- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Conservative
- Calgary Midnapore
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $141,419.87
- Government Page
- May/3/23 7:08:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for ensuring that the debate stays relevant.
Certainly the amount of money the Liberal government is spending is critical to every bill, so thank you, Madam Speaker, for overseeing the discussion as I continue my interaction here today.
As I was saying, the finance minister indicated that she would use fiscal restraint. I do not believe she did so. If I could go even further back to when Bill S-6 was first being discussed, which was last spring before we broke for the summer recess, it was at that time and even into the fall that the finance minister indicated she was going to implement an idea that our leader has committed to: the “pay as you go” system. She said she would have fiscal restraint, but I do not believe she has that. Last year, at the end of the spring session, Bill S-6 was being discussed, as well as the “pay as you go” system, but both of these things did not happen.
In relation to our economy, I talked about Canadians being frustrated, defeated and exhausted. I am sure members saw the article in The Globe and Mail today indicating that this point in Canadian history is the worst time for new small business start-ups. This touches my heart very much. I know members have heard me speak before about how I come from a small business family in Calgary Midnapore. For me, growing up, small business was always front of mind. This included regulations, and I believe small businesses will struggle with the changing regulations indicated in Bill S-6. Again, if we look across the different departments, we can see how this can happen. Those are a couple of points in relation to Bill S-6.
I will also point out that in Bill S-6, with the way the government legislates and operates in general, the language is consistently filled with jargon, with words and phrases that are difficult for Canadians to interpret. I started out this speech by talking about how legislation should be for Canadians. It is the common Canadian we should be legislating for. When we have phrases that are too complex for Canadians to understand, it does not help them. It does not empower them. We need to do that.
With that, I would like to take a moment to talk about the plain language law that we would implement once we are in government, again in an effort to get government working for Canadians instead of having Canadians work for the government, as we are seeing in this case. I thought that was a very important point to mention.
As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, another place where I see this take place is with the public accounts. There needs to be much revision to the public accounts and how they are presented. I do not believe Canadians understand them in the format they are in presently. I always share the story that in my home growing up, like the concept we have in our home, a budget was like this: We bring in this much money as a household, we spend this much money as a household and we save this much money as a household. I do not believe the public accounts reflect a simple concept such as this, a concept that many Canadian households and many Canadians sitting around the dinner table have to follow. Again, this is in relation to the jargon, the lack of plain language and the complexity we see in regulations and legislation from the government, which is relevant to Bill S-6.
We also talk about Bill S-6 being indicative of another concept, which is very dear to the official opposition and the heart of our leader: getting rid of the gatekeepers. That essentially means making it easier for Canadians to live, to conduct business and to have the quality of life they deserve, which the government is not delivering to them, as evidenced by some of the earlier indicators I gave.
We as the official opposition have provided some constructive ideas for getting rid of the gatekeepers.
For example, our opposition day motion that was presented yesterday talked about getting rid of the municipal gatekeepers, which, coming from Calgary, I have had an opportunity to see first-hand at Calgary City Council. Having done some advocacy work at the civic level, I can say that all governments must be working together, pulling in the same direction in an effort to provide Canadians with the best standard of living, and that includes housing.
Especially when we consider the ambitious immigration targets of the current government, we need to seriously and sincerely consider how we are going to accommodate all of these newcomers. Again, I say this as an Albertan. Alberta is a place of incredible growth and we are so happy that so many new Canadians and so many Canadians who have abided in other places are making the choice to come to Alberta, but we need to seriously consider how we are going to support our citizens.
In his opposition day motion speech yesterday, my leader talked about how we will incentivize those municipalities that make the decision to build more homes for Canadians, and we will not reward those that do not. This is an excellent example of where we have to think about the gatekeepers. Bill S-6 is just an indicator that there are so many gatekeepers across government, when we have to make these minute changes to legislation which seems applicable to ages ago, including things as simple as removing stickers from liquid vending machines. It is astounding to me that these types of things are coming to light now.
Another example I will give of the official opposition's desire to get rid of the gatekeepers is our unique idea to bring home doctors and nurses and to allow for a Blue Seal in the same way that we have the Red Seal in the trade professions. That is wonderful. It is just fantastic how we have more young people joining the trades. I am especially excited about more young women joining the trades. I am certainly glad to see some of the legislation, even if it is at a provincial level, allowing young women to feel comfortable in joining the trades. Whether it is providing safe and clean restrooms for them or whether it is providing equipment that is suitable for their size and stature, whatever that may be, that is just excellent.
