Debates of Nov. 5th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support Canadians

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with a lot of interest. He mentioned he has never met a constituent in Carleton who has received $40,000 in benefits. My cousin lives in California and does not have access to the kind of universal health care that Tommy Douglas brought into Canada. A week in hospital cost him $100,000. It almost ruined him financially.

Is the member for Carleton saying he has never met anybody in Carleton who has spent one week in the hospital and, in other words, has saved the $100,000 it would have cost without the universal health care system we have in Canada?

My second question is also very specific, and I would like a clear answer to it. In the First World War and Second World War, the Conservatives took a very clear stand against profiteering and excess profits. I did not hear the member respond to the issue of putting in place measures that countermine the excess profits and profiteering we have seen during this pandemic.

Is he suggesting the Conservatives have changed their orientation from the way they were in the First World War and Second World War, when they took clear stands against profiteering and excess profits?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Let me first respond to his question about health care.

Despite the increased government spending this year—dozens and dozens of billions of dollars, a 70% increase in spending—not a single penny more has been spent on health care. All that money has been spent on other things. The member is therefore wrong to suggest that the additional spending has contributed to advancing our health care system. The fact is, the percentage of the federal budget earmarked for health care has been declining since this government came to power.

Second, the other thing my colleague should know is that we are currently accumulating so much debt that we will wind up paying more for the interest on our debt than we spend on health transfers. If he is truly in favour of public health, he should be in favour of careful and transparent spending.

As for his other question, we are indeed against excessive profits associated with government procurement. That is why government procurement should be subject to a competitive process. That would allow all marketplace participants to reduce their prices to get contracts, rather than contracts automatically being awarded to friends of the Liberals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I must say, the member is very good at manipulating stats and numbers. The reality is that since 2015, not only has this government been successful at negotiating something Stephen Harper could not do, which is health care agreements in all the provinces and territories, but we have seen an annual increase, dollar for dollar, in health care ever since, as per the agreements. Plus, there has been a tremendous top-up during the pandemic to deal with expanding needs, whether for personal protective items, for issues related to mental health or for home care.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the Harper years, health care expenditures increased by 6% a year. Now they are increasing by about 3% or 4%. Increased spending under the Liberal government is not related to health care but other things.

In the future, in three, four or five years, when interest rates get back to normal, the biggest spending increases will go toward paying the interest on the debt that the government is racking up. The biggest threat to our health is this government's out-of-control spending and debt.

We know what the Liberals do when they are short of money. They did it in the 1990s. They made budget cuts in health care because they were in an unsustainable financial situation. That is why the Conservatives want to protect the financial books. We want to get the finances in order to protect our health. Our party is the only one that is capable of doing that.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise virtually, as we say.

I would like to start off by thanking my colleague from Carleton, on behalf of the constituents of Kootenay—Columbia, for his continued work to ensure there is accountability with the government. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue of the proposed wealth tax and believe it will ultimately yield a negative impact on hard-working, middle-class Canadians.

Our Prime Minister thinks of successful middle-class business owners as tax cheats. The Conservatives understand there is no Canadian economy without business and a hard-working middle class. It is really as simple as that. In fact, 45.1% of the GDP is what these hard-working, middle-class businesses provide to the Canadian economy every year.

Under the official opposition leader, we will continue to stand up for these entrepreneurs, and the workers they employ across Canada, to ensure they get the support they need to weather this health crisis.

As a condition of their ongoing support for the Liberals, the New Democrats have now demanded a super wealth tax of 1% annually on the net worth of Canadians worth more than $20 million. Why am I talking about the middle class? Let us review recent history.

In the 1990s, for instance, 12 of the 14 members of the European Union had wealth taxes. Now all but three have abandoned the idea. Why have they abandoned the idea of a wealth tax? They abandoned the idea because wealth taxes almost always fail, and when they do, governments turn to the middle class to solve their fiscal problems. Besides being ineffective, wealth taxes have proven to dampen savings and investments, which slows economic recovery and long-term growth. This impacts the middle class directly. This is the wrong move at a time when Canada is struggling as a result of the health crisis.

There are several reasons wealth taxes prove ineffective in raising tax revenues. The wealth tax is challenging to define and measure, which makes it difficult and expensive to administer. In fact, other countries have proven that at least half the money collected is used to administer the program. That is 50%, or up to $3 billion annually, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office, that will be used not to help Canadians who need it, but to allow the Prime Minister to pay for bigger government. Wealth taxes almost never raise the amount of money they are estimated to earn, and we know they are expensive to run, so I ask this question: What has more value to Canadian charities, the dollar provided by the philanthropist or 50¢ provided by the Prime Minister?

