House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ndp.

Topics

Statements by MembersPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I wish everyone celebrating in Etobicoke North and across Canada a very happy Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas.

During this joyous holiday, also known as the Festival of Lights, families celebrate the triumph of light over darkness, of right over wrong, and the power of hope and knowledge. Normally loved ones gather to enjoy food together, exchange gifts, light their homes with candles and pray. We usually visit BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Sringeri Foundation, Sikh Spiritual Centre Toronto and Nanaksar Gurdwara.

These celebrations are a reminder of the diversity and inclusion that make our Etobicoke North community a very special place to live. They are also an important opportunity to recognize the contributions that Canadians of Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist faiths make to our country every day.

I wish our wonderful families a happy and safe Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas.

Statements by MembersPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

As we have had the opportunity for second takes, I would like to refer you back to the original point of order, which was that our members were also interrupted through the online heckling. I am wondering if, through you, we could find unanimous consent to allow them to do a retake of their statements.

Statements by MembersPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Is there unanimous consent?

Statements by MembersPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Statements by MembersPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to remind all the members how important it is not to interrupt. That includes when I am speaking. I want to remind members not to interrupt in this chamber, but more importantly, in a hybrid situation not to interrupt. Taking the mute function off cuts somebody off and really makes it difficult.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑9, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy), be read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑9.

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Calgary Midnapore had to leave the chamber prior to the vote concluding, so we would ask that her vote not be recorded.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #20

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, November 4, 2020, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 37 minutes.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

November 5th, 2020 / 3:50 p.m.

Louis-Saint-Laurent Québec

Conservative

Gérard Deltell ConservativeHouse Leader of the Official Opposition

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to express this very important point of view on this Thursday afternoon. We will all have noted that the vote went very well and we intend to do so for all subsequent votes.

I would like to remind Canadians who may be listening to us that next week we will not be on vacation, but we will instead be working in our ridings.

I invite the Leader of the Government to tell us what is on the agenda of parliamentary business.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Honoré-Mercier Québec

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

This afternoon, as planned, we are continuing with the NDP opposition day debate.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the parties for their collaboration and co-operation on this very important bill for all Canadians.

Tomorrow we will take up and complete the report stage and third reading of this bill.

Next week, as my colleague said, we will not be on vacation, but rather working hard in our ridings across Canada.

When we return on November 16, we will begin report stage and third reading of Bill C‑3, which deals with training for judges.

The Wednesday and Thursday of that week will be devoted to Bill C‑10, the important broadcasting bill that we really like.

Lastly, my colleague will be pleased to know that Tuesday, November 17, 2020, will be an opposition day.

(The House resumed consideration of the motion)

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. During the debate on the opposition motion from the NDP, in my speech I meant to say, “Homelessness is a policy choice fuelled by both the Liberals and Conservatives. A commitment of building 300,000 new, permanent affordable and supportive housing units is a good start.” I might have misspoken, where, instead of saying “300,000” it might have registered as “3,000”. I just wanted to correct the record to make sure that the sentence reads, “A commitment of building 300,000 new, permanent affordable and supportive housing units is a good start.”

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

We will take that into consideration and check that out.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House today to speak to the NDP motion, which is drawing a straight line from the inequalities that existed before the pandemic, the situation that so many Canadians find themselves in now and exacerbated by different issues, whether that be poverty or people living with disabilities, seniors or indigenous people who face particular challenges in the pandemic context, right through to the question of how we build a better Canada on the other side. All these things are connected.

I have had occasion to talk in the House before about some of the very real challenges that Canadians are facing right now in the midst of this pandemic. Some of those challenges come from before the pandemic and have just been made worse by the pandemic. Some of them are new problems. When we are trying to solve those problems, we should be thinking about how we emerge from this on the other side in a much better state and with much less inequality between Canadians.

One of the groups I want to speak about I have not had the opportunity to speak about in the House so far, but I want to raise them as an example of how we can respond to a current crisis and then build for better on the other side. It is the example of independent travel agents, who have faced real challenges through this pandemic because a lot of their income is earned on commission and, of course, that commission does not get paid until their clients take their trip.

They found themselves without income, supporting a lot of clients who have had to make alternative arrangements or, mostly, cancellations of their travel, and have been frustrated at the fact that they cannot get the airlines to reimburse their money. Now, in some cases, airlines are offering reimbursements, but contingent on the travel agents' sending their commission back to the airlines so that it can be returned to the customers.

