SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 218 - Jun/21/23

Jun/21/23 6:37:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the fine speech by my colleague, who let the cat out of the bag: We will be voting in favour of this motion. The arguments contained in the motion, and I think that he elaborated on them, are obviously not to our liking. However, we agree with the conclusion: that “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets”. When it comes to inflation and interest rates, things can get quite complicated. What better way to simplify issues than with populism and things that seem obvious to everyone, when they are actually not? Why do we have inflation? Some will say that inflation is caused by government spending. I want to sound a note of caution, however. Inflation happens if the government spends money and if it creates deficits. Some people will therefore be tempted to say that deficits lead to inflation. That is not necessarily true. This is what is known in economics as the crowding-out effect, a term we do not often hear. It means that government deficits might not result in inflation because there is a crowding-out effect, meaning consumers save money to make up for the government deficit. The result is that there is no impact on inflation. The crowding-out effect may mean that there might be an impact on interest rates, however. Why am I saying this? I am saying it because the thing is not so easy to understand. We could spend a long time discussing economic theories. Furthermore, some theories clash. Keynesianism is different from classical or neo-liberal economics, and so on. We have to be careful to avoid simplistic analyses or we run the risk of ignoring real solutions. Is government spending to blame for the deficit? Is the Government of Canada responsible for global inflation? Did it ride around on a scooter, waving its arms, saying it was going to send us money and create inflation, before running away like Batman and Robin? The answer is no. I just spelled it out in simple terms. The government is not to blame. The fault lies with the global pandemic, and with the fact that governments were forced to spend like never before in history. I never saw anything like it before. Governments were spending money hand over fist, like it was going out of style. That is the reality. Faced with an extraordinary situation, we came up with what we believed were the best solutions at the time. That is why we have inflation. I have the figures. Inflation rose to 6.8% in 2022 and fell to 4.4% in June 2023. We can therefore agree that inflation was mainly caused by a pandemic. Why is that? It is because we have economists who are monetarists. Monetarists believe that inflation is caused by printing money and that abundance reduces value. The more money is printed, the less that money is worth. This means that the value of money is eroded by inflation. That is the view of monetarists. A lot of people agree with this. That is why it is the Bank of Canada that finds solutions to Canada's inflation. Our colleague, the leader of the official opposition, believes that it has fangs and prowls around at night, but in reality, the Bank of Canada is one of the most renowned banks in the world. When we travel abroad, for example to universities, we only have to mention the Bank of Canada and the audience applauds for half an hour. It is unbelievable. It is so renowned that the English decided that they wanted the Governor of the Bank of Canada for themselves. It is a little like Bedard in the world of hockey. He was that sought after. I am just talking, but if members want to read something that is well done, they should read the Bank of Canada Review. It is well done. When they finish their university degree in economics, good economists often end up at the Bank of Canada—except for me, because I escaped. I was in the washroom when the recruiters came by. Some say that they are crazy, but they really do know their stuff. It is a renowned bank. In 1991, they said that the only way to fight inflation effectively is to tweak interest rates. Starting in 1991, the Bank of Canada was the second bank, after New Zealand, to say that it would adjust interest rates to keep inflation between 1% and 3%. That worked beautifully until the pandemic hit. It was going so well. We were a model for the world. Now, with the increases, what did they do? They were forced to raise interest rates. It is a bit complicated. When a government adjusts monetary policy and plays with interest rates, it takes 18 months for it to have an impact on the economy and 24 months for it to have an impact on inflation. This requires projecting two years in advance before starting to play with things. That is the reality. It is not easy. Having said that, we could all go for a beer and tell ourselves that there is no point in us being here because the Bank of Canada manages inflation. Wait a minute. That is not true. There are things that the government can do. First, the government can introduce well-defined policies. If wages are very high and workers are scarce, then perhaps workers could be found if the government offered tax exemptions to older people who want to go back to work. Is that complicated? A guy with glasses and a computer can do that. No, the government would rather use the stick. They bleed dry seniors between the ages of 65 and 75 and hope that once they are at the end of their rope, they will surely want to go to work. No, that is not how to create jobs and ensure that these people can go to work. Let us talk about housing. There is a lack of housing. It is a matter of supply and demand. We need more supply. The government needs to invest in housing. That is the smart way to fight inflation. As for oil, we have been ripped off by shameless increases in the price of oil. Perhaps it is because we should be doing something other than burning oil. Perhaps we should be investing in the energy transition of oil companies. With regard to productivity, we have to increase worker productivity without making more widgets. If we make more widgets, then there are more widgets on the market and the value of widgets will drop. This is not complicated. People are wondering where I stand because I have not talked about it yet. The last part of the motion reads, “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.” I would like to emphasize two things. We need restraint, not austerity. The government must stop wasting, stop encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, stop proposing one-size-fits-all measures, and stop giving money to oil companies because doing so is wrong. It has to get smart about its spending. That does not mean embracing austerity. Most of all, it must not achieve these things on the backs of Quebec and the provinces, or else services to the public will be disrupted. Most public services are delivered by Quebec and the provinces. The government must not try to rebalance its budget by cutting back on health transfers to the provinces like Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did in the past. That must not happen. There is something called the fiscal imbalance, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the needs are in Quebec City and in the provinces, and that the money is in Ottawa. This means that, even if the government remains virtually static, it will be so drowning in money thanks to the taxes it collects and the fact that it has few areas of responsibility that 40 years from now, in addition to not having a deficit, it will no longer have any debt, and some provinces will not even be solvent. They will be forced to start from scratch under another name. I do not know if they will, but they will no longer be solvent. There is a problem somewhere. Some think that a plan to return to a balanced budget means austerity measures. That should not be the case. There is no reason why it should be, for the reasons I outlined. This government must become responsible in how it spends money. No one can claim that it is an example. I understand that the country has weathered the COVID‑19 pandemic, but after returning to normal, no one can say that it has been rigorous and intelligent in its spending choices. I just mentioned some ways in which the government could have done better. Some people spoke earlier about how the government provides its services. Let us just say there is a lot of room for improvement. To impose a plan would make this government more serious, less frivolous and less careless. The government needs to make do with the amount of money it has available. It must be intelligent. It must not cut transfers to the provinces, because they are the ones who deliver the most important services to the public. It must be preventive with regard to inflation, which is currently eroding the purchasing power of those least well-off. As I said, this government needs to have targeted, intelligent spending to protect people in need. Doubling the GST tax credit was the right thing to do. I applaud that. However, we also need to fight inflation intelligently, not in a populist way.

