44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at report stage of Bill C-32 to talk a bit about the bill.
One of the really important measures contained in this bill is the Canada recovery dividend. We have talked a lot in this place about the impact of the pandemic on people and about the need for the government to have spent a considerable sum of money to support people as they contemplated losing their homes during the pandemic, particularly in those early days when the economy all but shut down and people were put out of work and were not sure how they were going to pay their bills. We have also talked a lot in this place about the amount of financial aid that was made available to large financial institutions like banks right at the outset of the pandemic. Indeed, we have talked about some of the knock-on effects in the economy of providing that liquidity, support and de-risking to major financial institutions.
The Canada recovery dividend is a one-time tax assessed on Canada's largest financial institutions for profits of over $1 billion during those early years of the pandemic. It is to be paid over five years and represents a considerable amount of revenue. It is something the New Democrats would have liked to see applied to big box stores, grocery stores and oil and gas companies, which also saw considerable profits during that period. By considerable profits, I do not just mean their normal considerable profits. I mean extra profit above and beyond the normal rate of profit that these companies enjoy.
While we would have liked to see that expanded and while we continue to ask and push for that, there is an important piece of work being done here, which is to assess the Canada recovery dividend, or what in other jurisdictions has been called a windfall tax, on Canada's financial institutions. It has not been done before, to my knowledge, in my own lifetime, so it is a really significant undertaking to go to the large financial institutions, which made a lot of money and benefited significantly from public funding during the pandemic, and say they need to pay their fair share.
Oftentimes, we talk about folks having to pay their fair share. The New Democrats talk about large companies having to pay their fair share. Rarely do we see actual instances of their being required to do it. This is what it looks like when they do it. While going ahead with this with respect to financial institutions is a positive thing, it also demonstrates the extent to which we are not requiring other large profitable companies to pay their fair share, because they are not mentioned in this legislation. They are not going to do it spontaneously. They are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are not going to just come around. The banks did not, but they will have to do it because it is legislated. It should be legislated for other sectors as well, but it matters that we are doing it for some sectors.
In addition to that, this legislation would permanently increase the corporate tax rate on those very same companies, including the big banks and life insurance companies, from 15% to 16.5%. That is also significant. That is what it means to make companies pay their fair share, and it is something too infrequently seen in this place. I note to anyone listening at home who has an outpouring of sympathy for these large institutions, although I doubt many are, that this is still far less than the large institutions paid in the year 2000, when they paid a 28% corporate tax rate. Going up to 16.5% for a small cross-section of corporate Canada, albeit a large, powerful and profitable cross-section, is hardly what we mean when we talk about tax fairness. It is at least, for the first time in over 20 years, a step in the right direction.
I am proud to be rising today to support that step in the right direction. I hope it is the first of many. I know if Canadians see fit to elect a New Democratic government, it will be. In the meantime, we will be here fighting the Liberals and dragging them kicking and screaming at every opportunity we get so they do the right thing and ensure that corporate Canada is paying its fair share. Canadians who want a sense of what that looks like need only look at this bill and see the progress we are making.
There are also some things in this bill that have to do with the housing market. Ultimately, they are a drop in the bucket because they are predicated upon the same ethos or philosophy that has been driving the housing market since the Liberal government of the mid-nineties first terminated the national housing strategy, which had a commodity-based and market-based approach to housing.
This is not because we ever had a time when there was not a housing market. There has always been a housing market in Canada, and rightly so, but we used to have a housing market in Canada that was about people being able to buy a family home and sell a home when it came time for them to downsize in retirement and have a bit of a nest egg. That was complemented by a parallel public housing sector that was meaningful, made real investments and built a significant number of units every year. That stopped in the mid-nineties, and we have never really gotten back to that.
Things that the New Democrats support, incidentally, such as a doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, will make a difference for certain families that are already financially well positioned to contemplate buying a house in this market. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the astronomical increase in the cost of housing. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the significant depreciation in their salaries against inflation and the prices of many things. These are things that will make a difference for some Canadians.
Some of these things the New Democrats have advocated for, such as the doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit and cracking down elsewhere, to the extent that the government has done so in this bill. We will see in time how effective that is and what the loopholes mean, but things like house flipping and other things are making it harder for Canadians to compete and get a first home. They are being outbid by people who have made a science of bidding on homes and flipping them and who are backed by access to a lot of capital that most Canadians do not have ready access to. Nevertheless, there are some measures that may help certain Canadians.
