone cut them. That is what we would do if we were in power. We would also be looking to balance the books so that we are not pushing inflation up and up and up, yet those simple things cannot be done.
There is $20 billion of new spending in this fall economic statement, so we cannot in good conscience support it. We will ask again that the government commit to axing the carbon tax altogether. That would be really great. Then we could give an immediate break on gas at the pumps. We could give an immediate break on gas for home heating and an immediate break for food production and storage. That would bring immediate relief to moms, dads and seniors who are struggling today. It is what we are going on every single day. It is what we are hearing from our constituents. The cost of living is the number one concern.
Unfortunately it is going to be a while, but there is hope on the horizon. A Conservative government under our new leader would certainly bring an end to these tax increases, balance the books and reduce inflation.
1809 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the Conservative Party for her intervention today. She mentioned that never in her generation have we witnessed inflation like this, and in my generation, we have never witnessed inflation like this either. It goes without saying that I am from an older generation than she is.
However, we have also never witnessed a pandemic like this, and we have also never witnessed a war with these degrees of sanctions being put in place, which have affected the supply of particular goods. She talked specifically about the carbon tax, and I want to compliment her because she did something that very few Conservatives do, which is recognize the fact that the tax does not actually increase until April.
If we are talking about the heating season, it is coming to a close by the time the tax will increase. More importantly, when it does increase, it will not actually triple for a decade, in 2030. When it does, the rebate will also triple.
Will the member acknowledge that?
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and his reaffirming that the tax increases are going to get worse. Home heating bills are going to get more expensive. We know that the carbon tax has been in place for a number of years now, and it is increasing the cost of home heating.
I appreciate that he has confirmed for Canadians that it will, in fact, be going up and they can expect higher home heating costs under the Liberal government. Perhaps the Liberals will not be in power by the time they are planning to triple it, so hopefully we can be the ones in power to cancel the carbon tax and bring Canadians relief.
It is important to underline that we needed much of the 40% of new government spending during the COVID pandemic. Many Canadians, including me, agree. However, $4 out of $10 the Liberals spent had nothing to do with the pandemic, and now Canadians are the ones to pay the price because it caused inflation in this country. They have to account for that.
Frankly, they should probably apologize to Canadians who are going to the food banks because of the Liberals' inflationary deficit spending.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, often we come at things very differently. Interestingly, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech as she focused entirely on the carbon tax. As was discussed before in this debate, the price on carbon is very key.
Of course, New Democrats believe that one of the increases that she was talking about in the cost of food also comes because of climate change, because of droughts, floods and forest fires. What the Conservatives have not talked about is the NDP's attempt to work with them to help people by cutting the GST on home heating. That is what the NDP has proposed. That was an amendment that the NDP made, and that was the amendment that the Conservatives rejected.
If they are truly interested in helping people, why did she and her party not allow that amendment?
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague very sincerely for her question, but if my memory serves, it was Conservatives who brought forward a motion to cut the GST on home heating. The NDP voted against it. Unfortunately, her question does not stand.
We called for a GST break so that Canadians could more adequately afford to heat their homes. We think that the carbon tax should be axed, especially given we are at 40-year-high inflation.
She is making the argument for the carbon tax, but what about the people who are being priced out of affording food? What do we say to them? Should we not be pausing all these tax increases? Does the NDP not support giving people tax breaks so they can afford to feed their kids and so seniors do not have to eat bananas and bologna because they cannot afford other food? I am hearing that from store clerks.
I will leave members with this: A store clerk approached me recently, and she said she is seeing more seniors than ever who are buying cat food, as cat food is pretty cheap, but they do not have cats. They are buying cat food because they cannot afford real food for themselves. That is how bad inflation is. That is how bad the taxes are that the government is putting on the energy to create our food. That is the real impact; people are eating cat food. We are asking them to axe the tax to give Canadians relief.
255 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 14, 2022, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader regarding an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.
In raising the point of order, the parliamentary secretary explained that the committee passed an amendment to protect termination and severance pay in case of bankruptcy. The chair of the committee ruled the amendment inadmissible on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The decision was challenged and overturned. The committee then debated the amendment and adopted it.
According to the parliamentary secretary, this amendment broadens the scope and principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading. In addition, because the amendment introduces a new concept that was not contemplated at second reading, the parliamentary secretary argued that it should be removed from the version of the bill that will be considered at report stage and third reading.
However, the members for Niagara West and Sarnia—Lambton contended that decisions made by committees should not be overturned by the government of the day but allowed to stand in order to uphold their independence. For his part, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is of the view that the amendment should be allowed because the sponsor believed it to be relevant and it had also been referenced during debate at second reading.
After the report of the Standing Committee on Finance was presented to the House, the Chair was asked to ensure compliance with certain fundamental rules and practices and to consider if the committee had exceeded its powers with regard to an amendment included in its report. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:
When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot…go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.