Here we have a situation where there is a lot of hard-working people who are very frustrated, continuing to do work and getting by on CERB and now the CRB. They are looking to have extended coverage because they know that, even when they go back to work and when people start booking travel again, they are not going to see money for a very long time. It is not until those trips are taken that the commissions start coming in.

What is the significance of this? First of all, they are calling for a special extension on their part, because of their circumstances, for the CRB to apply to them. That is something that makes a lot of sense, given the nature of their industry. We want to make sure that Canadians get through this and come out on the other side without losing their homes, so that the economy can get back up and going as quickly as possible and with a minimum of disruption.

If we had in place, already, a policy for a guaranteed basic livable income for every Canadian, this transition would have been a lot smoother. It is something that we should be looking at doing because, before the pandemic, there were far too many Canadians living in poverty and after the pandemic there will continue to be Canadians who have need of assistance in order to be able to live with the dignity that every human being deserves.

When we look at responding to the current challenges of the pandemic, and I gave one small example of where there is serious need, and we talk about building for a better future, there is no question that a guaranteed livable basic income has to be a part of that solution. That is part of the motion today.

Another important problem that the pandemic has highlighted is the trouble that so many Canadians have in getting access to pharmaceutical drugs. That has been exacerbated by the pandemic because many people who were able to get that access by way of a benefit plan at work, when they lost their job as a result of the pandemic, they also lost their drug coverage.

I think that is another example of one of the real needs of the pandemic. All of those Canadians who had drug coverage and now do not because of a loss of employment, that is a problem we need to address. Many Canadians did not have drug coverage prior to the pandemic and continue to live through this pandemic without drug coverage. That is a problem that needs to be addressed as well.

The way to do that is not a temporary fix, but building a proper public universal national pharmacare plan that will cover everybody irrespective of their employment status, so that when there are large economic upheavals, whether they are because of a pandemic or the result of some other kind of economic downturn, people could rely on their national pharmacare plan in order to get the medication they need and would not be beholden to economic circumstances in order to get basic health care. This is something that has been the case with respect to pharmaceutical drugs for far too long here in Canada, and something that we absolutely need to change.

One of the other problems that, again, existed before the pandemic but has gotten worse, and I think threatens to get even worse yet, is the question of affordable housing in Canada and ensuring that everybody can put a roof over their heads. That has something to do with income. A guaranteed livable basic income could help with that, in terms of ensuring that people have income to pay rent, but the other piece of that puzzle is meaningful investment in public housing, of the kind that we saw in the post-war years and really have not seen since the 1990s.

There has been some new investment in public housing in the last five years, but it has not gotten us back to the point where provinces and organizations could engage in a consistent planning cycle over the long term. Restoring that capacity is something that is very important.

I want to make sure that I reserve time for what I think is probably the most important part of this motion. We can talk about all the things and all the ways we want to support Canadians in living a good life and living with dignity, but we do have to address the question of how it is that those things get paid for.

I want members of the House to recall what my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who spoke just before me, had to say. If we want to save money, the way to do that is to look after people and to care for people. I want to remind members of the House that, actually, we already pay a huge cost for not doing these things up front. We pay for them later. We pay those costs in emergency rooms and we pay them in jails, because people who are not well looked after end up interacting with the justice system and they end up interacting with the health care system. Instead of proactively, with their family doctor, they do it reactively in the emergency room once the problem has gotten so bad they have no choice but to present to the emergency room.

First of all, I want to say, and this is not just an article of faith, there is a lot of evidence to show that when these kinds of investments are made, serious cost savings can be realized to the public purse over time if the investments are made up front.

However, the really critical piece about this motion is to say that one of the ways we can pay for these things is, first of all, to recognize that since the pandemic began, Canada's billionaires are $37 billion richer than they were in March 2020. These are people who can afford to pay more in order to ensure that the rest of Canada is able to get the support that it needs. Asking those folks to pay more is not a stretch. It is not too much to ask. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, there is something deeply wrong with a situation where we do not ask them to pay their fair share.

For far too long, Canada's richest families and largest corporations have been assessed at lower tax rates. They have been given options to funnel their money out of the country, and not illegally. They can do this legally, investing their money in tax havens. It is why the NDP has proposed a wealth tax on fortunes of over $20 million. It is why we have proposed a temporary excess profit tax for the pandemic, looking at corporations that have made vastly more money since the pandemic began than they did last year, to say that they should pay a larger share of tax on those profits, over and above what they made in previous years.

That is how we are going to go from addressing the inequalities that existed before the pandemic, which were exacerbated by the pandemic, and land ourselves in a Canada that is more fair and better to live in for everybody on the other side.