That is fine, but there is a lot more work to do to combat the idea that houses are commercial assets as opposed to homes. Significant government investments will be required to make that case and take the framework on so that we are building more social housing units for which rent is geared to income. Also, not unlike what I was just talking about with regard to assessing real taxes on the biggest corporate players in Canada, there is a lot of work to do in changing the regulatory environment so that big real estate investment trusts and other large corporate players in the housing market, which are pushing up prices and evicting low-income tenants, do not have a free hand to do that in the way they have.
That is what it will ultimately take for us to live in a country that has made a real decision about its values in respect of housing so that housing is not a simple market with a good like any other good in the market, but is a right for Canadian citizens. We have to design our housing market, including using non-market tools, to ensure that everybody has access to housing. This bill does not get us there, but it does tinker at the edges in ways that will be helpful for some people.
I want to talk a bit about what is not in the bill. The New Democrats are quite prepared to support this bill on the basis of some of the things that are significant and some of the things that tinker at the edges, albeit in helpful ways as opposed to harmful ways, but there is a lot that is not in the bill. I think particularly of employment insurance reform as the government begins to talk about a recession. We do not see any clues in this bill, just as we did not see any in the fall economic statement, about where the government is going on certain key policy decisions that have been made to get our employment insurance system up to where it needs to be.
I would note, while I have the opportunity, that one thing the government has decided to do, which we do not see in this bill but is on the books, is attribute $25 billion of debt, a big number, to the employment insurance account for the CERB and CRB payments that were made under the auspices of Service Canada, as opposed to the CRA. I have to say that whatever the government has in store for EI modernization clearly cannot involve any funding, because a $25-billion debt on the EI account means that we are going see maximum premium increases for the next seven years, with all of that money paying down CERB debt that should not be on the EI account. That was a general expense by the government in the context of a global emergency, and it should not be on the on the EI account. I am happy to talk more about that during questions and answers.
1684 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech. I represent a large riding, and many seniors reach out to me. They are worried. They do not understand what is going on. Some almost wish they were 74 years old so they could collect a decent pension.
Can my hon. colleague offer some solutions the government could act on, for once?
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her question. I think the solution is staring us in the face: The government should increase OAS for seniors 65 and up.
Seniors 65 and up grapple with the same financial pressure as those 75 and up. We know we are going through very tough economic times. Everyone is affected, so everyone should be entitled to a higher OAS benefit.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, why should we have any more faith, going forward, in the government with which he has chosen to partner? It cannot deliver on basic programs like passports. How can we ever do something complex like a housing program and things like that, which he so eloquently spoke of?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in the last election, Canadians elected 338 MPs. It is true, when I look at the current government, I see a lot of reasons Canadians should not trust it and reasons they may think the government has failed them. I look across the way, and I do not see an adequate replacement. Therefore, I think the 338 of us are stuck trying to figure out how to move forward on certain policy items that are in the best interests of Canadians and that are going to make concrete improvements in their lives. I do not think an election is going to accomplish that.
If people would get serious, drop some of the rhetoric and, regardless of what party we belong to, look for ways we could move forward on good policy issues, that would make a positive difference in the lives of Canadians. I think if we spend more of our time doing that, Canadians would be far better served than by simply electing another government that would have its own problems.
There is inaction on climate change. We would not get anything better from them. There are tax breaks for big corporations. We would not get anything better from them. I could go on, but I will not. I am just going to focus on trying to get things done for people here.
226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member spoke about some of the positive items in Bill C-32 as well as concerns about items that were not there. One of those things is recognizing that Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. Bill C-32, the fall economic statement, and the budget before that failed to introduce any kind of emergency response in the way that parliamentarians in this place had done when COVID first hit. I know he was here for that.
The member for Elmwood—Transcona has been a champion for pushing for better supports for Canadians living with disabilities. I wonder if he could talk about why there has not been a response already and what it would take to get a disability emergency response introduced in this place.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, frankly, I think that all it would take is a bit of political will from the government. It has enough support with other members in the House to try to come to some kind of meaningful emergency solution for people living with disabilities. The government has expressed an intent. We saw that in some previous budgets, not in the numbers, but in the flowery language.