The amendment at issue would create new clause 4.1 of the bill, which would protect the termination and severance pay that a bankrupt owes to various categories of its employees.
Bill C-228 is limited in scope. The summary of the bill at second reading states the following:
This enactment amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to ensure that claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of pension plans and claims relating to the cessation of an employer’s participation in group insurance plans are paid in priority in the event of bankruptcy proceedings.
The chair of the committee was right to conclude that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, as Bill C‑228 is intended to protect only employee pension funds and group insurance plans, not termination or severance pay for certain categories of employees in case of bankruptcy.
The Chair would like to remind members that the scope of a bill is not determined by its sponsor, by the government or even by the committee considering it, but by the House itself when it adopts the bill at second reading.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 770: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
While the Chair recognizes that considering a bill at committee involves its share of challenges, committees must fulfill their mandate without exceeding their powers. Committees overstep the authority granted to them when they pass amendments that go beyond the scope of a bill referred to them after second reading.
In consequence, the Chair must rule the amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance creating new clause 4.1 of Bill C-228 null and void, and order that it no longer form part of the bill that the committee reported to the House.
The Chair further orders a reprint of Bill C-228 so that the new version may be considered by the House at report stage.
I thank members for their attention.
787 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to join the debate on the fall economic statement, otherwise known as the FES. This year, the FES comes at a very difficult time, as the world is suffering from inflation caused in large part by Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which has reduced the supply of oil and gas in the market and boosted the prices of energy and all the other goods and services that we buy. Similarly, the reduction in grain from Ukraine in the market and the many droughts and climate disasters have inflated the price of food.
To cope with inflation, we have seen the Bank of Canada and central banks right around the world raise inflation rates to cool an overheated economy. The result is that even Canadians I know who have secure, well-paying jobs are worried about balancing the rise in the cost of everything they buy with paying the mortgage, especially those who have a variable rate mortgage.
It is even more crushing for those who do not have this security. That is why we passed legislation to double the GST credit for six months, which will provide $467 for families; to provide an extra $500 in rent support for low-income renters; and to launch a dental care program for low-income families, starting with children under 12.
This, of course, builds on programs that we have brought in since 2015, like the boost to OAS and GIS for seniors, the Canada child benefit, and $10-a-day child care, all of which have lifted over three million Canadians out of poverty and brought Canada to its lowest-ever poverty rate. We believe our approach shows compassion for those who really need the support while being cautious not to make inflation worse with further spending.
With this in mind, enter the FES. The FES is meant to provide an update on the state of the finances of the government and to introduce limited new measures while signalling where the government intends to go with the next year's budget.
That is exactly what the FES does this year, providing important supports for young Canadians, low-income workers and small businesses, while showing how Canada is going to compete in the global race for investment and jobs in the low-carbon economy.
The next year will be really challenging worldwide, but there is no country in the world that is better positioned to thrive going forward than Canada. The measures in the FES will move us closer to that reality.
We know our country and our economy cannot thrive if we leave students stuck with crippling and ever-increasing debt. Over the last seven years, we have doubled the Canada student grants to help students pay for post-secondary education and made it so that students do not have to start repaying their student loans until they are making at least $40,000 a year.
During the pandemic we also suspended interest on student loans, and now, through the fall economic statement, we are permanently eliminating the federal interest on student loans.
In budget 2021, we increased the Canada workers benefit to provide up to $2,500 more in the pockets of families who need it most. Given that the high cost of living today puts a real strain on people's day-to-day lives, we are moving payments to be quarterly, based on last year's income, so they have the support now, when they really need it.
Throughout the pandemic, the government of Canada was there to support small businesses with wage and rent support and access to liquidity. This meant that businesses survived the pandemic and provided the foundation for a recovery whereby Canada has recovered 117% of the jobs that were there prepandemic.
Canadians are increasingly moving away from using cash to pay for goods and services in favour of credit cards. This is something that very much happened over the course of the pandemic, but in doing so they are subject to credit card swipe fees, which are impacting businesses, particularly small businesses.
Small businesses do not want to pass this cost along to customers, especially at this time. To help these businesses and lower the cost of goods for all Canadians, we are proposing legislation to ensure that credit card companies reduce swipe fees.
We know that the elevated cost of housing is impacting all Canadians. As I mentioned, we are providing a $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit. To tackle speculation in the market, beginning next year, we are also going to be bringing in a two-year ban on foreign buying of real estate, including a 1% tax on non-resident-owned, unused housing. As of May, we are also taxing property assignments.
In the FES, we are going to be helping first-time homebuyers get into the market with a tax-free home savings account of up to $40,000, the details of which will be forthcoming, as well as the first-time homebuyers tax credit.
At the same time, we are providing a new tax credit for owners who build a secondary suite for senior family members or those living with a disability, as well as bringing in a new tax on property-flipping.
