44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 18, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity I have been given to take part in today's debate on Bill C‑32 on the 2022 fall economic statement.
In short, Bill C‑32 is nothing but minor legislative amendments or a hodgepodge of measures announced in the spring budget that had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill adopted in June.
What are the concerns that we hear people talk about daily? It is the cost of living that keeps going up and a possible recession and yet there is no measure to address this new economic reality. It is very disappointing and a missed opportunity.
It is unfortunate to end up with an economic update that mentions inflation 108 times without offering any extra help to people who are vulnerable or alternative solutions when, again, a recession is on the horizon for 2023.
Bill C‑32 is a bill that fails to address the major challenges facing our society. The government identifies the problem of the rising cost of living but does nothing beyond naming it. It talks of tough days ahead this winter without making any plans to get through it.
Families, seniors, pensioners, the unemployed and workers cannot take it anymore. They are at their wits' end. The price of gas, groceries, clothing, rent and everything else is going up. People are having to cut back everywhere, do without and make choices: Do I put food on the table or do I buy winter clothes for my kids? Do I buy medicine or do I put gas in the car? These are the kinds of tough choices that most people face.
Bill C-32 includes measures to help people buy their first home. I recognize that that is a good measure, but not everyone can afford to buy a house or wants to buy a house, and those individuals need housing, especially affordable housing.
As we know, the appalling lack of housing in Nunavik can have serious, and I would even say very grave, consequences. Because of limited space, young children are sleeping in the same beds as adults, which poses a risk of death by accidental asphyxiation. Sometimes children are even crushed and die of asphyxiation in their sleep. That is unacceptable. Overcrowded housing has been identified as a recurrent risk factor.
The coroner's office has recommended that the government inject funds into housing specifically in Nunavik. The construction of social housing in Nunavik would solve the problem of the death of infants and young children, as well as other public health problems. When will the government take action? It is urgent. We are talking about saving lives.
Last week, I was in my riding, Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou. As members know, it is a vast riding and I represent almost half of Quebec. I met with the CAO of the Vallée‑de‑l'Or RCM, who spoke to me about the housing shortage. The wheel keeps turning. Housing problems mean labour shortages and an inability to attract people to the region. We cannot stop the wheel from turning. People are tired and demoralized. They cannot manage.
People come to work in our area to make good money and then they return home. They do not buy locally, and so there is no local economy. It is an ongoing problem in Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou. What can we do to keep our foreign workers? We must also improve the immigration process, which is very slow. It is outrageous. I feel as though the government is abandoning our regions.
The Bloc Québécois asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people by increasing health transfers, providing adequate support to those aged 65 and over and urgently reforming employment insurance, which we know is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty.
Sadly, the government dismissed all of those good suggestions. We can therefore only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.
The government itself is making some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves. Where is the logic in that?
Quebec and the other provinces are unanimously asking the government to immediately, permanently and unconditionally increase health transfers. Emergency rooms everywhere are overflowing. What is the government waiting for to transfer funds?
In addition, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. This is unthinkable. I have trouble understanding why the government has created two classes of seniors. It is unfair. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy.
To add to this, the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.
What about people who lose their jobs and have to rely on EI? For all intents and purposes, the EI system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six out of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. This is a serious problem in these tough times. The government promised reform seven years ago, and time is running out. We need EI reform. It is crucially important that we not be forced to cobble together a new CERB to offset the system's shortcomings if recession hits. As we saw during the pandemic, improvised programs are expensive and ineffective. With the looming threat of recession, there is an urgent need to rebuild the system to avoid a repeat of what we went through in 2020.
As the Bloc Québécois critic for families, children and social development, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the plight of some of our children in these tough times given the possibility of a recession. Yesterday morning, I had a chance to meet with people from the Breakfast Club, an organization that was founded in Quebec in 1994. Thanks to them, many children have access to the healthy food that is essential to their success. Thanks to them, children do not start their day on an empty stomach.
Some businesses have shut down because of the pandemic, and this has led to an increase in unemployment and poverty. Food insecurity is affecting a growing number of people. Experts believe that food insecurity could double in Canada by the end of the year. The government is making efforts and investing money, but it is still not enough. In 2020, nearly one in seven people in Canada lived in a household that had experienced food insecurity in the previous 30 days. Nearly 2.1 million households experienced food insecurity. That is a 39% increase from 2017-18 data.
One thing is clear: Things are not getting any better under this government. Our children need to have full bellies in order to reach their full potential. It is also important to note the shortage of children's medicine in our pharmacies. It is impossible to provide adequate care to our young people because the shelves are empty.
It is the same story for all of our constituents. Where will it all end?
1318 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member opposite's comments, I would like to encourage her to recognize that yes, inflation is very significant and is having an impact, but when we do a comparison around the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well in the inflation fight.