A wealth tax would be punitive to Canadian success stories and would only serve to restrict the flow of donated money to the very charities that are in need of the support. The fact is that people in need, who these charities serve, are already not getting the same level of service because of the health crisis. This tax would make the problem worse.

Charities across the country are suffering, and that is surely the case in my riding. Donations are down and many charities do not know where they will find the funds to continue. These organizations and businesses are passionate about the charity organizations they support, especially in their communities.

What this government is proposing is that somehow it knows better than philanthropists when it comes to how to redistribute wealth. I respectfully submit that the government does not. There are not too many examples where the government does a better job of running a business than the business itself.

On the surface, a wealth tax appears ideal and almost has a “Robin Hood” ring to it. Unfortunately, the examples that history has for us show otherwise and produce unintended consequences. Rather than putting money into creating jobs here in Canada, and thereby risking an increase in Canadian taxes, it is common for those impacted by a wealth tax to move their assets outside the country. The idea that a single wealth tax will provide the government with a silver-bullet solution to expand and pay for its spending is not rational.

A wealth tax is similar to a property tax, but instead of taxing real estate, it covers wealth in all forms: stocks, jewellery, artwork, cars, houses, boats, retirement savings, antique collectible guns, horses and hockey cards. The list goes on. It includes any asset of monetary value that could be appraised, which in itself raises questions.

The reality is a wealth tax will drive investment out of the country. How can we possibly expect to bring investment into Canada when the government is working through a wealth tax to chase away investors we already have?

Let us look at the numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the NDP wealth tax could raise $5.6 billion a year. The Liberals have pledged to add another $150 billion in deficit spending to the $350 billion already assigned. Even if the wealth tax did generate $5.6 billion in revenues every year, which other examples show it would not, it still leaves $490 billion that has to be raised elsewhere. Where will that come from? I am sure Canadians across the country would like to know how the government intends to cover the difference of $490 billion. The reality is that the differential, in one way or another, will be placed squarely in the hard-working hands of the middle class.

Middle-class Canadians cannot afford the current government. They cannot afford a financial decision-making Prime Minister who has never had to wonder how to pay a $300 utility bill with only $20 remaining in their account. Canadians are already struggling to get by. We need to start delivering meaningful solutions that will move our country forward, and the Conservatives are here to assist in that effort.

The current government and its approach to taxation transparency with Canadians reminds me of that story of the taxpayer who fell into the pot of hot Liberal taxation water. The government turned up the taxes slowly, starting with the wealthiest so as not to alarm the masses. In the end, what they were left with were soaring deficits, failed taxation policies and no option but to turn up the taxation temperature on the middle class.

There are times when we need to face a situation head-on and take the appropriate action when we have the ability to do so before it is too late. A fundamental difference of opinion exists in this House. The Liberals and the NDP want to tax our way out of the economic crisis, where the Conservatives want to harness Canada's most powerful economic tool: the Canadian worker. Winston Churchill, a British statesman, said, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Well, here we are again. We know wealth taxes have failed across the pond, and yet despite all the evidence that history would have us learn from, the current government, with the support of the NDP, is working to allow history to repeat itself.

My Conservative colleagues and I have been providing solutions to the government since the onset of this crisis. This week, with the passage of our motion in the House of Commons, Conservatives have secured more help for Canadians harmed by a health crisis. As a result of our efforts, the Liberals will have to pause their punishing audits on small and medium-sized businesses until June 2021 and provide additional flexibility in the Canada emergency rent subsidy, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and other programs that support Canadian families and workers.

This builds on a Conservative track record of standing up for the working class and making the government's emergency programs better for all Canadians. This includes increasing the wage subsidy from 10% to 75%, advocating for changes to the Liberals' failed rent subsidy program and, now, postponing Liberal audits on small and medium-sized businesses.

It is shameful the Liberals failed to support our motion and instead voted for punitive audits on hard-working Canadians. While the Liberals think small business owners are tax cheats, Conservatives know they are the backbone of our economy. Conservatives understand that there is no Canadian economy without our middle class, many of whom are business owners and employers. It is as simple as that. Punishing success does not encourage investment.

