- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $148,586.11
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member pointed out is that the Liberals have created a special and extra benefit for seniors over 75. While I would not at all dispute that seniors over 75 face extra costs in terms of their lives, somehow it seems to imply that those between 65 and 75 are okay, when we all know they are suffering from those same effects of inflation and those same inabilities to make ends meet when it comes to housing and associated medical costs.
I wonder if the hon. member would support the idea that the increase that went to those over 75 should have gone to all seniors.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech expressing concern about seniors. However, I think she wants us to forget that it was the Conservative Party that tried to raise the age of retirement under the Harper government, and that had to be reversed. People would not be collecting OAS until age 67 if the Conservatives had their way.
On the other side, the member talks about young people trying to get a start. One of the main reasons I am supporting this fall economic statement is that it would take away the interest on student loans, which would go a great way toward helping people get a start in life.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just heard the question from the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan about whether dental care was a priority for provincial governments, so I guess my question for the member for Vancouver Granville is whether he has found the same thing that I found in my riding: that dental care is definitely a priority for seniors and definitely a priority for families, and that any money we spend on this program, despite those partial provincial programs that do exist, would save provincial governments money. For those people who are asking for dental care, we are beginning with families with kids under 12 and then are extending it to people with disabilities, and eventually seniors and everybody who earns less than $90,000. That is where the demand is coming from. It is from constituents in my riding.
I want to know if the member for Vancouver Granville shares that experience.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 12:08:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this Conservative opposition day motion because I think it identifies a very real problem facing Canadians: inflation generally, and the price of gas, the price of food and the price of housing.
Unfortunately, it does something the Conservatives are wont to do recently, which is ignore the ongoing pandemic. It asks us to ignore health experts in favour of so-called freedom from mandates. I would just remind members of the House that in my home province of British Columbia, in the last week of May, 44 people died from COVID. We have many people, some of whom I know quite well, who are suffering from long COVID, and many members, or certainly many citizens of British Columbia, are receiving things like cancer treatments that compromise their immune systems, so there are lots of reasons why we should continue to listen to the health experts and not simply adopt some political position on mandates.
I would agree with the Conservatives on only one small aspect, which is that I think the government has an obligation to show its work, as we say, when it comes to mandates. I believe that public health officials will do what is right, but the government needs to show us the evidence it is using for the decisions it is making, which it was pretty good at during the early stages of the pandemic, but seems to have forgotten about now.
Having identified the affordability crisis, of course the Conservatives like to say the solution is more money in Canadians' pockets. Strangely, there is some agreement here. I believe there are some Canadians who need more money in their pockets. The problem is this: Which Canadians need that money in their pockets? The Conservative solution is to make sure that the pockets that get filled are those of large corporations and not the people who are actually facing an affordability crisis in their families.
When it comes to gas prices, let us look at the profits of oil companies. In the first quarter of 2022 only, Imperial Oil recorded $1.17 billion in profits. This was its best record in 30 years. Suncor recorded a profit, in the first quarter only, of $2.95 billion, which is four times its profits last year. What is going on here is profiteering. These are companies that are taking advantage of the international situation, of the climate crisis and of all kinds of things to line their own pockets. The Conservative solution here, first of all, is a bit ironic, because it is to increase the deficit by decreasing our tax revenues. It is also to trust that the oil companies would not just fill that space with their own price increases and scoop up all the benefits of any tax reductions. There is no mechanism to prevent that, and we have seen the record, over and over again, of the oil companies: they will take any advantage to increase their profits. The Conservative solution risks lining the pockets of big oil and providing nothing for families who are struggling with high gas prices on a daily basis.
The New Democrats have instead called for an excess profits tax not just on oil companies, but also on big banks and large food retailers. Scotiabank recorded profits of over $10 billion last year, the Bank of Montreal had over $8 billion, Loblaws had a net profit of $1.2 billion, and Sobeys, a smaller player, had over $600 million in profits. The Conservative proposal would increase the deficit and inflationary pressures, and there would be nothing about these record profits being racked up by the big corporations. It would take away necessary revenues for providing some help to those who really are hit by the affordability crisis. We know who is hardest hit: It is the seniors living on a fixed income, people with disabilities, indigenous people and northerners.
We must never forget that these impacts are strongly gendered, I will say, in that when we look at women over 65, a vast majority of them are living in poverty, especially single women over the age of 65. When we look at single-parent families who are living in poverty, the vast majority are headed by women, so when we are talking about these impacts of affordability, we have to remember that they hit particularly hard at Canadian women, no matter their age or their family status.
I want to thank the member for Nunavut, who continually raises the food insecurity problem in the north, for bringing our attention to it again today. The biggest impact of these rising costs for Canadian families is food insecurity.
I want to draw the House's attention to the report released yesterday by Food Banks Canada. Canada, one of the richest countries in the world and one of the major food-producing countries in the world, now reports that 23% of Canadians, over seven million Canadians, reported going hungry in the past year because they could not afford to buy food. One-third of Canadians earning less than $50,000 a year reported having to skip meals because they did not have enough money, and 43% of indigenous people, to the enormous shame of this country, reported food insecurity that caused them to go hungry for more than one day.
