Debates of Nov. 5th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support Canadians

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very interesting and important question.

I outlined fairly clearly at the beginning of my speech the $37 billion made by some of these very wealthy corporations, distinctly off the pandemic. We have to separate people who are working hard, who have successful businesses of various sizes, and who understand that we are asking the most wealthy to pay their fair share.

We are also asking the government to be accountable for the decisions that it makes: $12 million on refrigerators for Loblaws, or maybe, as one constituent in my riding said, a little something for their small business that would take them to the next level and allow them to provide more jobs in my riding. I come from a rural and remote riding. I would like to see the government pitching in and making sure that those businesses get the support that they need to grow and support regions like ours.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated hearing my hon. colleague. She did a fantastic job of outlining what is at stake here for people. As the NDP status of women critic, I am constantly hearing about the struggles of women and how this pandemic has hurt women, in particular. We hear about the amount of work they do that is unpaid and how they struggle, often as single mothers, just trying to keep food on the table and roofs over their families' heads.

I would like to ask the hon. member about the gender discrimination of poverty, how it is impacting women in her riding, and how this motion could specifically help some of those women.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is such an important reality that women face. I remember knocking on a door and having one woman say to me, “I really want to work, but by the time I get my pay I get $20 because everything else goes to child care costs, so I am not working because it is cheaper in many ways for me to not work.” Women are making decisions that are not decisions. They are forced into positions that they should not be.

I think of a message that I just got from Jen in my riding. She said to me, “I am a single mom, and my kids cannot go to school and I cannot get child care, so I am saving up to pay back the $2,000 I get every month.” I am going to make sure she knows she does not have to, but this is the reality.

They are hard-working women who are totally put in a place where they cannot make the best decisions for themselves and their families, and they are often left. That is invisible work that should be valued better, and this is a motion that would start moving us in a direction where justice would be in place for women across Canada.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud, as always, to stand in the House and represent the great people of Timmins—James Bay. What we have learned during this pandemic is that the pandemic has been a very hard teacher, but it has made things very clear.

For decades, we have seen growing inequality in Canada and a growing split across the economies of North America and Europe. When our veteran grandparents came back from the Second World War, they built the middle class, but we have watched their gains be chipped away by Liberal and Conservative policies favouring the movement of capital and the undermining of basic worker rights, such as pensions and security. When COVID hit, millions of Canadians suddenly did not have enough money to pay rent at the end of the month. That is how precarious people were.

We are dealing with small businesses that are not able to get by. My problem with the Liberals is they have some of the best policies in the world, in terms of what they say, but they do not deliver on them. We hear the government talking about rent support and how it is supporting people, but I am getting calls from businesses asking where that support is because they cannot survive this week. Our Prime Minister had all the time to prorogue to get away from the Kielburger brother scandal because he does not know what it is like to try to get by as a small business.

This motion is about the two Canadas that have emerged. We know that while some people lost their businesses, struggled to get by and had to rely on the payments we forced the government to provide to get people to the end of each month, other people made out like bandits.

The pandemic has been great for billionaires. We look at Galen Weston, with $1.6 billion in extra profits, while Dominion workers who were barely getting by on minimum wage in Newfoundland are now out on strike, getting nothing. This is the same Galen Weston who lives in a gated community and who the Prime Minister gave $12 million to fix his fridges. My mother calls me complaining that Galen Weston got $12 million to fix fridges, when seniors have nothing. I tell her I know, but that is what the Liberals do. Chip Wilson, a Vancouver billionaire, made $2.8 billion during the pandemic. Jim Pattison made $1.7 billion. They are making a level of income that is far beyond anything we have seen in the past.

Our motion has made the Liberals and Conservatives flip their biscuit. They think it is outrageous socialism, this 1% tax on those making over $20 million. The PBO costed it out, saying it would bring in $5.6 billion. An enormous amount of money will need to go out from the federal government to get people through the pandemic, so it is fairly reasonable to say those who are making massive excess profits in the billions could pay their fair share. I would say that 1% is not even fair. That is a steal.

What we have to talk about is breaking down this myth of the middle class and those wanting to join it, which is what the Prime Minister says all the time. If the Prime Minister's speeches were a Liberal drinking game, we would be bombed after four minutes because every time we turn around he says something about the middle class and those wanting to join it. The reality is that I grew up, and my dad grew up, in a really different middle class from the one the Prime Minister grew up in. Maybe the Prime Minister does not know what built the middle class.