We are at a fork in the road. We could choose to tax more and punish successful businesses or we could encourage economic investment, which would result in a safe economic recovery. Conservative leadership will stand up for the workers and the middle class across Canada and ensure they get the support they need to weather this health crisis. Let me be very clear: Conservatives will continue to stand in this House for the working family who needs help. We have been here for them since the onset of this health and economic crisis. We will continue to work on their behalf to refine and improve the current government's programs.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know the Conservatives have, forever, stood up for protecting CEO stock option loopholes and for helping create more tax havens to help the wealthy not pay their fair share of taxes in this country. We have seen the median income grow to $2.7 million for the 0.01%, according to Statistics Canada. That is a 27% increase, versus that for the average Canadian, whose income grew at 2.5%. When the member talks about the middle class, who does he actually believe this tax system is working for?

We know that the Conservatives, when they were in power for 10 years, reduced taxes for Canada's largest corporations by 6%, and taxes for the super wealthy. Small business owners got a tax break of only 1%. If the tax system is working and these tax cuts are working, why are they not working for the middle class? Does the member not think that somebody in the 0.01%, earning tenfold the wage increase over the average Canadian, cannot afford to pay more, especially at a time like this?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, right now we are at a fork in the road where we have to look forward at how to stimulate our economy and get it going. I do not believe taxing the 1% a super rich tax is going to stimulate our economy. I think we have to start looking forward to paying back the debt we have right now.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, what are the member's comments on how important it is for a modern economy to have profitable companies, a vibrant stock market and a place for pension funds, like the Canada pension fund, to invest in profitable companies?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have to start encouraging economic growth and to encourage economic growth we need to show profits. Economic growth will supply jobs for our middle class, get people back to work and pay back the debt. It will also secure income for people who are investing in programs, such as pension plans.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am utterly astonished by the fact that the member would say that asking the ultra-wealthy to pay a bit more is going to hurt charities. I have worked in the charitable sector for over 20 years and that is an absurd statement to make.

Throughout the pandemic, Jeff Bezos became the first man to amass over $200 billion. Jim Pattison's grocery chains cut pandemic pay while his wealth increased by $1.7 billion. Galen Weston's wealth went up by $1.6 billion. We are talking about the ultra-wealthy; we are not talking about the middle class. We should be supporting our charities and our middle class so they do not need to depend on the charities that the member so incorrectly said this will hurt.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respectfully totally disagree with my colleague's comments. There are a lot of people I talked to who are now donating to charities, and they would leave Canada. We are at a point where charities are assisting our different programs, such as health care and hospitals, for example, one charity donation of $27 million was made in Vancouver. I can go on about the different companies that have donated. Right now we need those donations and we also need economic growth. We cannot do it without the economy growing.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madame Speaker, I take some comfort in your presence because I was feeling very lonely in my corner and I want you to know that you are my favourite speaker.

As I was reading my colleagues' motion yesterday, I wondered what the intention behind it was. When you look at it, there is more form than substance, but what are they trying to prove and what are they trying to accomplish with these measures?

During the pandemic, as the government responded extensively with the Canada emergency response benefit or CERB, and the Canada emergency wage subsidy or CEWS, it seems to me that this contrasts with the narrative that the NDP wants to develop as a progressive party in this assembly. To reinforce this image of a progressive party, the NDP moved a rushed, flashy motion.

I do not know whether my NDP colleagues truly stand behind the motion that they have moved, but judging by their high turnout, I figure that their conviction must not be as strong as it should be. I am simply putting that out there.

The motion contains references such as “the wealthiest one per cent” and social measures. When we talk about that, generally speaking, we are talking about progressivism.

Since I am talking about progressivism, I would like to try to define what it means to be progressive. We often hear these words. For me, one of the most obvious examples of progressivism is certainly feminism, the struggle of women to define by themselves, for themselves, what their future will be. Women have succeeded in doing this. It is not up to men to define female identity. This is a clear example of what progressivism is over the course of history.

Another essential example is the struggle of labour movements. Workers managed to change the course of society so that attention is paid to their particular status. It is somewhat similar. I see a progressive as someone who says that someone's social standing should not be set in advance. There should not be pre-assigned positions that people cannot get out of. That is the case for people from modest backgrounds. If education and health care were not universally accessible, these people could be stuck in advance in a position.

I see a progressive as someone who is aware of this situation. Not having much capital usually makes it harder to thrive.