1657 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Jun/21/23 6:48:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my colleague from La Prairie. I can easily imagine that he would be a favourite teacher of his students. He is an economist and I can only agree with him. I would like him to tell us, the opposition parties, things we might not understand. Here it is the month of June and the House is about to adjourn for the summer. We spent all spring being told that we were mistaken. I would like to hear my colleague explain to me what motivated the government's attitude when it said that its plan was working. If we look at the dashboard, Canada cuts a sad figure on the global stage. I would like my colleague to talk about that.

128 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/21/23 6:48:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, and I thank him for his question and his compliments, as well. We have the right to accept them. I am not criticizing. I am answering my colleague's question. I think that the hallmark of this government is that it is short-sighted. We saw it with the Chinese interference. The government is going along, but it is not always easy to get on the best path to improve the situation of the community in Quebec and Canada. That is what we are also seeing with the policies that this government adopts. It chooses the easy way out. There is a reason for the dental care plan. Tax credits and subsidies for oil companies are easy. People want them. There is no problem. That is the old way of doing things. When I suggest ways of motivating retirees to return to the labour market, it is not a short-sighted policy. Social and affordable housing are not short-term policies. In economics, we call working on productivity a long-term policy. It takes vision. This government often makes me think of a pirate that has a patch over both eyes, not just one.

200 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Jun/21/23 6:50:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am lucky to be here this evening. Our colleague is pretty funny, but he talked about several very serious topics. He also talked about a very specific issue, housing. What is the Bloc Québécois's solution for addressing the homelessness problem? I am just curious. It would be interesting to hear the perspective of my colleague on that specific issue, seeing as it is the last day of Parliament. I have never actually asked the member the question.

85 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/21/23 6:50:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend the work of my colleague. People often say it is a question of supply and demand. Often, the people who talk about supply and demand do not understand the concept. I am not throwing stones at anyone, but that is what it comes down to. What is happening now is that, with the higher salaries and the growing population, the demand for housing has increased significantly. If we allow the price of homes to go up, at some point there will not be housing for everyone because the population is growing. What is more, there are people who now have the means to go live in an apartment who may not have had the means before. We need to work on supply. If we do not work on supply, we are doomed to have shortages because we will not have enough housing to offer to people as demand keeps growing. Demographics are important and they are not being taken into consideration right now. Let us work on supply. That is the best way to ensure that people can have housing, but also that they can afford it.