What we have seen from the Parliamentary Budget Office is that the top 1% in Canada now own over 25% of the wealth. That is a staggering disconnect. What is even more frightening is that the bottom 40% of Canadians have only 1.2% of the wealth. There is something wrong in our society. This society was built on hard work, going to school, getting an education, building a business, accumulating savings and getting kids to university, but the bottom 40% of Canada only have 1.2% of the wealth.

That is not a natural state of affairs, although Bill Morneau thought it was natural. He told all the young people who are facing massive levels of student debt and precarious work, “Hey, it is the new normal.” It is not normal. It is the result of policies.

What we need to look at is how we actually recalibrate the tax policies in this country. I ran a small business. We spent most of our time just trying to figure out our taxes. It was a nightmare, yet Amazon pays no tax.

I raise the issue of Amazon because that was a line-in-the-sand moment for me. I realize there was talk and a time when it was really amazing how all of us, as parliamentarians, were coming together and working together in the pandemic, but that moment was when the Prime Minister came out and said that Canada's partner in fighting the pandemic was going to be Jeff Bezos and Amazon. Amazon is one of the most rotten companies on the planet. It made $11 billion in profit in the United States and paid no tax. It does not pay taxes in Canada. Amazon's vice-president, Tim Bray, quit because of the horrific, abusive conditions that workers were facing in Amazon warehouses during the COVID pandemic, and the Prime Minister said we should make Amazon our partner. I say that because Jeff Bezos is so far beyond billionaire status, it is hard to even classify what planet he lives on.

Amazon has been ripping the heart out of small business, and small downtown Canada. Its business model has been to underprice everything, so that during the pandemic it has been making that kind of money. However, it was the Prime Minister who reached out to Jeff Bezos and said, “Hey, you don't pay taxes in Canada.” While 19,000 Amazon workers suffered through COVID illnesses because of crappy working conditions, our Prime Minister reached out his hand to Jeff Bezos to say that was the company that Canada wanted to work with instead of local Canadian businesses, instead of local Canadian support. It is this disconnect with the billionaire class that we need to start taking on.

We talk about the issue of precarious work, with people not having savings and being stuck in debt. The crisis of workers in Canada is no longer simply working class. There is a new working class in Canada, and it is very much white collar.

My father was a miner's son. He had to quit school at 16 to go to work. My mom was a miner's daughter. She quit school at 15. My dad was really good at mathematics, so instead of getting him to go underground they got him a job at a brokerage office. When my dad was 40, he made enough money to go to university. That was our trip into the middle class. With my dad getting an education, he became a professor of economics and because he had an education, he got a job. He bought a little house. He bought one car and when it died, it stayed in the driveway for about 15 years until the local high school came and asked if it could have the car for parts. That was my dad. He was not going to buy anything else. He saved everything, so that when he died, my mom would have a proper pension. That was the middle class.

My neighbours, when we moved to Toronto, had one income, but their family went to university. They owned their home.

I look at the precarious nature of work today, and how students go to university and come out with $100,000 worth of debt. Twenty-two percent of Canadian professionals are in precarious work situations. I have talked to people who want to become professors. They make less money than they would at McDonald's. It is the new business model. The problem with that business model is without having a society where people have stability in their income and in their savings, they end up being in situations where they cannot retire and where they live in poverty.

We have a government that makes all kinds of promises. God almighty, when it told us about rapid indigenous housing, what a scam it was to say it would be rapid. I have never seen a rapid indigenous housing plan, ever, from the Liberals. They are now saying they are taxing the web giants. That is not true. They are not going near the web giants.

Pharmacare was one of the greatest hits of 1997. Was that not during the years of the Spice Girls? I will tell my colleagues what I want, what I really, really want: I want to hear the Liberals stop saying they are serious about pharmacare and actually deliver it.

We are hearing a lot from the government, but it is not taking action. This is a simple thing to do: 1% tax on income over $20 million. That would help to pay, so that we can have a fair, and a better, society.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite certainly raised a number of very interesting points. One thing I want to key in on is that he talked about Liberal and Conservative policies having allowed for the movement of capital, and I assume he means the movement of global capital. He mentioned the fact that his father was a professor of economics and had worked in the mining industry, which I know is so important in the Timmins area.

I do not know the Timmins mining industry as well as he would, but I believe Newmont and Pan American Silver would have that free moving capital from other places of jurisdiction that help employ individuals in his area. Surely he is not suggesting that the movement of capital in foreign direct investment is a problem in this country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, what the Liberals do not seem to understand is what happens if one does not have capital that has some kind of obligation to invest. For example, in the 2008 economic downturn, we put billions into companies like Bombardier, which turned around and started shipping their jobs to Mexico. That is a problem. That is a serious problem.