Earlier, I was listening to my colleague from Carleton, who is a staunch defender of wealth creation. However, that wealth must be distributed. Personally, I do not believe in trickle-down economics—the theory that when wealth is created, it is passed along to others. I do not believe in meritocracy either. Progressives do not buy into the idea that working hard necessarily means we will thrive or succeed in this business world. We know full well that Bill Gates's son probably has it much easier than the son of a single mom. Progressives know that being “the son of” helps a lot. I say this sincerely; I am not talking about the Prime Minister. I am not that mischievous.

Another essential example to help define what it means to be a progressive is the Quiet Revolution. That marked the moment when Quebeckers realized that religion had too big a role in our society because it limited our horizons and defined for us what we should be. There was a broad push for secularism, which gave rise to a new society. In short, being a progressive means struggling to decide your own future and striving to empower each and every individual to do the same, according to what makes them unique.

I remember, last week, we were talking about the War Measures Act. There is a wonderful poem by Miron called La route que nous suivons, or the road we take, in which he writes, “And through our efforts, our hatred of all forms of servitude, we will have become ferocious beasts of hope.” For me, progressives are ferocious beasts of hope.

I think my friend from Timmins—James Bay did not quite understand, since he abstained from voting on our motion regarding the War Measures Act, but that is okay.

In my view, a progressive is someone who understands that there are groups of people who may have difficulties in society, and that they need to be given opportunities that will help them overcome those difficulties.

I think one group the NDP often overlooks is national minorities. There are several in Canada, including indigenous peoples, but there is one that is constantly written off by the NDP in its proposals, namely the Quebec national minority.

In my view, it is clear that the Quebec national minority is constantly seeking greater political autonomy. The New Democrats seem to think “nationalism” is a bad word. However, Quebec nationalism is not combative; it merely seeks to allow Quebec society to thrive.

I would like to come back to an essential notion of federalism, which is respect for areas of jurisdiction. Under the principles of the Canadian federation, if an issue directly affects people and the way they organize themselves in society, it is under provincial jurisdiction. We are familiar with this division and immediately think of social programs, health care, the organization of society in general and cultural issues.

Conversely, if an issue does not directly affect people, but the internal organization of society, it may fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Examples include monetary policy, international trade and the regulation of industry in general. This division is specified under the Constitution.

I would like to come back to the Sherbrooke declaration that my NDP colleagues adopted in 2005. They presented themselves as people who wanted to respect Quebec's jurisdiction to the letter. I do not know what has happened since then, but the motion the NDP is proposing today is very far from respecting Quebec's jurisdiction to the letter. Is that because the NDP has only one member left in Quebec?

This motion infringes on provincial jurisdiction. For example, the implementation of a dental care system is not at all within federal jurisdiction. None of the measures set out in today's motion fall primarily under federal jurisdiction.

What does that mean for me as a person who would describe himself as progressive? It means that there are valid concerns for left-wingers. I completely agree that we need to stand up for the less fortunate. However, there are other subjects that my NDP friends will not speak out about that surprisingly still affect the national minority in Quebec.

We know very well why this distinction was made in the Constitution. It was to ensure that the francophone minority was not swallowed up by the anglophone majority because we are a francophone minority in a sea of anglophones. We need these types of safeguards. If a society is not defined by its social programs, then I do not know what defines it.

When I was a teacher, a major study was conducted that asked Canadians what differences they saw between Canadian and American identity. The first things francophones said were culture and language, which goes without saying, and the fact that Canada favours multiculturalism while the United States takes more of a melting pot approach. However, the answer that English Canadians gave was very different. Most of them said that the health care system is what makes Canada different from the United States.

What does this tell us? It is true that a social measure shapes the identity of individuals. However, I sometimes get the feeling that the NDP takes issue with Quebec's identity since it is proposing federal social measures that do not respect provincial jurisdictions.

Quebec is a progressive society and it has demonstrated that on many occasions. What was the first level of government to implement a child care system? It was the Government of Quebec. The Government of Quebec also grants much more generous parental leave than what is offered under the employment insurance program.

Who instituted the pharmacare our NDP colleagues are talking about? Wait for it: the Government of Quebec.

Over time, Quebec has proven itself to be a progressive society. We have shown that we are a progressive society. Let me share a classic example of how the federal government's actions can create imbalances in social policy and how this has happened in the past. Some progressives, even some in Quebec, promptly condemned Lucien Bouchard. Why? Because, in their view, the birth of neo-liberalism in Quebec happened when Lucien Bouchard made the shift to ambulatory care.