191 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/21/23 6:52:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for La Prairie for his speech and enthusiasm. I want to ask him this. The Conservatives say that today's motion is their plan for fighting inflation. However, in the past, the Conservative leader presented a plan to fight inflation based in part on the use of cryptocurrency. I do not see any reference to cryptocurrency in this motion. I am wondering why the Conservatives removed this very important pillar from their plan. Could the member for La Prairie comment on that?

90 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/21/23 6:52:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not support cryptocurrency, which creates inflation. I would like to highlight an important point that I did not previously mention. Introducing a plan to return to balanced budgets will have an impact on the economy and inflation by changing expectations about inflation. Inflation feeds itself. Forecasting inflation is enough to create it and to throw us in an inflationary spiral. Proposing a plan to balance the budget will lower expectations of inflation occurring. This curbs salary increases, which in turn limits inflation.

87 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/21/23 6:53:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise tonight to speak to the motion that is before us and to say, on behalf of New Democrats, that we do not intend to support this motion, the reason being that New Democrats simply do not believe that one can have a credible plan to fight inflation without addressing the role that outsized price increases by corporations play in contributing to inflation. Not only is there not a plan, but there is not even a mention of the ways in which outsized price increases by corporations are hurting Canadians in the pocketbook. We have heard from economists who have said that as much as 25% of the inflation that Canadians have experienced over the last two years is attributable to those very same corporate price increases. We have seen it in the oil and gas sector, where there have been record profits and, in fact, an increase in extraction. We heard at the finance committee, not that long ago, that, in Canada, we are taking out record numbers of barrels of oil and gas every day in this country. Why is it that this can be happening alongside real economic strife in places like Alberta, where that oil and gas work is happening? It is because we have also seen a significant decrease in the level of employment, due to automation and other advances in technology within the oil fields. We are seeing a decoupling of profitability in the oil and gas sector and employment in the oil and gas sector, which is what really matters for Canadians when it comes to ensuring that the wealth generated through the extraction of our natural resources actually goes to Canadian working-class families. While that can look good in terms of productivity numbers for the industry, depending on how it runs the numbers and depending on its purpose, whether it is reporting to shareholders or whether it is reporting to this place while seeking more subsidies, it is nevertheless the case that, even as the industry continues to extract more, Canadians are benefiting less. That is true from the workers' point of the view and the industry's point of view, but it is also true from the point of view of Canadian consumers because, as those same oil and gas companies that are employing fewer people, even as they take more oil and gas out of the ground, are doing that, they are also raising prices well above the increase in the cost of their inputs. In fact, some of their input costs are going down as they employ fewer Canadians in decent, unionized positions with good-paying wages. That explains how they can be logging record profits, and by record profits, I mean more profit in a single year than the oil and gas industry has ever seen in the history of the country. One would not know that to listen to Conservatives in this place, who say that the oil and gas industry is not doing well. It is very hard to believe that an industry is not doing well when it is producing a record amount of product and it is achieving the highest amount of profit it has ever seen in the history of the country, while charging Canadians higher prices than it ever has before. As much as we hear about the carbon tax, and there is no question that the carbon tax does increase the purchase price of oil and gas, just the simple price increases, the input cost increases that those companies have been experiencing, are more than what the carbon tax is. Do we hear a word from Conservatives about unjustified price hikes by the oil and gas companies, and what that means for Canadians and their pocketbook? No, we do not. That is why this is a party that simply does not have a credible plan to fight inflation. I think there are two different approaches one can take to trying to fight inflation, and I think they mark a significant philosophical difference between the Conservative Party and, ultimately, I would argue, the Liberal government, as well as New Democrats. On the one hand, one can try to increase people's disposable income. We see that through proposals to eliminate the carbon tax and reduce taxes generally. What I find passing strange is that, with respect to providing income support to the poorest Canadians, we know, when they see an increase in their income, that extra money is going to go only to continuing to pay their rent in the same place where they have already been paying rent, or to buy the same groceries they had been buying before but are no longer able to. That is not inflationary money in the economy. That is not driving inflation. Supporting people to be able to still put a meal on the table and pay their rent is not inflationary spending. That is why I am very proud that New Democrats, two times now, have pushed the government to double the GST rebate. We know it is going to households that really need a lot of help in a really difficult time, when they are struggling to afford their rent and they are struggling to afford their food, but it will help in a way that does not cause further inflation, despite what the leader of the Conservatives says. The odd thing is that, when he advocates broad-based tax cuts, like eliminating the carbon tax, he has nothing to say about the inflationary impact of returning that money to households, not just the poorest households, which can be done through mechanisms like a higher GST rebate, but also higher-income households. If the leader of the Conservatives wants to talk about how more money in the economy is going to lead to higher inflation, it is a strange admission. That is not even to mention that the real driver of certain kinds of inflation, when we talk about spending, or what would be if corporations actually spent it in the Canadian economy, which too often