The Liberals introduced Bill C-22 in this Parliament, which is a lot like a bill from the previous Parliament. Again, it is frustrating, because it has no details about the amount the government intends to pay or about the eligibility criteria. It is not talking about doing anything in the meantime, so one is forced to wonder whether the government is serious about delivering a benefit to Canadians living with disabilities, who are in dire need right now, or whether these are just talking points.
The political will outside the Liberal Party is adequate in the House in order to implement a solution. We are waiting on the government to care enough to put something on the table so that we can move ahead.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise here in the House of Commons to look at the economic situation that exists out there for Canadians. Certainly, to say that it is a dire, difficult and unpleasant situation is a misrepresentation.
I would like to point out the misrepresentation of the House by the members opposite. They are claiming perhaps their clairvoyant nature of understanding what the government over here might propose when we get to sit on the other side. As we all know, it is not our job as the opposition to present those cards, which we will hold very close to our chests, and we will make the economic picture much better for Canadians as we take office.
I would like to focus my remarks on the fall economic statement with respect to Atlantic Canada, and, to no surprise, the carbon tax and how it affects Atlantic Canada. I will also focus on the significant growing debt, the programs the government has introduced and perhaps try to make it a bit personal for Canadians as they try to balance their own budgets with difficulty.
When we look at Atlantic Canada in the fall economic statement there is absolutely nothing specific in there. There is really not much talk of Atlantic Canada at all. We find that very surprising given the fact that we all know that Atlantic Canada is still reeling from hurricane Fiona. I just came here this morning. There are still trees down everywhere. Multiple businesses are still affected by hurricane Fiona, and they are unable to get back on their feet again. Certainly, there are still many homes with significantly damaged roofs. How are we going to move forward?
We asked the ACOA minister to come and specifically have a look at some of the things going on in Cumberland County, which was one of the hardest-hit counties in the entire area. Sadly, that minister did not show up. When we asked the minister's office to provide information as to how the $300 million in pledged money was going to roll out to Atlantic Canadians, the answer was that it did not know yet. There were no details.
It has been a long time since the hurricane happened. For a government to not be able to roll out the pledged money, which Atlantic Canadians specifically so desperately need, is creating more problems. In fact, I had a call with the Canadian Red Cross this morning, and it was pointed out that the applications for its program are now closed, and I will get to that in a second. The Red Cross is seeing many Nova Scotians reaching out from a very difficult financial spot, hoping to get support not only with respect to the hurricane Fiona damage but also from a social services point of view. They are really struggling.
We know very clearly from words in the House that 1.5 million Canadians have visited food banks, and 20% of Canadians are cutting back on the food they consume simply for financial reasons. We know as well from my call with the Red Cross that the $31 million generously pledged by Canadians and matched by the federal government is now gone. It is $500 for about 124,000 households. That is $62 million. There is not going to be more money forthcoming from the Red Cross.
What other difficulties are we facing as we move forward in 2022? Of course, it is winter, and we know from this budget that difficulties will continue to exist. I have spoken here previously with respect to the words of the Premier of Nova Scotia. It is so bad out there with this carbon tax, which has been foisted upon Nova Scotians, that there is a petition circulating to buck the trend and attempt to not be required to succumb to the heavy burden of the carbon tax.
We know that by 2025 it is going to cost the average Canadian $2,200 and by 2030 it will cost $3,100. This is in a population that was not really mentioned in the fall economic statement at all. It is in a population that, sadly, feels the significant burden of what is going on in the world with the increasing interest rates and rising costs of everything very acutely. Imagine a provincial government starting a petition to try to get away from this burdensome carbon tax that is being foisted upon Nova Scotians.
We know that the cost of gas, groceries and home heating is continuing to increase. We know that the premier and the Government of Nova Scotia understand this clearly, but we have a government across the aisle that is continuing to spend and very sadly hoping that the budget is going to balance itself. That is a budget that has a debt of almost $1.3 trillion. We also know that this is a government that continues to spend money. It has been said in the House, perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, that it is spending it like a drunken sailor. However, being mean to drunken sailors is no way to live.
We also know that estimates would suggest that the cost of the interest on this debt is going to be about at least $27 billion. In 2026-27, it could be as high as $42.9 billion. That is with the conservative estimates, not ours but budget expert estimates, that interest rates would perhaps stay the same as they are.