I forgot to mention the Liberal housing plan. The member for Spadina—Fort York, wherever the member is, has been telling us all about the work the Liberals have done. He is the guy who said they helped a million people, but then the Toronto Star debunked it and he said that it was rhetorical advantage.

I want to bring members to page 4 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. Never let it be said that I said a nice thing about Stephen Harper, but it said that the government's spending on affordable housing is 19% less than under Stephen Harper's plan. Imagine, it is 19% less than the Harper government, which did nothing on housing. I just thought it would be good to get that on the record.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are 900 Canadians in the Panama papers. When we talk about capital flight, this money is already going offshore.

I know the hon. member's riding is hundreds of kilometres away from mine, yet the miners in his constituency would have fed the steel-working industry in my city. In a lot of ways, I feel like we are comrades on that. I know he has seen the kind of suffering in his community I have seen in mine.

When we talk about things that are actually evidence-based and go to the social determinants of health, I would like the hon. member to talk a bit about what a guaranteed basic liveable income, housing, dental care and pharmacare would look like for people who get caught up in the pandemic of the opioid crisis we are seeing today.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, speaking of the movement of capital, Timmins has been a powerhouse in the natural resource economy since 1909. It has some of the biggest gold mines in the world. We have fuelled massive corporations that have built and moved around the globe. That expertise is really important, but we have nearly 1,000 homeless people in a community of 45,000.

I hear the Liberals talk about rapid housing, but I do not know what rapid they are building. We have an opioid death rate that is twice per capita what it is in downtown Vancouver. Yes, we have a natural resource superpower that is built through the work of families who are willing to go work underground to 7,000 and 10,000 feet, yet our infrastructure is failing us.

The infrastructure in northern communities across rural northern Canada is failing because of lack of investment, and it makes it very hard for families to stay in these communities without those kinds of investments. The Liberals promised them, but we are not getting them delivered.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is very knowledgeable in the area of housing, and I am not as knowledgeable. My understanding from the Siksika Nation is that they talk about 2,500 housing units being built across Canada per year. He has mentioned this a number of times.

How would the member envision the numbers and what would he advise?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, a housing strategy is an investment strategy. We keep talking about Toronto, and I get Toronto, but let us take a look at northern communities. If they do not have proper housing, seniors are not going to stay and will move down south with their kids, and workers are going to fly in and fly out because they cannot get housing.

When we talk about a national housing strategy, we are talking about building sustainability in rural and northern Canada so that we can build better lives, the kinds of lives my parents and grandparents built through the building of the middle class that we knew in the 20th century.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Gatineau this evening.

It is a privilege to be here in the House, albeit virtually, to speak to this particular motion that has been raised by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

I will give a little context to my colleagues of how I come to see this issue, and I will get into some of the specific text of the motion in a moment.

I grew up in a rural community, not unlike some colleagues I heard speak earlier. My father was a truck driver and my mom is an administrative assistant at the local school. The type of family I grew up in could be best described as paycheque to paycheque. We did not have a whole lot. I was fortunate that my parents worked very hard so I did not want for anything, but I can certainly appreciate the essence of the motion of trying to support Canadians and making sure those who are struggling have the support they need.

I will explain why I decided to run for the Liberal Party. Of course, I was not part of the last Parliament from 2015 to 2019, but when the member for Papineau became Prime Minister in 2015, it was on a campaign of helping support middle-income Canadians and helping support Canadians in need, which was something that really resonated with me.

When I look at the results of what was achieved over the last four years, which certainly has been continued in this Parliament, one million Canadians were lifted out of poverty. There was significant investment in things like the Canada child benefit, and I have heard and spoken in the House about what that has meant for my constituents and I am sure Canadians across the country. We have moved forward with a national housing strategy and made massive investments across the country to help support Canadians with affordable housing, and the parliamentary secretary made a number of remarks on that today in the House.

There has been a lot done. This has been one of the most progressive governments in Canadian history in terms of helping support Canadians who need the help the most. Frankly, I could have an entire speech just on that, but I want to go the COVID-19 global pandemic, as we are now faced with one of the most pressing times that Canadians have faced in recent memory.

I am proud of the efforts that our government has made to make sure that Canadians who are most vulnerable are taken care of, whether that was through the Canada emergency response benefit, which has benefited, I believe, eight million to nine million Canadians at the height of the pandemic, or the Canada emergency business account, a $40,000 loan, which has been extended to provide an additional $20,000 for businesses that need it. That is not going to big business. It is going to small businesses in rural communities and communities across the country. I can tell members first-hand that this has been benefiting small businesses and individuals who need it.