they do not, is the corporate taxes that the Conservatives and Liberals have often advocated. That is why there is actually a great meeting of the minds between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to tax policy. It is why they have worked together, from the year 2000 to now, to lower the corporate tax rate from 28% to 15%. What does that mean? It means more spending in the economy, which, if we listen to the leader of the Conservatives, automatically means more inflation. The Conservatives do not talk about how lowering corporate taxes can contribute to inflation. To the extent that it does not, it is because that money leaves the country and actually does not get spent. That is the point that Jim Flaherty, the former Conservative finance minister under Stephen Harper, made before he passed: they had lowered the corporate tax rate, and that was meant to increase business investment and raise productivity. However, as many Conservative members are fond of pointing out, Canada's productivity numbers are not what they should be, and it is not because corporate Canada has not had vast amounts of capital in waiting to make those business investments in order to raise productivity. It is because the companies prefer to either pay it out to their shareholders here in Canada or scuttle that money away into tax havens through agreements that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have made in order to make it easier for that profit to shift out of the country without those corporations ever paying their dues and helping to fund a number of things that are really important in helping Canadians get by in this difficult time. Broad-based tax relief is one way to say we are fighting inflation. I think some of the hazards the leader of the Conservative Party likes to point out about other things, like income support, apply equally to broad-based tax relief at a time like this. We should be conscious of that when we are evaluating proposals for tax decreases. It does not mean that New Democrats oppose all tax decreases. In fact, we were very vocal about the excise tax and our feeling that it was inappropriate for the excise tax to have an automatic escalator, first of all, and that the exceptional increase in the excise tax this year, because of inflation, was not acceptable. We worked with opposition parties to oppose that, and, ultimately, although the government did not bring it down to zero, it dramatically reduced the excise tax increase with the budget implementation act. The other way to combat inflation, which, for my money, is more effective, is to try to control the price of things Canadians cannot do without. What do I mean by that? I mean bringing down the cost of child care, because that puts money back in Canadians' pockets. It makes it easier for Canadians who want to work in order to support their family to be able to leave the home and do that work. We all know that this disproportionately affects women who want to have a career. They can do that because they can now access child care at a price that makes it so they do not work simply to pay for child care instead of contributing to the other meaningful expenses of a household. With respect to a pharmacare program, we need to mobilize the power of bulk purchasing across the country and bring down the price of prescription drugs considerably. There have been so many studies done on pharmacare, going back decades. All of them conclude that, by having one federal program, we could significantly reduce the amount Canadians pay for prescription drugs. There is no question about it. It is why pharmaceutical companies hate the idea. It is why they have spent so much money lobbying the government to stop it. Unfortunately, they have done that far too successfully, and it is why New Democrats are here to continue pushing and to provide the political will to drown out the lobbying efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, because we know that, through good public policy, we can reduce the amount Canadians pay for drugs. That ensures not only that they get extra income, but also that corporations cannot just take that income by raising their prices, which is what has been happening in the oil and gas industry. It is what has been happening in the grocery industry. If people want proof of that, they need look no further than today's news, where Canada Bread Company has admitted to price fixing with Weston Foods. The company paid a $50-million fine after having pleaded guilty. What about the other companies that were involved in that, and what about Canadians who have been looking at food prices over the last two years? People know very well that many companies have been raising their prices over and above the additional cost to the companies, whether it is for oil and gas to heat their home or it is for their groceries. I think we all have a legitimate suspicion that Canadians have not been treated fairly by corporate Canada. With respect to creating more disposable income, Conservatives love to say that if the government taxes corporations, they are just going to pass that on to the consumer. If it cuts Canadians' taxes, corporations are just going to raise their prices. Does that mean we are stuck and that there is no hope and no way forward? No, it does not, because through good public policy we can reduce the cost of child care in a way that means people cannot just up the price, because we are regulating the fees and we are providing subsidy to make sure the organizations offering child care are not doing it at an exorbitant price. It is why New Democrats have a very clear and stated preference for non-profit delivery in child care, because we think that once we incorporate that profit motive, we are exposing Canadians to the very same greedy taking that we have seen in the oil and gas sector, in the grocery sector and elsewhere. That is the way. If we can control the cost of something that people cannot do without, that puts more money back in people's pockets in such a way that it cannot just be taken back out again. It is why I supported the Manitoba Public Utilities Board, for instance, which has been very successful, over decades, in regulating the price of auto insurance and Manitoba Hydro. Interestingly, it is a body that the current Conservative Government of Manitoba has been trying to wreck, and to impede from doing its job of looking closely at requested price hikes by these crown corporations. It is ironic, given that one would think it would be the Conservatives most of all who would want a hawkish oversight agency to be looking at crown corporations and ensuring fair pricing. However, in fact, they are undermining the Public Utilities Board. I think it is important. We could actually use something like that nationally for the price of oil and gas, to ensure that when Canadians are going to the pumps or when they are heating their home, they can be assured that they are getting a fair shake