We also know that if it does not hold true and interest rates are one point higher than planned, the interest costs would move from $42.9 billion to $52.2 billion in a single year, in 2026-27, which is $9.3 billion. That is no small amount of change. In my mind it does not make any sense. Even when we look at $27 billion, we understand that is about 10% of the revenue of the federal government simply being spent on interest charges. The government continues to spend, which absolutely makes no sense.
To put it another way, over four years, the interest on this amount of debt is going to cost the government $180 billion. This is spending money as if it were water. To try to make it personal for Canadians, if I could not balance my budget, which I am thankfully able to, and there have certainly been years when my family has struggled, we would look at what we could do differently. We would cut our discretionary spending.
We would talk about maybe, in today's terminology, not getting the latest cellphone, not going out to eat, not going out to the movies and those things that everybody would say are “motherhood and apple pie” statements. People would say that if we cannot balance our budget, we are not going out to eat. We are going to stay in, buy the groceries, which are also expensive, and cook. We would not also add costs. We would not put a new front porch on our house. That really would not make a whole heck of a lot of sense when we still could not balance our budget.
However, the costly coalition across the aisle continues to add programs that add to the debt load of Canadians. I find it somewhat disconcerting and disingenuous that, across the aisle, they continue to say that over here we do not support those who are struggling. We certainly do. It is a little bit like letting the cat out of the bag about what we might do over here. We would not go at it by continuing to spend more money and throwing a $500 cheque here and a $500 cheque here and $200 there.
Imagine this. Regular Canadians are sending in their budgets for the month by email and asking me where I think they should cut or get more of their money. Obviously that is not my area of expertise. Given that, I find it absolutely incredible that people are saying that they do not know what else to do or what else they should be doing. We know, when we look at a budget from a household in a global sense, that having $500 more is really not going to help very much at all.
We know that Canadians, including Nova Scotians from my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, are continuing to struggle under the incredible burden that they feel from the reckless spending of the government. We wonder how they are going to feed their families and how they are going to heat their homes this winter. We know that the worst is yet to come. That is exceedingly disheartening for people who are already hurting. Canadians cannot afford the government anymore, and we cannot support the fall economic statement.
1474 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member may not have had enough time, but perhaps he could comment on the government's tax policy. He got into it a little with Nova Scotia and the carbon tax.
However, the government would have us believe that adding a tax to provinces is a good thing, and people should be excited and pleased about it. I do not think that is the case in his province. We have a carbon tax that increases the cost of everything such as gasoline, groceries and home heating. We have a real estate affordability crisis.
Could the member comment on tax policy and how that affects affordability?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it reminds of the theory of everything when we look at this. As the learned member correctly points out, this is the tax on everything in the sense that everything goes up. We know very clearly from some of the comments from my home province of Nova Scotia that businesses will need to begin to pass on the cost of doing business to consumers.
The government would like people to believe that they will end up with more money in their pockets, that somehow the left hand pulls it out and it gets into the right hand, and there is actually more there. I feel like I am in Las Vegas and there is a magic show afoot. I wish I had the money to go there, but clearly with this tax-and-spend government, it is impossible to do so.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on that point, would the member not also agree that perhaps the Conservatives like to extrapolate and overdramatize a situation? The reality is that the carbon tax is not increasing until April 1, even though the Conservatives would have people believe it is happening tomorrow, and it is not going to triple, triple, triple until 2032.
Would the member like to comment on the fact that the Conservatives seem to over-embellish the truth as it relates to the narrative they are trying to purport?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a multitude of things come to mind.
I would like to thank the member for reinforcing the fact that, yes, the carbon tax is going to triple, triple, triple. Obviously, big government moves very slowly and it takes time for people to adjust. Therefore, the difficulty is that if we do not begin to turn the direction of this ship soon enough, the ship is going to crash into an iceberg, much like the Titanic did in spite of direct warnings.
The other thing is that to say things are not bad, we get into the scheme of superlatives and we think that things are bad, or that things are terrible or that they could be worse. They could be worse, but who would want them to be? What is the superlative of worse? Is it worser? Is it the worstest? Are they the worstest government?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, apparently they do not teach English at medical school.