On the wage subsidy, I will admit that it has benefited larger companies as well, but it has protected Canadian jobs and that has been the focus for our government. Our government has focused on supporting Canadians, jobs and small businesses throughout this pandemic. It is a record that I am proud of, and I know that the work will continue in the days ahead.

I will now go to the actual text of the motion that has been put forward.

The idea of a wealth tax on individuals who are high-income earners is, frankly, a good idea, but in practicality, how this plays out is where I have some questions that perhaps some of my NDP colleagues or other colleagues, if they have had the chance to listen all day on this particular motion, could answer.

The member for Timmins—James Bay, who was speaking before me, talked about the movement of capital. We are in a globalized world, and I worry about a policy like this without international co-operation where we have other jurisdictions in the world following suit in an international framework.

How do we prevent the movement of capital and wealth outside the country?

I have not heard a whole lot from the NDP members on how we avoid something like that. France, for example, a G7 country that has comparable economics and obviously progressive politics as well, introduced a wealth tax previously, which has since been repealed. In fact, there were 12 countries in the European Union back in the 1990s that had a wealth tax at one point. We are now down to three. Inherently, yes, the idea has merit and could benefit Canadians in helping to pay for programs, but if it results in a flight of capital and we are not co-operating with other jurisdictions, how is that going to be effective in supporting Canada's long-term growth and prosperity?

I want to go now to the profiteering aspect. There has been a lot of comparison in the House today with World War II, comparing COVID-19 with the fact that the Government of Canada at that time had introduced significant measures to try to pay for the war effort. The minister of finance, who was a Liberal minister at the time, was actually a member of Parliament from the same area that I represent. It was J.L. Ilsley. When I went back and looked at the history, there was no wealth tax as part of the legislation to pay for the government expenditure during the war. There was a significant increase in personal income taxes, and obviously a progressive rate for those who were making large amounts of money.

However, from day one, one of the first moves of the government in 2015 was to increase taxes on the richest 1% in this country to help pay for tax cuts for other Canadians. This was not a measure back in World War II and really the focus for the government at the time during the war was to put some type of measure in place to support those companies that were making profits as a result of the booming economy and the investments that the government was making.

For my NDP colleagues or others who might have thoughts, I wonder if this motion should not be structured more perhaps to companies that are making those profits. I know grocers have been mentioned. As a member who sits on the agriculture committee, I believe there is work to be done in exploring a code of conduct in working with provinces to try to help regulate or ensure that there are equitable relationships between food producers, consumers, processors and the largest retailers in this country.

However, what is the definition of profiteering? What is the definition of a big corporation? Does that include something like the Apple Valley Foods company in my riding? Does that include Michelin? We have mentioned Amazon. We have mentioned some of the global giants, but where does that threshold end? That is the problem I have with this particular motion. It is the ambiguity involved.

I am going to read the definition of “profiteering”. It is in front of me right now on my computer. It comes from the Oxford dictionary. According to Google at this point, profiteering is “the practice of making or seeking to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market”.

The New Democrats have done a great job of illustrating the money that is being made by some of the richest people in the world. Yes, there is income inequality around the world. Can we point to an example or a number of examples in Canada where companies have been price gouging, perhaps with the grocers? I would genuinely be interested to know what some of those examples are. Loblaws has been used as an example, but I would like to know others and whether the New Democrats share that definition of profiteering or if they have a more concrete one. I know the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington asked a similar question, not too long ago, on that.

As it relates to social spending, we all agree that spending to help support Canadians, especially those who are most vulnerable, is certainly laudable and it is something that this government has been doing since day one, as I have already mentioned.

When I look at basic income I would ask the New Democrats if this is a basic income, above and beyond the existing social programming in Canada, or if we would be trying to find a way to lump that together to give individuals dignity and have almost a negative income tax or one basic payout. That would be my question on that.

In terms of health care, we are a government that has put $11 billion in additional funding on top of the Canada Health Act and the transfers to the provinces to support specific health initiatives.

The next point is around housing. We do have a national housing strategy, and the parliamentary secretary earlier was talking about those investments. We do have the rapid housing investment. I have seen in my own community of Kings—Hants the investments that this government has made.

My final point would be that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the measures the NDP is proposing would raise about $5.6 billion over the course of one year. Everything that I see in front of me on this motion would probably be close to about $100 billion. How do we go about paying for that when we have probably a $400-billion deficit at this point? Do the New Democrats have some suggestions on that?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that the member pointed out in his informative speech was the increase of taxes on the wealthiest that the Liberals moved forward with and how that meant there was an ability to do a tax cut for the middle-income earners. I am just wondering if the member could speak to why that did not include any Canadian making $47,000 or less.