on the price, and that the fact that it is the long weekend would not dictate whether they have a hole in their budget at the end of the month. It is why dental support is important. With dental insurance, we can ensure that people are getting a service which they otherwise would not get at all. We know that, too often, because of people's socio-economic status, they have not been able to access dental care. For those who have been able to pay, this means they are going to be able to get more service without simply seeing corresponding hikes in prices. New Democrats have a very settled opinion on what the way to fight inflation is: through good public policy and public investment so Canadians are working together and co-operating to provide the essentials of life and create more room for disposable income in their household budgets, instead of simply cutting taxes for everyone. Cutting taxes for everyone disproportionately benefits the most wealthy and then makes it harder to provide services for everyone, and it runs all the same risks of inflationary pressure on the economy that the leader of the Conservative Party is so concerned about when it involves public funds. Here is another way in which that matters, and another way in which there is a very close resemblance between, for instance, the housing policy of the Liberal government and the housing policy of the Conservative Party. Neither one is willing to call out the role of corporate greed in housing. The leader of the Conservatives sometimes, maybe, kind of makes a passing allusion to it but is quick to say that somehow it is the fault of government. The housing market is working exactly how it was set up to work in the mid-1990s, with the blessing of Liberals and Conservatives. They decided they wanted to make it more of a financial market. They wanted a commodity-based approach to housing. That has been working. The national housing strategy, frankly, has been largely a joke in terms of increasing supply for affordable housing, and it has done nothing to impede the kind of harmful investment behaviour we see in the market. The Conservatives are not proposing to do anything about that. The idea that, by simply balancing the government's books, we are going to see a significant change in the housing market or houses becoming more affordable is a joke. That is not how this is going to go. There are very deep pockets that do not rely on anything the government does in order to be able to spend in the real estate economy, acquire houses and acquire apartment blocks. Where is the leader of the Conservatives when we talk about the travesty of buildings like Lions Manor on Portage Avenue in Winnipeg, which used to provide affordable housing? It has just been acquired, not with government money, but by a giant corporate landlord that came in, bought the building and is evicting the tenants. One does not have a serious strategy to fix the problem of housing in Canada if one cannot criticize the corporate sector and the role that it is playing in jacking up the price of housing. It cannot be done. It is not serious. Then we look at things that the previous Conservative government did to put money in the pockets of corporate Canada, never mind the corporate tax decreases, which were substantial. The Conservatives sold the plans for the CANDU reactor, which was world-leading technology. They love to talk about nuclear, but do members know that they sold that to SNC-Lavalin for pennies on the dollar? It was $75 million, but it came with a bunch of tax benefits and other things. I think they sold it for a final net cost of about $15 million. I do not know what it costs to build a CANDU reactor, but I know that it is measured in billions and not millions to get the intellectual property behind that. Before the Harper government, it actually belonged to Canadians, so that when somebody decided to build a nuclear reactor on the CANDU model anywhere in the world, Canadians could benefit. I think that is a real travesty. It is just an example of how the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals when it comes to stuffing the pockets of corporate Canada at the expense of Canadians. I am mindful of a leader who does actually have so many policy similarities to the Liberal government. I could go on about that. I recall that, in the fall of 2021, when the leader of the Conservative Party was their finance critic, we were having a debate about the mandate of the Bank of Canada. Its mandate is to fight inflation, and it has been for a long time; it is to keep inflation at a 2% target. We talked about what the impact of maintaining that mandate would have on Canadians if we saw higher interest rates. We said that if that was the only thing the Bank of Canada was going to do, it would jeopardize strong employment by raising interest rates to get inflation under control. It would put Canadians in jeopardy of losing their homes by raising interest rates in order to combat inflation, instead of having a more nuanced mandate, as many central banks around the world do. They keep an eye on strong employment and the effect of rising interest rates on the ability of folks to stay in their homes and to keep making payments on their mortgages. The current leader of the Conservative Party was very clear at that time. He wanted the mandate to stay narrowly on the 2% inflation target; that was it. What did the Liberals do? They acquiesced. I was on a panel with them, shot out in the foyer, at the time. I remember, because when I said that actually the Liberals had done everything he said he wanted them to do, he mused about legal action against me for having shown the very direct link between the Liberal Party's actions and the Conservative Party's advice. I said that it would be a bad day for Canadians if we did experience inflation, because the Bank of Canada would raise interest rates and put them out of their homes. Let us not pretend that the leader of the Conservative Party has not played a very important role in keeping the Bank of Canada on a mandate that is causing these increased interest rate hikes. It is not the only thing, but the fact that it does not have a more nuanced mandate is a product of his advice and the actions of the Liberal Party. Canadians are not benefiting from the kind of nuance that has been built into other central banks' mandates. That is why I stand here today to say that there are more ways to fight inflation than what the Conservatives have put in here. In fact, what they have put in here goes squarely against New Democrats' approach to fighting inflation. New Democrats' approach has everything to do with putting money back in the pockets of Canadians but doing it by ensuring that all the things that they have to buy, such as child care, prescription drugs, dental care, housing, are actually brought down, instead of what we see in the motion today. That is just to cut those programs in order to balance the government's books.