We need to put things into perspective. Why did Lucien Bouchard initiate that shift to ambulatory care? Because at that time in the House, in 1996-97 and 1997-98, Paul Martin repeatedly cut $2.5 billion from health transfers. The Government of Quebec therefore had no choice but to cut costs. What did Lucien Bouchard do during those years? He created $7-a-day child care.

The federal government has created an imbalance. We do not have adequate health care funding, but we are making choices that are consistent with Quebec's identity. We can develop our own programs that will enable us to emancipate ourselves. Earlier I talked about what I believe a progressive is. What bothers me is that our NDP colleagues do not seem to understand it.

Getting back to the motion now, it mentions a guaranteed livable basic income. I said in my introduction that this is more form than substance. It is something we need to think about, but the issue is figuring out how to implement it.

The devil is in the details, as they say. How will this be implemented? What does that entail? Quebec already has livable basic income programs. For example, social assistance is a livable basic income. The support provided by the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail is a livable basic income. The Quebec pension plan is a livable basic income. Parents of children with disabilities have access to other types of livable basic income programs. What happens to those? Do they all get thrown out? How would that work?

I am not trying to be mean, but I think the NDP presented this motion because they see the Liberals swerving to the left and looking a bit more progressive than them. This is what we would call a dog and pony show. The NDP figured they would put on a show and move a motion. That way, they could say that the Liberals and the Bloc voted against it and that the NDP is the only leftist party.

They make unrealistic proposals and claim to be the only ones on the left. Not only are these proposals unrealistic, they do not respect the constitutional rights of one of the core minorities in Quebec, the Quebec minority. This falls under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec.

To me it goes without saying that on the issue of a guaranteed livable basic income, the motion is a bit irresponsible. How can they move such a motion in the middle of a pandemic? Do they think that everyone is going to vote in favour of this in the middle of a pandemic when there are a tonne of issues to resolve? They want to shuffle the deck and completely change the social support system without conducting a comprehensive study or asking Quebeckers what they think. I often hear my friends in the NDP claim to be champions of the national indigenous minority, but they did not ask the first nations what they thought about this. That shows that this is just a charade.

Let's be honest: It will take years to get a basic livable income up and running. It will certainly take a lot more than moving a simple flashy motion.

The other element is the national dental care and pharmacare programs. That is the epitome of a centralist vision. It is the epitome of the NDP's centralist vision. It is up to the Government of Quebec to decide if it will establish a dental care plan, not the federal government. Those who are progressive and left-leaning—that is how I view myself—prefer a top-down, or bottom-up, approach.

It must come from the bottom, the social movements and the people. Therefore, a measure such as a national dental care program must come from Quebec. If it decides to have one, it will. It must come from the bottom and not the top. A centralist, “Ottawa knows best” approach will not define how services will be provided by the Government of Quebec to society. That also applies to pharmacare. The Quebec government already has its own system.

I was getting somewhere earlier when I said that we must see how people define their identity. Some Canadians say their identity is defined by the fact that they have a public health care system. We know very well that that is powerful and that we have something powerful when we talk about it. When we talk about something that affects individuals politically, it is easier to talk with them and define their identity.

I think that this practice is not unrelated to the fact that the NDP is trying to be more closely connected to the issue of health care; they may be trying to get more votes. If that is what they want to do, let them run for a provincial legislature, because here is not the right place. If they are truly concerned about health care, let them focus on the fundamental issue of health care funding. Funding is a disaster. In 2018-19, if I remember correctly, 44% of the Quebec government's budget went to health care. The federal government's share was barely 20%. That is what needs to be addressed. When money is transferred to the provinces, then that will yield results. Funding is indexed at 3% when we know that the cost of delivering health care is growing by 5%. Once again, this is not in Quebec's interest and is a bit of window dressing.

On housing, the motion calls for the government to “immediately fund a ‘For Indigenous, By Indigenous’ urban, rural and Northern housing strategy delivered by Indigenous housing providers.”

It is a proposal, but nowhere is it stated how it will be done. If an indigenous housing strategy is to be developed and funded, perhaps they should be consulted beforehand. Were consultations mentioned at all? We have not heard anything about consultations. Have they mentioned the issue before? Do they want to implement it? This is more of the rhetoric I was talking about earlier regarding some of the flashy measures. I do not think that a national initiative involving first nations can be proposed without talking to them first.

Another part refers to taxing the most wealthy. I tend to agree with that. Adding “one per cent” tends to be a flashy move. The “wealthiest one per cent” is a well-understood figure of speech. It is a good communication pitch. Maybe I am for it. We should look into this, but is there not some work to be done first on tax avoidance and tax havens?