That does not mean we should not put in efforts, and we have been putting in efforts, focusing on the hardships that Canadians are having to go through on a daily basis. That is why, for example, we have a dental program. We have a rental program. We have a student program. We have the enhanced GST rebates.
All of these are there to put more money in the pockets of Canadians in all regions of the country, yet the member seemed to completely overlook that the government has been there.
Is she aware of how many of the provincial governments are contributing to putting money in the pockets of Canadians? Is there a provincial example she can cite that we can take a look at?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today and address the fall economic statement, as delivered by Canada's Minister of Finance over a week ago, but I want to go through some things in this speech. I have to limit my comments, because there is a lot to go through here, and I think the House will appreciate that I am going to focus on only a few things.
Number one is that there is some good news here. That good news, of course, is that Canada collected $30 billion in extra tax revenue over the last year. We can call that good news, but there is a dark side to it as well. However, $30 billion more arrived in government coffers than we thought was going to be there last year, and that is really good forecasting, on behalf of the Department of Finance and the minister herself. I give her my congratulations. However, not to be outdone, of course, the minister decided to spend an additional $16 billion of that $30-billion windfall that she put onto the backs of Canadians.
Let us think about how government revenue goes up. Government revenue goes up in an inflationary environment because the price of everything goes up, and therefore its collection of revenue on everything goes up. Do people's paycheques go up? They absolutely do not. The government's revenue has gone up, in GST, in collections on excise tax, and on income tax. All of this has gone up, and corporate taxes have as well, but the one main factor here that contributed $30 billion extra to the government's coffers was an increase in resource revenues.
Revenues from the resource industry, because of a scarcity of resources around the world, went up in Canada, as they did everywhere else around the world, and Canada's resource industry provided more revenue to government, along with Canadians, who were taxed more and gave more to the government.
Inflationary taxes are one thing. Resource sector contributions are quite another, but Canadians need to realize that the government is getting more revenue because they are not doing as well. They do not have as much take-home pay. More of it is going into the government's hands, and still it forecasts a deficit of $39 billion after a resource windfall that landed in the government's pockets.
We can forget about the effect that continued spending will have on inflation, because government spending is the number one cause of inflation. Over the past two and a half years, $500 billion has caused excessive inflation in the Canadian economy. The overspending has been rampant. Our debt is double what it was before the government got into power. It is an anomaly in the world, and we need to address it.
The effect on Canadians in that respect, if we think of an average Canadian in an average house with an average mortgage, and I am speculating that the mortgage is on a variable rate basis, will be an extra $7,000 per year because of the higher interest rates caused by the inflationary environment the government has produced. That is $7,000 a year more on top of more taxes being paid by Canadians and more going to the banks. Who is doing well in this inflationary environment, and who is not doing so well? I can tell members right now that Canadian taxpayers are not doing that well.
However, the minister has to acknowledge as well, as she does in her document, and I need to point it out very clearly to her here, that there will be $24 billion this year in debt service payments and $34 billion next year in debt service payments, and the year after it will be $44 billion going from Canadians' taxes into debt service payments. It will go from $24 billion to $44 billion because of an adjustment in interest rates and continued government overspending. That $44 billion is more than the federal government gives to the provinces for health care, so this has become a major item in the government's balance sheet and income statement.
It is something we are going to have to address. I suggest we address it sooner rather than later. Perhaps that extra $16 billion the minister found under her pillow could have been used for some debt reduction, so we would not have that $44-billion bill, $20 billion higher than this year, two years from now. It is something we need to start focusing on, and she did use some words in her speech. I read those words, and I heard those words as well.
She talked about prudent fiscal management, but this is anything but prudent, and she talked about keeping powder dry. I do not know how running a $39-billion deficit in a supposedly inflationary economy is keeping powder dry. It is burning their powder so they will not have any powder going forward.
Just to say thanks to the main source of the windfall gains, the resource sector, the minister acquiesced to some shrill voices of public opinion from her bench and the benches of some of the other parties in the House. She said she is going to have a 2% tax on the share buybacks that these industries are incurring in Canada. I do not know where she has been for the last seven years, but I can say that the companies that are doing share buybacks now are the companies that issued shares at far lower prices over the last seven years. Therefore, they are reconfiguring their balance sheets back to where they were when they had a normal business environment and they did not have to incur hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, as an industry, over seven years.
At that point in time, of course, there were some on the benches who were saying that this was a sunset industry and of course it was going to lose millions of dollars. All of a sudden, one year it makes some money for its investors, and the government comes back to say it needs to tax that back now because it does not want them buying back their shares from investors. Instead, it wants them to reinvest that money in the Canadian economy.
How do they do both? How do they say that there is an impetus to actually reinvest in the Canadian economy and not buy back shares after they have invested so much and taken so much money into their balance sheet, which they had to do in tough times in order to survive?