What is the solution? Food banks do their best to fill that gap in our income system and in our food system, but we cannot keep asking charitable, hard-working volunteers to solve the food insecurity crisis. We need to step up and solve that crisis by putting more money in the pockets of those who face food insecurity, immediately and in the long term.
Conservatives point to that problem of food insecurity in their preamble, but then when we look down into the solutions in today's motion, there are none. There is nothing to actually help people who face food insecurity, unlike New Democrats' proposed measures to put money in the hands of those most vulnerable to food insecurity right now and in the long term. We have always called for an increase to OAS and GIS benefits for seniors. Seniors cannot do anything about rising food prices, because most of them already spend all of their fixed income. Their only choice is to eat less and put their health at risk. Again, we would like to see an increase to OAS and GIS.
We have called for an immediate hike to the Canada child benefit. Even a modest hike as we are calling for, of $500 a year, would provide an increase on a monthly basis to families with kids trying to meet food costs. We know there are lots of parents who go hungry and will not report it so they can feed their kids. They skip meals. They do not eat the nutritious meals they need as adults, so they can provide that food to their kids. An increase right away to the Canada child benefit would help meet that crisis, and would continue in the long run to help people with food security.
A doubling of the GST tax credit for low-income Canadians would go a long way in the short and long term to helping to meet that crisis of food insecurity.
It is interesting that the data that was released yesterday by Food Banks Canada also shows that 60% of those who use food banks report that housing costs are the main reason they are at the food bank. They cannot afford to buy healthy, nutritious food for their families because they are already paying way too much of their limited income to meet their housing needs.
This time, the Conservative motion acknowledges the affordability crisis in housing, but it proposes a national inquiry in money laundering as if this would have some impact on the provision of affordable housing units. I believe that we need to crack down on money laundering, absolutely. I do not think we need an inquiry to know what we need to do. Nevertheless, I cannot find the connection between the Conservatives saying there is a crisis in affordability and that we should have an inquiry into money laundering. It just does not make any sense to me.
New Democrats, instead, favour measures to curb the use of housing for speculative investments. We need to crack down on corporate landlords who are gobbling up affordable housing in many cities across Canada, and then renovicting the people who have lived in that affordable housing and forcing them out onto the street or into their families' overcrowded housing units.
We also need to crack down on real estate investment trusts. Real estate investment trusts get privileged tax treatment. They get tax breaks for buying up affordable housing. I just cannot imagine why we think that is good public policy in this country. I would love to see us eliminate the special tax treatment for real estate investment trusts. Obviously, we would have to phase in something like that, because people have done a lot of their financial planning based on it, but still it is something in the short and long term that we could do to address using the housing market for speculation and profit.
Instead, we should be doing something that I have always called for as a New Democrat and that we have always worked for. That is to get the government back into the business of building non-profit housing in very large numbers. The market will never provide the housing that we need at the low end. It will continue to build high-end housing until the cows come home, as they used to say where I was raised, but it will never provide those affordable housing units.
Non-profit housing could provide the housing security that is necessary for families. They do not necessarily have to own a single family house to feel secure in their housing. They could get a unit in a non-profit housing co-operative, for instance, and raise their kids in that security. It also creates a sense of community: of people who live together and have a common interest in taking care of their housing needs.
New Democrats are not the only ones who make the obvious link between the high cost of housing and homelessness, but it is something I do not hear the Conservatives talking about. It is something I rarely hear the Liberals or the Conservatives talking about. When I look in my community, I see the unfortunate complaints that are coming up about people feeling unsafe in the streets because of homeless people.
What is the solution? First of all, I do not think homeless people are the problem, in terms of safety locally. The solution is housing in the short term, so that those people are not forced onto the streets.
Of course, the member for Winnipeg Centre has been very vocal, this week and always, in calling for the government to immediately fund a low-barrier, safe shelter place for indigenous women in Winnipeg Centre, and it is a good example—
1871 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 4:40:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you back in the chair.
I want to congratulate the member on his re-election to the House. I note his regret that we did not make it harder for him. I assure him we will try to do better in the future.
Like me, the member has a lot of constituents who are in receipt of the GIS and who may have accepted the government's advice that they could take the CERB without negative consequences. I know he has a lot of families, as we do in my riding, that collect the Canada child benefit and did not realize their benefits would be clawed back. I wonder if the member and his caucus will be joining us, and I know the Bloc has talked about this, in pressuring the government to not just say it is working on this, but to get the job done so that seniors and families are protected from these clawbacks, because they are the most vulnerable among us.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/21 1:17:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would first like to start by congratulating the member for Hochelaga on her re-election to the House and also by taking this first opportunity to thank the voters of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for returning me to the House for a fourth term to advocate on their behalf.
I was very glad to hear the member for Hochelaga raise the issues of housing and homelessness in Montreal. We have the same issues in my riding. I was also glad to hear her raise the issue of the opioid crisis and also for her awareness of the struggles families face every day trying to make ends meet.
What I did not hear from her or anywhere in the throne speech is the concern about the clawbacks that are taking place on GIS for seniors who have collected CERB and clawbacks of the Canada child benefit. What we have here is government action that is literally taking food off the table and threatening the roofs over the heads of families and seniors in both our ridings.
Has the minister raised this concern about the clawbacks from seniors and the Canada child benefit with her government?
198 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