With this measure, the NDP is hoping to bring in some $5 billion, when we know that, in Canada, tax avoidance and tax havens costs us collectively between $9 billion and $48 billion. If we want to revive the Canadian economy after the crisis, adjusting public finances and ensuring robust health care funding are perhaps things that we should look into.

Lastly, one thing in this motion bothered me greatly and clearly shows that the NDP is not thinking of Quebec. The motion mentions the recovery for all campaign, which is only in English. That clearly shows that they are not thinking of Quebec. I was even wondering if it was admissible here but, since I am not a petty person, I did not mention it.

To conclude, I am a great admirer of Albert Camus. The NDP will say that the Bloc Québécois is not a progressive party, which makes me think of the quarrel between Camus and Sartre in the 1950s. Camus responded beautifully in the book The Fall with the “judge-penitent” character. He is the one who sometimes confounds others with his inability to intervene.

In this case, the “judge-penitent” is the NDP, who will say that the Bloc Québécois is not a progressive party because it is not voting in favour of the motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of sympathy for my colleague. Clearly, he did not read the motion and did not have time to prepare his speech.

He believes that the NDP would say that the Bloc is not a progressive party. What I would actually say is that the Bloc is not prepared for today's debate, which is too bad.

I feel no need to defend the NDP's history or our positions on bilingualism in Canada, Quebec's right to self-determination and the War Measures Act. In every province where the NDP has been elected, we have advanced francophone rights. These principles are well known.

What worries me is that the Bloc is undermining every opportunity Quebeckers may have for progress. It says that health care, a provincial jurisdiction, is underfunded, and it is right. However, it is opposing the possibility of access to dental care and a pharmacare program that is not as badly flawed as the one in Quebec currently is.

I travel all over Quebec and speak with Quebeckers. The need for dental care and a universal pharmacare program comes up again and again. Why does my colleague want to attack programs funded by the federal government but administered by the provinces that could benefit Quebeckers who are struggling when it comes to dental care—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I come from an academic background, and it is facile to tell someone that they have not read what was written just because they do not agree with our comments. That is the most facile response I have ever heard.

If I did not read the NDP motion and am not prepared, I apologize. However, if I am not prepared, my colleague clearly did not listen to me. I stated that the majority of NDP proposals are about things that are not the jurisdiction of the House, but are the realm of the provinces. It is not up to the House of Commons to dictate to the National Assembly of Quebec how to establish the social safety net it is responsible for. That is all I have to say to him.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take it the member is concerned about a number of the priority areas for spending identified in the motion, but I take the principal thrust of the motion to be a revenue tool, a new wealth tax. The member suggested that we could look to other areas first and that this is symbolic, but if we look at the PBO's work, it is certainly more than symbolic. There would be billions of new dollars. Now the PBO's work has changed and the estimates have changed significantly, in some cases, over time, but even the most modest estimates I have seen were over $5 billion a year.

I wonder, specifically on the question of a wealth tax, given the problematic wealth inequality we see, what the member would say about a wealth tax.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is certainly something worth studying. I added that tax avoidance is one hell of a problem. I fully understand that the House is responsible for tax issues, and this is fine with me.

However, I am not a tax expert. I often criticize some of my colleagues in the House who pretend to be experts on everything. I am not a tax expert, but as a self-described progressive politician, I do believe that the wealthiest could be playing a bigger role. I could support this proposal.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. He spoke about what it is to be a progressive.

I did find his description of Quebec society, though, to be very conservative. I see Quebec society as representing this kind of conservative preservative nationalism, a desire to preserve language, preserve identity, preserve culture. That is a Burkean vision of society that conservatives are very enthusiastic about: the desire to preserve the goods of history and pass them on untainted to the next generation. I would submit that to my colleague for his consideration, that conservative principles are very much aligned with Quebec's emphasis on culture and tradition.

I want to ask him about this idea of subsidiarity that he alluded to in his speech, the importance of bottom up instead of top down when it comes to social change and programs and these sorts of things. One of the challenges I have with the Bloc Québécois is that they quite rightly emphasize subsidiarity in the sense of respect for provincial jurisdiction, but we do not see the same respect for minorities within minorities, the recognition that, yes, the federal government must leave appropriate space to the provinces but provinces must also respect the proper space of minorities within those provinces in terms of the practice of their own traditions and so forth. I am curious to hear his comments on that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the last part of my colleague's speech, where he talked about minorities. If he wants to talk about conservatism, I would be glad to speak with him afterward.