Let us think about a 2% tax on share buybacks as far as it affects everything in the world. It is the flavour of the day in so many respects. We think about the 1% share buyback mechanism in the States, and we are not to be outdone here. We doubled it in Canada because the resource industry is much less important in Canada than it is in the United States. I say that sarcastically, and I hope that is reflected.
However, profits increased for a reason. Profits increased because an industry is actually cyclical. All our resource industries in the world are cyclical. These things go up, and these things go down. They cannot take with one hand and not give back with the other if they are going to have a sustained industry here going forward.
Here is the issue on investment in Canadian oil and gas. Oil and gas investment in Canada follows international oil and gas pricing, but not anymore. Oil prices and gas prices are going up, but the investment is not happening in the Canadian economy anymore. That is because there is no longer an environment to invest in and there is no longer transparency for Canadian companies to invest in their own industry, which is an industry that we prosper at and that we perform in a more environmentally friendly manner than any other industry in the world. This is something we should be proud of, and this is something we need to make sure we do more of. The result, of course, is fewer tax-paying jobs for Canadians. The minister could get out of the way and actually get more money into her coffers if she just allowed this to happen.
There are fewer jobs, less investment in Canada, less green technology development in Canada, fewer future taxes to be paid and a lower Canadian dollar because of the government's actions. A lower Canadian dollar affects all Canadians because we get so many of our goods from other markets. That means we are paying more Canadian dollars to get the same goods that cost the same in U.S. dollars, British pounds, euros, yuan, or yen, or whatever the currency of where we are importing from at that point in time. We have devalued ourselves because of that.
There is a lack of transparency in what the government wants to accomplish. Any industry that wants to build something in Canada is now subject to an Impact Assessment Act, which has complete lack of transparency. That means that the stakeholders in the critical minerals industry the government wants are wondering how they can do this, and they cannot do this. Looking at the examples shown in our natural resources industry of the building of a pipeline for liquid natural gas exports, we are slow in Canada.
With respect to who has prospered over the last decade, the U.S. has prospered mightily. Australia and Qatar have prospered, as has Mozambique, that beacon of investment in the world, while Canada has not. They all have opportunities that are inferior to Canada's, except for one thing, which is that Canada has an inferior regulatory regime. These investments are not coming back, and the minister's numbers show that. To do better, we need a better fall economic statement.
1667 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today for the people of Barrie—Innisfil, representing them as their member of Parliament, to talk about the fall economic statement.
Let me begin by saying that those who are residents of Barrie—Innisfil and the businesses within Barrie—Innisfil are really feeling the inflation and the affordability crisis that is happening right now. Despite the rosy picture painted by the government, this lollipops, gumdrops, rainbows and unicorns scenario, people are finding the affordability factor to be real. They are hurting. Businesses are hurting. People are wondering, as we head into the winter heating season, how they are going to heat their house.
I hear from seniors and families all the time about their circumstances and how bad things really are, particularly for seniors on fixed incomes who are making healthy nutrition choices about what they are going to eat. This should never be happening in a G7 country such as Canada, yet it is, and the government sits here with the fall economic statement somehow portraying this rosy picture, when in fact it is not the case.
I am just one of 338 representatives in this place, but I know from talking to my colleagues that they are hearing about it. I am sure those on the Liberal and NDP benches, and others, are hearing about the problem of inflation and affordability, the housing crisis and the issue of rent prices. We are hearing about the affordability and attainability situation with houses and about the many young people who are being priced out of the market. They are losing their hopes, their dignity and their dreams of aspiring to be a homeowner, which is being lost as a result of the self-inflicted wound of inflation and affordability that has been caused by the Liberal government.
I have spoken to many young people, not just within my riding but also across Canada. They feel like they have been lied to and let down by the Prime Minister and the government. I will go so far as to say that they are despondent. They are despondent they are not going to have the same opportunities, hopes and dreams as earlier generations. Something has to change, and this fall economic statement does nothing to change the current situation.
What is required here, and I know Conservatives put this forward in advance of the fall economic statement, is the need to lower taxes. We need to put a halt on the carbon taxes, stop the payroll taxes and the CPP taxes, which are impacting not only the people who are employed but also employers. We did fire a warning shot across the government's bow that we would support the fall economic statement if certain measures were put in, but this one was not. It was that, for every new dollar being spent, the government would find a dollar in savings from government waste. There is nothing in the fall economic statement that actually addresses that.
In fact, I read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report this week, and interestingly, in it he talks about an additional $14.2 billion in spending with no indication at all of how that money is going to be spent. One would think a government, when proposing $14.2 billion in additional spending in its fall economic statement, would at least have line by line items or details on what it is going to spend that money on. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that there was nothing in the fall economic statement to give that indication.