The New Democrats have been advocating for a long time to get rid of the GST on home heating. Of course, the Conservatives have instead said that they want to get rid of the carbon tax on home heating. The thing is that the federal carbon tax only applies in provinces that do not have their own provincial carbon pricing system. Therefore, it does cause one to wonder whether the Conservatives are aware of that fact or not.
I wonder if the member could confirm that he knows the federal backstop only operates in about half of the Canadian provinces and if he could name the provinces where the federal backstop is in effect.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, certainly we know that when we have the worst government, there is nothing worse than that, so there is no superlative for the worst.
The other important part is that my province of Nova Scotia actually had a plan for carbon pricing and was trying to reduce pollution. We know, very clearly, that it cost Nova Scotians less and it actually met targets. We all know from debate in the House over the many months preceding this actual topic, that the Liberal government is not meeting its targets, that it is 58th out of 63 governments around the world, yet it continues to say how great it is in meeting targets. I guess the question that would remain is this. Why would we want to adhere to the policies of a big, bossy federal government that then will make this policy on top of Nova Scotia's, which had a better plan, was cheaper and actually met targets?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to this year's fall economic statement implementation act.
I was hoping to see in the update a plan to address the rising costs of living. I was hoping to see a plan to combat inflation. I was hoping to see a reduction in government spending. I was hoping to see effective financial relief for rural and low-income Canadians. I was hoping to see support for our armed forces members. Unsurprisingly, instead we received more spending and higher taxes on already struggling Canadians.
The cost of putting food on the table has seen its biggest jump this year in over four decades. Home heating, oil and propane have all seen drastic increases in price and cost. The same is happening at pumps across Canada, especially in rural ridings.
One of the single largest complaints I hear about at the grocery store and through my office is about costs, the cost of living and the rising cost of everything. Unfortunately, for many struggling Canadians, it is only going to get worse thanks to the government. The carbon tax is not working.
When I am out at local events in my riding, people often say to me that standing up in question period and asking questions is all fine and dandy, but they want to know what I am actually doing to help Canadians. They ask what steps I, as the opposition, am taking to help the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. The answer to that question is of course tied up with the capacity of the legislative branch to put checks and balances on the executive or cabinet. In Westminster systems, those two branches are often intermingled, so it can be difficult to parse the capacity and role of either.
That being said, I want to take this opportunity to highlight two separate ways our Conservative opposition use our powers, as parliamentarians, to hold the government accountable. The first is by easing the burden on Canadian families and the second is by scrutinizing Liberal legislation at committee.
The member for Carleton, our Conservative leader, introduced a motion in the House of Commons to introduce a tax exemption on home heating. The NDP, Bloc and Liberals voted against it. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle introduced a motion calling on a moratorium on taxes on gas, home heating, groceries and paycheques. Once again, the NDP, Bloc and Liberals voted against it. A third motion calling on the government to not implement the carbon tax was also voted against by three other parties in the House.
While the House was able to unanimously agree to a motion on high food prices, the fact remains there is only one party that is attempting to lower the cost of home heating and gas prices in a manner that would be quick and effective, and that is the Conservative Party.
It was also the Conservative Party that exposed the Liberal government's attempt to ban long guns through an amendment package at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I want to thank my colleagues on the public safety committee for their due diligence in respecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners. I want to let the hunters and farmers in Hastings—Lennox and Addington know that I will unequivocally vote against any attempt by the Liberal government to take their legally owned long guns.
Another area that this statement is silent on is rural broadband. I had many constituents contact my office, if they can get service, to ask me why it was taking so long for the government to deliver on its promise to increase broadband in ridings such as mine, and it is extremely frustrating not to be able to provide an answer. A number of local ISPs have also expressed a concern that they are being frozen out of funding opportunities in favour of larger companies.
I would note that in the annex there is an indication that funding under ISED is not coming this year and has only been earmarked for next. I hope the government actually gets the money out the door instead of lapsing the funding like it has done with National Defence to the tune of billions of much-needed dollars.
My colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman earlier spoke to this bill, and rightly touched on the complete lack of support for our armed forces in economic the statement. He highlighted the desperate need to start cutting steel on our surface combatants, the Type 26 variant, and pointed out that we still did not have contracts signed for our F-35s, a strategically vital piece of equipment that the government delayed by years because of playing political games with military procurement.
I also want to congratulate our friends in the United Kingdom for getting their first Type 26 in the water, the HMS Glasgow.