The aforementioned measures will help all Canadians right now, but we know the world is not static. While the war in Ukraine has caused inflation and a short-term hike in the demand for fossil fuels, it has also accelerated the transition to cleaner energy as nations seek to end their dependence on fossil fuels and achieve energy security, as well as tackling climate change.
Nowhere is this inevitability of the transition away from fossil fuels more obvious than in what is happening south of the border with the Inflation Reduction Act. This act is aptly named because, contrary to what the leader of the official opposition believes, we do not opt out of inflation by investing in crypto, which of course has crashed by 61% this year. We opt out of inflation by reducing reliance on the roller coaster of fossil fuel prices.
The IRA offers enormous financial supports for firms that locate their production in the United States and creates generous tax credits to industries like renewable energy development and hydrogen production, and incentives for North American-made electric vehicles to power the transition. While, on a per capita basis, the U.S. investment of almost $370 billion pales in comparison to the $100 billion investment that we have made in Canada, Canada needs to respond to secure its competitive advantage and to secure investment and jobs, or risk being left behind.
On the fight against climate change alone and to build a net-zero economy by 2050, Canada will need to invest between $125 billion and $140 billion every year over that period. Total annual investment in the climate transition to date is about $15 billion to $25 billion, so no government can close this gap alone.
We need to mobilize private capital to invest in Canada's green transition and the clean economy, and while companies and investors are aware of opportunities to commercialize and deploy emissions reduction technologies, they are often restrained due to investment risks that are frequently associated with these investment opportunities.
That is why, through the fall economic statement, or FES, we are launching the Canada growth fund. This is a $15-billion facility that will help attract billions of dollars in new private capital to create good-paying jobs and support Canada's economic transformation towards a low-carbon future. The fund will aim to leverage private capital at a rate of at least three to one and respond to measures that international competitors are bringing in.
To supplement the Canada growth fund, the FES also proposes a refundable tax credit equal to 30% of the capital cost of investments in renewable energy, electricity storage, heat pumps, zero-emission vehicles, refuelling equipment and more. This will greatly assist with the electrification of our economy, which we will need to do to reduce our emissions.
However, there are parts of our economy that cannot be practically electrified, and that is where solutions like hydrogen become key, such as in freight transportation, air travel and shipping. To support the growth of this sector, the FES also announced that we will be introducing an investment tax credit for clean hydrogen, to ensure this critical clean energy source is developed here in Canada.
What is notable about all these measures is that we have geared the full extent of the tax credit only to those companies that follow proper labour practices and create well-paying jobs, which is key. However, to ensure that workers are ready for these jobs, the FES will also proceed with a $250-million investment to create a sustainable jobs training centre to help 1,500 workers upgrade or gain new skills for jobs in the low-carbon economy, and a union training and innovation program to support 20,000 union-based apprenticeship training opportunities in the skilled trades.
I see that my time is running out, which means I will not be able to discuss things like the additional $1.6 billion that will go towards delivering on our immigration levels plan, or the new tax that we are going to be bringing in on share buybacks to ensure that corporations, many of which are making record profits this year, invest in Canada rather than simply buying back their shares.
The FES shows that we are not only taking a responsible fiscal path but also being compassionate to those who are most impacted by inflation, through supports for students, low-income workers and small businesses. Importantly, it will also allow Canada to be competitive in the race for investment in the green economy, which will provide long-term prosperity and jobs for our country.
While we are navigating turbulent times at the moment, there is no country that is better positioned to thrive over time, and that is why I encourage all members of the House to support this legislation.
1699 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He spoke about many things, but he forgot some important things. He forgot to mention seniors, the most vulnerable in our society.
Once again, we do not understand why the Liberal government continues to discriminate against seniors. It did so in August 2021 when it magically came up with $500 cheques to send to people aged 75 and over.
As we know, those great magicians are unable to deliver passports, but they can deliver cheques in mailboxes the day before an election, or even the day or the week before calling an election.
Let us continue. They have increased old age security for those aged 75 and over. They have created two classes of seniors. People are eligible for a pension at age 65, but the increase to which people would usually be entitled is only for those aged 75 and over. How can this government continue to discriminate against seniors?
We see that again with this economic update, despite the raging inflation. We are dealing with the worst inflationary crisis in 40 years, yet the government is doing absolutely nothing for the most vulnerable, who are having to turn to food banks. In my riding, demand is growing. People have to make agonizing choices between food and medication.
When will this government do something for seniors?
227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from la belle province for his question.
However, I disagree with his question, because we are there for seniors and always have been. In my speech, I said that we had boosted OAS and GIS for seniors. The measures we implemented this fall will help seniors. I am thinking about the $500 cheques that will be sent to low-income renters. There is also the GST credit for people of all ages. I know that many vulnerable seniors will benefit from that.
I disagree with the member because we have always been there for seniors and for all Canadians. There are always new measures we can bring in to improve the situation. I am always ready to work on that with my hon. colleague.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