Here we are, as parliamentarians, looking over a fall economic statement that talks about billions and billions of dollars in additional spending without the ability to hold the government to account or ask those questions on a line-by-line basis. The government and the Prime Minister expect we are just going to willy-nilly pass this thing through.
That is not the function of Parliament. It is not the function of parliamentarians. Our function is to hold the government to account, and the government needs to reciprocate that by being as transparent as it can. The fall economic statement, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, does little of that. Those were the two criteria we set, and we gave the government ample advice and ample warning that we would support the fall economic statement if those two issues were met, and neither one was.
We find ourselves in a situation right now where, yes, we are going to dispute the fall economic statement. No, we are not able to support the measures the government is going to implement, because it did not abide by those simple principles, like every Canadian family does: If we are going to spend something, then we have to find those dollars.
Throughout COVID, we have seen a lot of wasteful spending. In fact, recent reports show that $200 billion of the $500 billion that was purportedly allocated toward COVID measures were actually not put toward COVID measures. Where did the money go? We are starting to find out. There was the multi-million dollar arrive scam app. We found out about $240 million in ventilators that were never used. There was $150 million for SNC-Lavalin to provide field hospitals that were never built.
Parliamentarians on this side of the House have every right to question government spending. They have every right to question what is in budgets and in this fall economic statement. I know the government does not like that, but that is our job.
As I said at the outset, there are many things going on around the country, not just in Barrie—Innisfil, but it is important to highlight some of the challenges this inflationary and affordability crisis is causing for Canadians.
Debt interest payment costs have doubled this year. Next year, interest payments will be nearly as much as the Canada health transfer. We are back in that cycle again, under a Liberal government, where the cost of servicing debt is more than the health transfers that are provided to the provinces. Something has to give. It always does when we increase debt and deficits. One of two things happens, which we are certainly seeing this with the government: Taxes go up or services get cut.
Interest rates, as we all know, are increasing at the fastest rate in decades. Families that bought a typical home five years ago, with a typical mortgage that is now up for renewal, are paying $7,000 more a year. The Bank of Canada has signalled that interest rates will have to continue to rise even higher, and that will continue the pain.
I mentioned the carbon tax earlier, and that is expected to triple. This is despite the promise of the Prime Minister heading into the 2019 election that it was going to be capped at $50 a tonne. A year after that election, the government announced that the carbon tax was going to increase to $170 a tonne. That is a threefold-plus increase in the carbon tax.
Who is paying for that? Homeowners are paying for it with home heating, hydro, groceries and everything else. Wholesalers and producers are paying that on the manufacturing and production side, and they are passing that down to the consumers. It is having a cascading effect across the economy. The government's argument is that this is what it needs to do to fight climate change.
We found out this week from COP27 that Canada ranks 58th out of 64 in the world for a reduction of carbon emissions. Clearly, the plan is not working, but Canadians are suffering as a result of the carbon tax that is being imposed. The government will then again argue that more families in Canada are getting more money back than what they pay in the carbon tax. The Parliamentary Budget Officer again says that is not true. The government picks and chooses what it wants to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an independent agent of Parliament, but when he tells the truth, it does not like the truth.
That is part of the problem that exists today. Liberals are not living in reality. They have lost touch. Their ideology will not allow them to solve the problems that they have created with respect to inflation. Until and unless we get to a point where we reduce government spending, or at least if there is new spending then attach it to dollars found and start reducing taxes to make life more affordable and attainable for Canadians, this situation will be prolonged for a long time. Canadians will continue to suffer, and the only way that we can change that is with a change in government.
1473 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like to talk to him about the rhetoric coming from the party in power.
In the spring budget, the government said that the supply chain issue needed to be addressed, but no measure was proposed. In the fall economic statement, it is the same thing. It talks about supply chains, but no concrete measure is proposed to deal with the issue.
The government is doing the same thing again with the issue of inflation. The word “inflation” comes up 108 times in the economic statement, but there is no new measure other than the ones that we already voted on in the House this fall or that were announced in the spring budget.
Would the hon. member agree that there is a disparity between the rhetoric and the actions that are actually taken?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are many people who have referred to payroll taxes as taxes, both members in the House on the government side and people from reputable organizations in Canada.
We are referring to this because it is affecting people. We are looking at what is affecting people today. Inflation is at a 40-year high, and people cannot afford to put gas in their cars or buy food. Now is not the time for us to be increasing costs, including any taxes that people would have to bear.
Also on that front, this includes adding costs for small businesses. As I mentioned in my speech, many small businesses took on $150,000 in extra debt during the pandemic, and they have no way to pay it off. Now, by adding these payroll charges, they will have to pay an extra amount. It is taking money out of their bank accounts, and they are unable to pay off debt or spend money on anything else they want.
With respect to the carbon tax—
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