Our leader and the official opposition have found that the licensing bodies create endless barriers and red tape, which again is a topic that is talked about much in Bill S-6, resulting in an unnecessary, even greater shortage of doctors and nurses. I would like to quote this sentence from my leader. He said, “The Blue Seal will mean that it won’t matter where someone comes from, it matters what they can do.” That is just fantastic. If these doctors and nurses meet our Blue Seal standards, they will be able to work in our health care system. Again, this is just another example of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, looking for true efficiencies.
Bill S-6 addresses these tiny things. Really our energies could be spent on addressing much larger problems and finding efficiencies in larger problems rather than, in many cases of Bill S-6, providing opportunities for even more legislation through regulation.
I will add that legislation by regulation has not always resulted in the best outcomes for Canadians. I know that as we discuss Bill C-290 in the government operations committee right now, we are discussing, for example, the role of the public service integrity commissioner. A big discussion around these debates on Bill C-290 is really to decide how much leeway we will give the public service integrity commissioner in terms of regulation.
These are significant things that touch upon workers and will gravely determine whether a public servant decides to file a grievance and if they feel comfortable in doing so. This is something that is very important.
Another situation where we saw regulation was not sufficiently applied, for this official opposition, was the order in council regarding firearms. My goodness, that was before the pandemic, so three or four years ago now. That is a time when it most probably should have been legislation. Of course, we are going through the Bill C-21 process right now, which the Conservatives oppose. No matter what the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like, we will oppose Bill C-21. That is an example where regulation was used and perhaps should not have been. Perhaps it should have been left to legislation. This is most definitely another example.
I look through these different examples. There are other examples that my colleagues will talk about this evening, things they are very concerned about, interpretations of endangered species, for example. Again, there are more topics filled with jargon, but members will give their comments as well as to what interpretation of this legislation will mean through regulation.
It is something important to keep in mind, because, as I indicated, legislation should be made by the people for the people. This is something the official opposition, the Conservatives, are committed to. I think about how we are going to deal with the complex issues ahead of us, such as artificial intelligence, if we are talking about liquids coming out of vending machines.
Bill S-6 brings back the complexity, the jargon and the gatekeepers of this legislation. We on this side of the House want to have legislation that works for every Canadian in every single home, my home, all our homes, so let us bring it home and let us re-evaluate Bill S-6.
1660 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Midnapore.
Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-30, I would like to send my dearest regards to our good friends and fellow Canadians across Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. Now is the moment to prepare as the storm approaches. My thoughts and prayers are with our fellow Canadians in Atlantic Canada and in eastern Quebec.
No doubt, the GST rebate will provide some welcome relief, which Conservatives will support, but ultimately, fundamentally, this will not address the real problem. Inflationary deficits and taxes are driving up costs at the fastest rates in nearly 40 years. My goodness, that is almost as long as I have been on earth, and I will not give my age here, but it is certainly a long time.
I would say that, for longer than two years, Conservatives and our new leader, the member for Carleton, have tried as best as they could to warn the Prime Minister about the consequences of his actions and how much they hurt Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and the coasts are important to remember as we remark upon the events of today. Conservatives have called on the government to cancel all planned tax increases, including the payroll tax hikes planned for January 1, and as the shadow minister for employment, this piece is particularly important to me, along with the tax hikes on gas, groceries and home heating scheduled for April 1.
Another tax that has been an incredible burden on Canadians has been the carbon tax. If the Prime Minister was, in fact, serious about making life more affordable for workers, families and seniors, he would cancel the carbon tax immediately. These taxes are coming at the worst possible time for Canadian families who are already struggling with rising costs due to the Prime Minister's inflation. Instead of freezing taxes, the Prime Minister is raising them on people who are already struggling to make ends meet.
This credit will be a one-time help of $467, which, as I said, we welcome as a small piece of relief for families, but we must contrast that with the fact that the average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more a year to put food on the table, not to mention the rising costs of heat, gasoline and rent.
Grocery prices are up by 10.8%, rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. Fish is up by 10.4%, and perhaps it will be more after the dreadful weekend ahead of us. Butter is up 16.9%. Eggs are up 10.9%, and margarine is up by 37.5%. Bread, rolls and buns are up by 17.6%. Dry or fresh pasta is up by 32.4%. Fresh fruit is up by 13.2%. Oranges are up by 18.5%, and apples are up by 11.8%. Coffee is up by 14.2%. Soup is up by 19.6%. Lettuce is up by 12.4%, and potatoes, which will perhaps increase more after this weekend, are up by 10.9%.