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to narrow in specifically on how the revenues generated from the two proposed taxation measures square with the spending priorities.

Is the idea here, and is it the assumption of the NDP, that all of these things can be paid for by these two measures, or is the idea more reasonably that these would generate over $5.6 billion, because we know that would be from the wealth tax and obviously some more from the excess profits tax, and that this would then go to these measures but, eyes wide open, would not pay for these measures in full because these measures certainly would cost more than that?

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, Canada is spending a lot of money right now, and I do not think there is a way, in this moment, to raise the money we would need to pay for all of the things that we need to do. However, we are in a time that demands a serious response by government. I believe these are things that, once we are operating in a normal economy, if it is a meaningful priority of the government, we can find ways to pay for, and I think we have a lot of suggestions as to how we can go about doing that.

We are not suggesting today that there is a silver bullet to pay for the entire pandemic relief. Like all governments across the globe, we are spending a lot of money right now to keep our basic economic system afloat so that we can hope to come out on the other side. When we do, some of these things, like a national pharmacare plan, for instance, are all about saving money. It would not cost a dime more than we already spend as a country on prescription drugs. Some of these things do not actually cost money. It is just about organizing the way we purchase them in a different way in order to realize savings, and that would be $4 billion a year in the case of a national pharmacare plan.

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Madam Speaker, to carry on in that same line of thinking, I am a little confused that these things do not cost us anything. I am a numbers guy, and to put numbers to this, we have $5.6 billion of revenue that would come from this tax. On dental care, I believe the PBO has costed the program at $1.5 billion. On pharmacare, the PBO said $19 billion. The universal basic income is a big number; the Fraser Institute said at least $131 billion.

These are big numbers, and you do not create money out of nothing. Your motion seems to assume that the revenues generated would allow you to pay for these programs plus the right to housing, which I did not add in here.

I would like you to comment on where this is money is supposed to come from.

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I just want to remind the member that he is to address questions and comments to the Chair, and I am not the one that will respond. I ask him to be careful of the language in which the question is being asked.

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to read the rest of the PBO report. It says that the program would cost the federal government $19 billion. It also says that Canadians as a whole are already paying $24 billion a year on prescription drugs, and the Conservatives like to remind people all the time that there is only one taxpayer.

This would go from the system we are currently in, where we pay $24 billion for the prescription drug needs of the entire country, to a system where we pay $19 billion or $20 billion a year. As the member said he was a numbers guy, if he does that simple subtraction, he will find that it is actually a far cheaper way of providing prescription drugs to everybody. As well, we would be doing it in a way would not require Canadians to have a job with an employer that has a prescription drug plan, which would be far superior. I encourage the member not just to do the superficial scan of the Fraser Institute numbers on these things but to actually do some homework.

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk in the House comparing this to World War II and some of the measures that the government put in place at that time.

It was a different time, when the economy was booming. There were industries that were certainly benefiting from massive government investment, but this is a time when government is putting out lots of money to try to stabilize the situation. In terms of the profiteering, what particular industries does the member and his party think we need to put further regulations on?

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I do not think it has the same moral dimension as people who were profiteering from the war, but I do think there are industries that, if we look at their profits from last year to this year, they are much higher. There are some grocery companies, for instance. Galen Weston's fortune has increased substantially since the beginning of the pandemic and his company has done very well.

The question is in terms of what these companies have made extra this year that they likely would not have made without the pandemic. Do they get to take all that home, or do we say, wow, the country is really struggling, we are looking for ways to pay for the supports we need in order to keep the economy on track and these are companies that can afford to pay a larger share in these times? That is the real question.

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:10 p.m.

Vaughan—Woodbridge Ontario

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here today speaking virtually to all my colleagues from coast to coast to coast.

I read the information kit for the opposition day motion put forward by the New Democratic Party, and I would like to start my remarks today by referencing an announcement that reflects where Canada is going during this very unique time that our country is wading through, as the whole world is combatting COVID-19.

We all know how the New Democrats view corporations. The connotation they have used within the motion and in their commentary puts them in a negative light. However, today, General Motors, a corporation, said it is investing in Canada. Along with its great partner Unifor, it announced a $1.3-billion investment in reopening the Oshawa plant, which would create over 2,000 jobs.

We as political representatives often talk about corporations and ask questions. What is a corporation? Who are the people who work for them? In Oshawa—

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support CanadiansBusiness of Supply

4:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Unfortunately I have to interrupt. The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.