He also touched on what I believe to be an even bigger issue, and that is the recruitment and retention crisis. I want to reiterate to the House how much of an issue this is. Our armed forces are in crisis.
In an order issued on October 6 of this year, General Eyre instructed the entirety of the armed forces to cease all non-essential operations and focus exclusively on recruitment and retention of personnel. The general's words leave no room for interpretation. Our forces are in crisis and no area of it is left unaffected, with every single trade operating at below its effective level.
When we look at the current state of our armed forces, the reasons behind the shortage begin to become clear.
For example, the post living differential, essentially a cost-of-living adjustment based on posting location, has not been upgraded since 2008, mainly due to stingy Treasury Board regulations. This is simply unacceptable. In my previous shadow minister position for seniors, the importance of updating these allowances was made excruciatingly clear to me. The CPP is updated every January. The GIS and OAS are updated four times a year. However, we expect our armed forces members to live in an economic climate of 2008 instead of 2022. That is unacceptable.
If we do not have the necessary equipment and troops, we do not possess the capability to meet our current commitments, whether they be peacekeeping missions, protecting our Arctic or responding to evolving threats on the international stage. It also severely limits our capacity to expand our commitments into future endeavours, such as the recently announced Indo-Pacific strategy.
Our armed forces' capability commitment gap is increasing at both ends, with our commitments growing in an increasingly unstable international order and our capability shrinking through attrition.
This reconstitution of our armed forces is affecting every single trade. The general made it clear at the Standing Committee on National Defence that every single decision the CAF made was through the lens of reconstitution.
Whether it is by continually failing to provide basic services and equipment to our serving forces members or offering medically assisted suicide to them once they transition out, the government’s refusal to treat our CAF members with the dignity and respect they have earned and deserve is appalling. This cannot be allowed to continue.
I really do hope the government, with the CDS, addresses the recruitment and retention crisis in our armed forces.
I must reiterate that I pray the government listens to Canadians in their communities and takes substantive, effective and meaningful action to combat the cost of living by cancelling the carbon tax.
I do not mean to sound as though there is nothing of substance in the statement. The reality of the matter is that what is missing from the update speaks volumes as to where the government's priorities lie, and I do not believe they lie with rural Canadians. Whether the it is aware of it or not, the simple fact of the matter is that its carbon tax will add to the already astonishingly large financial burden facing everyday Canadians, and they simply cannot afford to be bled anymore.
1362 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the one hand, Conservatives will stand and talk about the idea of cutting back and chopping money from the budget. Then we get Conservatives who will stand and say that we should be spending more.
The member is talking about billions of dollars of additional expenditures. She is critical of the government for expanding Internet connections in rural Canada. We have increased rural connectivity significantly compared to the former prime minister. It cost billions of dollars to do that, and we have been criticized for spending those billions of dollars.
Does the member not recognize that some might detect a little hypocrisy in the statements that are flowing from the Conservative Party today?
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be quick to suggest that economic stewardship in this place, as parliamentarians, is significant. It is huge. The government has had seven years. From my perspective, it is the captain of a rudderless ship and the rhetoric that I am getting from across the aisle is not working.
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for a rudderless ship, I would say we are doing pretty well. The reality is that even when we look at something like Canada's inflationary rate among G7 partners, we have the second best next to Japan. When we look at economic growth, before the pandemic, out of the G7 partners, we were the fastest-growing economy. We are the best positioned to come out of the pandemic. The reality of the situation is, despite the fact that Conservatives might not like to acknowledge it, we are doing quite well, especially compared to our peer countries.
Would the member at least acknowledge the fact that, looking at Canada compared to some of the other countries we compare ourselves to regularly, we are doing a pretty good job?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would acknowledge there is an example of another Liberal quickly patting themselves on the back for a lack of hard work.
I would like to give some facts. This country is in trouble. Government spending is up 30% compared to prepandemic levels. Next year, debt interest payments will cost nearly as much as the Canada health transfer.
The member across the aisle has suggested their government is doing pretty well. Perhaps he has not spoken to his constituents lately.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is very concerned about the needs of seniors who are feeling pressure because of inflation. Can she tell me what is missing from this economic statement? Can she tell me if she agrees that people between the ages of 65 and 74 should not be entitled to an increase in their old age security? Does she agree with the government's position?
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