3507 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Jun/21/23 7:13:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the member speak. I know he has a good command of these issues, and he is respected for his work on the finance committee in particular. I do agree very strongly with his take on how to combat inflation, when he says that the approach should be to focus on those things that people cannot do without, such as dental care and child care. I am glad to see that the government, with the support of the NDP, has moved in that direction. We see the benefit to thousands of Canadians who are being supported along the way in both of those areas. I do want more clarity on something. I do not ask this in a combative way; I am simply interested in the NDP's position. The member raised the issue of corporate income tax. He seemed to suggest that the NDP position would be to raise those rates back up to close to 30%. What is the position of the NDP on that specific matter? I hear some, not many, New Democrats who have a very pro-business view; sometimes they present themselves in that way, and one would expect a championing of a lower rate of tax. However, I did not hear that from this member.

220 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/21/23 7:15:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member will not hear that, when it comes to the corporate tax rate. We ran on increasing the corporate tax rate, not to 30% but to 19%; I think that was the latest platform commitment. We have been very clear about that. This is still well below the OECD average, so it is hardly a high-water mark when it comes to fair taxation of large corporations. Our position is that Canada has incredible competitive advantage beyond a low tax rate. Canada does not have to scrape the bottom of the barrel on its corporate tax rate in order to attract investment. We have a lot of natural resources that cannot be found elsewhere. We have an incredible labour market with a lot of skill. We provide benefits, such as health care, that oftentimes, in other jurisdictions, employers would have to pay premiums in order to be able to provide. Canada is an attractive place to invest, and we do not have to have a bottom-of-the-barrel corporate tax rate in order to attract investment.

180 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/21/23 7:16:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, on average, 9% of OECD countries' revenue comes from corporate taxation. I have this from the OECD report. In Canada, it is 12%. Tax revenue that comes from corporate taxation is 30% more in Canada. Therefore, to say that we are somehow below the average in the amount of taxation we take from corporations is simply not true. I heard the member criticizing both Liberals and Conservatives. He went on about some of the things that the Liberals are doing wrong. We agree that the Liberals have a deficit and debt that is way too high. We have interest rates and inflation. We might disagree on the cause of that, but we are seeing negative consequences. We have food bank usage doubling. Will the member vote non-confidence in the government?