One of the best-off minorities in the world is the anglophone minority in Quebec. Although the anglophone minority accounts for 8% of Quebec's population, it receives 30% of the education budget. If francophones ever receive the same treatment in other provinces, we can revisit this issue. Until then, I have nothing else to add.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I really liked that he mentioned the social movements, the women's movement and the labour movement. I especially appreciate his ability to tie in Camus, Sartre, Miron, no matter what he is talking about.

What really stood out to me in his argument is the way the NDP motion overlooks the Quebec national minority. What is more, the motion does not respect Quebec's jurisdiction.

I would like to know why the hon. member thinks the NDP, which claims to be a great defender of minorities, is unable to recognize the Quebec national minority in its motion.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the perennial problem with the Canadian federation is that the Quebec national minority is often viewed as contrasting with ethnic minorities and first nations minorities. However, they all have one thing in common, a minority identity. I get the impression that the NPD is happy to erase the Quebec minority identity at times.

We have to make the NDP members aware of what the Quebec identity entails, because I think there is quite a bit of misunderstanding.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. He stated that the “recovery for all” campaign is actually not bilingual. In fact, I have a House of Commons petition that is bilingual, if the member cares to check into that.

The other issue that the member raised was on the indigenous housing side. The call for a “for indigenous, by indigenous” national housing strategy is in fact something that the indigenous community is calling for.

I wonder if the member knows that, in the indigenous community, people are more likely to be homeless, 11 times more than non-indigenous peoples. In the national housing strategy that was introduced back in 2017, the Liberal government did not actually put forward a measure to address the indigenous housing crisis. In fact, in the throne speech, there is nothing, no strategy, no specific plan, to address this crisis. Is it not time that we get on with it in this new nation-to-nation relationship?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the recovery for all campaign, I do not know if there is a French petition. If yes, all the better. What I saw was in English only. In my opinion, when someone drafts a document in English only, they are not addressing Quebeckers. That goes without saying.

With regard to indigenous nations, it is obvious that they are facing challenges. We must be honest. It is true that housing is a very serious problem among indigenous nations. They will deal with it. It will not be up to just the federal government. It will not happen as a result of a motion that was scribbled on the back of a napkin and that we are required to decide on today, because they want to appear to be a little more to the left than the Liberal Party is at present.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for St. John's East.

I am very honoured to join in the debate today in support of the NDP motion that calls on the Liberals to put in place a new 1% tax on wealth over $20 million and an excess profit tax on big corporations that have been profiteering from the pandemic, so that we can reinvest billions of dollars to support Canadians.

The pandemic has exposed deep inequities and massive failures in our economic system, leaving 1.8 million people out of work. The people hardest hit are low-income workers in the service industries, the agricultural workers and the migrant workers. Too often they are women, they are young and they are a visible minority. Even before the pandemic, more than half of Canadians were living from paycheque to paycheque, and 10 million workers had no workplace retirement plans.

The median retirement savings for households close to retirement without a pension is $3,000, and nearly four out of 10 Canadians have no retirement savings at all. Meanwhile, over 10,000 families have a net worth of over $30 million with their total wealth valued at over $1 trillion. Worse still, the income gap is continuing to grow exponentially.

Successive governments know the system is rigged to benefit the ultra-rich and they have done nothing about it. Budget 2019 continues with a blanket tax break for the richest corporations. Tax havens are still in place and will continue to take over $16 billion every year from much-needed programs for all Canadians. As workers struggle to get by, Canada's top 20 richest people profited $40 billion from the pandemic, yet despite earning record profits, some of these families who own the largest grocery chains in Canada decided to end their “hero pay” programs for their workers. It is as though they are blind to the second wave and that the lives of their workers are not continually at risk. This is just obscene.

The time has come to bring in strong measures to restore some balance to such inequities. In the last election, the NDP campaigned on a wealth tax. In this minority government, the NDP is calling on the Liberals to put in place a new 1% tax on wealth over $20 million and an excess profit tax on big corporations that have been profiteering from the pandemic. This is so that we can reinvest billions of dollars in a guaranteed livable basic income, a universal single-payer pharmacare and a national dental care program, and then truly treat adequate housing as a basic human right.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that applying a 1% annual wealth tax to families with fortunes over $20 million would generate $5.6 billion in 2020-21. Over the course of 10 years, it would generate $70 billion in revenue. This wealth tax would apply to only 13,800 Canadians. There is no good reason why web giants like Amazon, Google and Facebook should not pay their fair share of taxes, as has been done by other countries.