Individuals without children who earn more than $49,200 and a family of four or a couple with two children who earn more than $58,500 will receive no benefits, yet these food prices will not change for them. The amount of the inflationary increases they will have to pay on their items will remain the same.
This will impact small businesses. I come from a small business family, so this issue is especially dear to me. Small business insolvencies, I am sure members know, are on the rise, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported that owners of one in six businesses are considering closing their doors, with 62% of small businesses still carrying debt from the pandemic. The Liberals have created a risky environment for small business, and small businesses cannot afford to do business with these upcoming tax hikes, rising debt costs and staggering inflation numbers. Again, if the government is serious about small businesses surviving, recovering and growing in Canada, then it should immediately cancel all of the tax hikes that impact small businesses.
Members should not take my word for it. Many economists are talking about the Prime Minister's inflation bill. I will add that these are individuals from very credible institutions. I know that the government across the way certainly likes to turn up its nose at some Conservative-friendly institutes, such as the Fraser Institute. I heard snickering today. However, the Liberals cannot argue with these sources. One individual said:
It's always good to help people in need.
The problem is, what does that do for everyone else and does it really help [those on low incomes] to begin with? If we have high inflation and that high inflation continues, that assistance is not going to do very much to help anyone, including the recipients of that assistance. It is just not going to be enough, and while the Bank of Canada is doing quite a bit to bring down inflation [through increasing interest rates], the government really has not done much of anything.
I am sure the government would like to think it was the Fraser Institute that said that, but it was Professor Pavlov of Simon Fraser University, a very well-known university, known to not always have Conservative opinions. Therefore, we are certainly not alone in our criticism of how little, or how “much of anything”, to quote Professor Pavlov, the government has done in an effort to fight inflation.
Another professor from Simon Fraser University, Professor Herrenbrueck, said, “If you're asking will this put further pressure on inflation, I would say probably yes, it would have to”. That is again not a glowing recommendation of the government's action on inflation from professors from a very well-known university, which does not necessarily have a Conservative point of view.
I have another quote:
While there are times where fiscal largesse is just what the economy needs, these aren't such times. In a period of high inflation and excess demand, cutting taxes or handing out cheques can add fuel to the inflationary fire, and make the job of a central bank that's raising rates to cool demand all that more troublesome.
That quote was from the chief economist at CIBC. How can we argue against the chief economist of the CIBC? It would be almost impossible.
Here is another quote and, I would say, our support of this part of the bill follows in suit with this comment: “We’re not going to deny that there are households seriously in need of help right now in this inflationary environment. But, from a policy perspective, we all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently … inflationary.”
This is once again something our leader, the member for Carleton, has attempted to point out to the government on numerous occasions. That quote is from Robert Kavcic, the senior economist at the Bank of Montreal.
I have one final quote, which says, “it seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation.... Any belief that it will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”
I would certainly say we are not all singing from the same songbook here when it comes to addressing the Canadian economy and inflation. That quote, to round out my quotes, is from Derek Holt, the vice-president and head of capital markets economics at Scotiabank.
We have three major banks here, CIBC, Bank of Montreal and Scotiabank, all indicating that the government has not done enough to stop inflationary measures for Canadians, which I outlined extensively with my food list and the way this is impacting people.
The average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more each year just to put food on the table. I am a mom. I go grocery shopping. I see the prices in the grocery stores. I am even hesitant to think about how my family will budget for them. I am a very fortunate mother in a very fortunate family, so I worry for my constituents and I worry for Canadians.
Grocery prices are up by 10.8%, the highest rate since 1981. Across the board, food prices are up by 9.8%. As I said, while Conservatives welcome this much-needed support, this one-time cheque of $467 for families of four eligible for the benefit covers less than 40% of Trudeau's inflation at the grocery store alone and does not begin to cover the rising cost of heat, just as winter is coming, gasoline and rent.
More than 70% of families with children would not receive this support. Again, individuals without children earning more than $49,200, families of four earning more than $58,500 or couples with two children would receive no benefits.
In closing, we have had enough of the band-aids. This economy, this country, is on life support. We need solutions. Right now, all we have is this sad bill and “Justinflation”.
1551 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 10:27:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, up to 55% of entrepreneurs cannot find enough workers. This is limiting growth, which we need desperately at this time, and it is forcing businesses to delay or refuse new orders.
What is the government doing to help these small and medium-sized businesses find employees?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