139 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/21/23 7:17:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will not do that today, but we have been very clear that the day may come. We heard a Liberal member talking before about inflation and the hardship that Canadians are experiencing because of that. Any time they talk about this, they start listing the things that the NDP made them do, including the GST rebate, dental care, action on child care and pharmacare. The discriminating factor is that as long as we can continue to push the Liberal government into doing things to benefit Canadians in this difficult time, things that I firmly believe they would not be doing with a majority, we will continue to support the ongoing work of this Parliament as opposed to another one. The day will come when this Parliament ends. What we are doing now is setting up Canadians to get some meaningful relief from inflation in a way that companies cannot simply take back without price increases. I think we are paving the way for a strong majority New Democratic government in Canada.

174 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/21/23 7:18:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I joined the debate 15 or 20 minutes ago. I heard part of my colleague's speech. I would like to take him back to what we call the “fiscal imbalance” and what I could also call “federal paternalism”. This refers to the fact that the federal government uses the money it has and its own spending to impose its own choices on Quebec. What does my colleague think about federal paternalism? I imagine that he must support it.

85 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/21/23 7:18:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is always a danger of seeing something like that when we work in teams. I also think that it is possible to have a genuine partnership between the provinces and the federal government. It is a matter of how the programs are implemented and how involved the provinces are in the decisions surrounding how the program will be implemented in their jurisdictions. When it comes to child care, for example, there is a good model. The provinces have had a lot of say in how it will be implemented in their own jurisdiction, including Quebec, which has always been a leader in child care. There are models for good collaboration. We want to look at these models to ensure that we do not become the victims of dangerous federal government paternalism.

137 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/21/23 7:20:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been brought to mind by this motion is the focus on this idea of returning to balanced budgets. In times past, during both Conservative and Liberal majority governments, they tried to make themselves look better by balancing the budget. To do this, not only did they cut services, but they also cut housing strategies and a lot of things Canadians depend upon. They also raided the employment insurance fund, which was paid for by the deferred wages of workers. What is the member's perspective on that? I would really love to hear.

99 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/21/23 7:21:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, that is a fact, and it has been done by Liberal and Conservative governments. In fact, it was a key election commitment of the sitting Prime Minister that he would not do this anymore. I think the running tally between Liberal and Conservative governments by 2015 of what had been raided out of the employment insurance account was about $63 billion or so. This was money that did not belong to government but belonged to workers in order to pay wages while they are out of work. Perhaps somebody knows that number better. What I find quite disconcerting is that the current government is at it with the same old tricks, except that this time, instead of just gratuitously grabbing that money out of the EI account, it has said that it is going to take $25 billion of pandemic CERB debt and apply it to the EI account. Therefore, it is saying that it is not really taking money out of the account but just debiting the account. One does not have to be a democratic socialist to be upset about this. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business thinks it is a bad idea, and it is upset about it too. Both employers and employees are rightly upset about the fact that the federal government has once again decided to go grab out of the EI piggy bank, which is not what it is. It is also why we should have legislation to protect that account, but we do not, and it is why we have been very consistent in calling on the government to—

270 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/21/23 7:22:34 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

13 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Jun/21/23 7:22:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I worked with the member on the Standing Committee on Finance quite well. I would simply like to ask about his views on building more housing. He seems to be completely against real estate investment trusts or other private entities, but ultimately, if we are going to see more purpose-built rentals to give people a roof over their heads, it is going to take an incredible amount of money. Some of these larger corporations are able to do that. They are doing it in places like Westbank First Nation. Quite honestly, municipal gatekeepers are preventing private, public or not-for-profit entities from building more affordable housing—

111 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/21/23 7:23:33 p.m.
Watch

I will give the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona a few seconds to answer.

15 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/21/23 7:23:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an important opportunity to correct the record. We are not against private developers creating new housing, but that is not what is going to fix the housing crisis. They have been doing that for decades, and it is not helping. We have been on a track to destruction for a long time. What we think is a real problem is when a big corporate landlord buys a building that used to provide affordable rents, renovates the premises, kicks out all the tenants who needed those affordable rents, jacks up the rents and then invites in other people with more ability to pay. They are not creating new units. This leaves the other people destitute and without a place to live. We will not solve the housing crisis by kicking the poor out of existing affordable units and then allowing those big corporate landlords to make mad profit off new tenants. We need a different plan now.

160 words