Without a doubt, we should also crack down on tax havens and close tax loopholes. We need to pair these programs with tough enforcement against tax evasion and penalties for millionaires and big corporations who try to avoid paying their fair share.

By introducing a COVID-19 excess profit tax, we could at least double the tax rate on excess profits. We need to prepare these programs so that we can make sure that people do what is right by Canadians. It is time that we prioritize the needs of everyday Canadians over billionaires. By bringing in a guaranteed livable income, we can eradicate poverty and ensure the respect, dignity and security of all persons in Canada now and for future generations.

Nearly five million people in Canada, one out of every seven, live in poverty. In most urban centres, a family of four would need to have a total income in excess of $60,000 to escape poverty. In my own riding of Vancouver East, Downtown Eastside, is one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country. The median income there is under $18,000, while across the country, the bottom 90% have an average income of $28,000. Vancouver has the highest rate of poverty at 20.4%, followed by Toronto at 20%.

Who are the faces of poverty? These are not just numbers. They represent real people. They are people living with disabilities. They are children. They are single moms. They are indigenous peoples, who are overrepresented among the homeless population in virtually all urban centres in Canada. They are racialized peoples. They are the elderly. They are veterans. They are our friends and our neighbours.

I am a parent, and I love my children to the moon and back. There is nothing that I would not do for them. However, in Canada, one in five children live in poverty. That is 1.3 million children. In the indigenous community, one in two children live in poverty. Indigenous peoples are 11 times more likely to be homeless. Just take that in for a minute.

What do these numbers mean? They mean that people cannot afford to fill their medical prescriptions. It means they cannot have food on the table. It means they cannot put a roof over their heads. It means that children are being ripped away from their families and put into the child welfare system. It means people are forced to break the law to try and survive. It means that their life expectancy is much shorter than those who do not live in poverty. The cost of poverty to our overall economy is staggering and to our humanity it is immeasurable.

It does not have to be this way. We can choose better. We can allow ourselves to realize a better Canada; a Canada where children are not going hungry; a Canada where seniors and people living with a disability live in dignity; a Canada where veterans are treated with the respect that they deserve; a Canada where people do not have to worry about how they will pay for their medicine; a Canada where adequate housing is not just a dream but a reality; a Canada without homeless encampments such as the one we have right now in my community.

A guaranteed basic livable income can help build a better Canada. A universal single-payer pharmacare program and a national dental care can help build a better Canada. A true national housing strategy, as outlined in recovery for all’s six-point plan, is a good start to end homelessness.

Homelessness is a policy choice fuelled by both the Liberals and Conservatives. A commitment of immediately building 3,000 new permanent affordable and supportive housing is a good start. We can limit the ability of large capital funds to purchase distressed rental housing assets. We can develop a “for indigenous, by indigenous” national housing centre and immediately construct 73,000 units of affordable housing, led by indigenous housing providers for urban, rural and northern communities.

Those are the kinds of initiatives that will create jobs and help the people who need it the most. A better Canada is possible. To quote greatest Canadian, Tommy Douglas, “Courage my friends, it is not too late to build a better world”.

Let us get on with it. I call on all members of this House to support this motion. This is the path for the future, this is a just recovery and this is telling the world that Canada will not leave people behind. This is saying that we stand with people in a tangible way and not just in words. This is a test of all of us, where we stand and the value that we bring to the House.

I hope all members will support this motion.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, many people know that my father and I were journalists at Queen's Park at the same time. He once said to me, “You want to know how to make a New Democrat angry? Agree with them.” I have to tell members that as someone who has now run against the New Democrats, I think about three to six times, nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing in the motion that someone can disagree with on principle. The question is how do we get it done practically and how do we sequence it, pay for it and structured it.

The member opposite listed pharmacare and now added dental care, which is not in the NDP platform or its costing. She has gone from universal income to basic income, but has not explained what that would look like. She talked about and indigenous urban and northern housing strategy. She knows that we are working on it and are very close to delivering it. We have accommodated it within the new national housing strategy. Now she has added a couple of other things, but I will not go into the long list.

The NDP is proposing one tax to solve this problem. The dollars attached to that tax address one part of that list, but not all of it. Where are the additional tax dollars coming from and where is the program structure on how to accomplish these? Why is that not a part of the NDP proposal? Why is it just a bunch of slogans and a simplistic solution, with no practical process to actually address the issues that have been raised?