I know that, in my riding, the median household income is about $62,000. I looked up the median household income in the member's riding and it is around $60,000. I would say that means a vast majority of people in our ridings did not benefit at all from this wonderful tax benefit that he keeps talking about. I wonder if the member could talk to all of us about why he would make that decision and brag about it in Parliament.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was not in the last Parliament when that decision was made. I was referencing 2015.

The member is trying to shoehorn some of the tax cuts that were made without really giving any credence to the other policies that our government has introduced over the last five years, and even in the 12 and a half months that I have been a member of Parliament, aimed at supporting individuals. One is the Canada child benefit. It has meant $17 million for my riding of Kings—Hants to help support parents and individuals who are of lower socio-economic status, allowing them to pay for groceries and activities.

Frankly, I could go on. There have been massive investments beyond this one point.

[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 want to pick up on the topic of pharmacare, because I believe it has a great deal of merit. It was mentioned in the throne speech. I have been asking questions along the lines of how important it is that we work with the provinces to achieve the best pharmacare program we can for Canadians.

I wonder if the member could share his thoughts on this, as I am sure many of his constituents believe in a national pharmacare program.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that improving pharmacare and working with the provinces and territories is something I heard on doorsteps last October, and have continued to hear, from my constituents. I was pleased to see it in the Speech from the Throne. Obviously there are a lot of competing priorities right now for the government as a result of COVID-19, but I hope we will see it again.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the essence of the NDP motion. I think the motion could be restruck to look at international collaboration. The policy in the motion as it is written right now would lead to the exodus of capital. If we could get other jurisdictions to work collaboratively, we could find ways to pay for things above and beyond what is in the motion right now.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is very learned. He spoke a bit about the economics of this and referenced the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We have heard Liberals time and time again talk about a national pharmacare strategy, but they refuse to say it will be public.

What does the member have to say about the government's own reports from former Ontario minister Dr. Eric Hoskins, who identified that our national public pharmacare project will actually save Canadians dollars, unlike the wasteful privatization plan the Liberals are proposing?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, speaking as the member for Kings—Hants and not necessarily on behalf of the government, as I am not part of the Privy Council, I certainly think there is merit to increasing the amount of access for those who do not have access to prescription drugs. Creating a national formulary is also important.

Right now, certain systems through employers have these programs available for individuals. They are meeting the demand and allowing this to happen through the private sector. Is there room for increased involvement from the public sector in making sure that we support Canadians who do not have those privileges and benefits through their employers? Absolutely.

That is my position as a parliamentarian.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to reiterate my appreciation and my deep gratitude to the residents of Gatineau for the honour they have conferred upon me by sending me here to represent them. I try each day to be worthy of it.

In the midst of this pandemic, which is not easy for anyone anywhere in Canada, I want to specifically highlight the work of the Government of Canada's public servants. They are working hard day and night to serve Canadians, often in difficult conditions that are less than ideal.

In the department I work for, Public Services and Procurement Canada, employees are working day and night on the purchase and procurement of PPE, vaccines and treatments for the pandemic. Other departments are taking on important roles, like the Canada Revenue Agency, or Statistics Canada, which is making contact tracing calls, or Employment and Social Development Canada, which is putting income support programs in place, as I will discuss in my speech. These employees are great public servants, and we can be very proud of the efforts they are making, in Gatineau, in the national capital region, and all across Canada. I must thank them.

Since the spring, we have been dealing with an unprecedented challenge, the COVID-19 pandemic. This remains a very difficult situation that definitely will continue throughout the fall and winter. However, our government is there for Canadians. We promised to do whatever it took to support Canadians. That is what we are doing today, and that is what we will continue to do.

We all worked together to flatten the curve by practising physical distancing and following public health guidance. Although these health measures are the key to flattening the curve, they are having an unintended and disproportionate impact on vulnerable people, both in Gatineau and elsewhere in Canada.

Millions of Canadians have lost their jobs, worked fewer hours or had their wages cut. These job losses may be the most serious and most obvious consequence of the global economic disruption we are all facing.

Day by day, as the situation evolves, the number of vulnerable people is growing. This means our approach must also be constantly evolving in order to support Canadians. To strengthen the middle class, we announced a tax cut for the middle class five years ago that reduced their personal income tax rate from 22% to 20.5% in order to put more money into Canadians' pockets. We made a promise, and we delivered.

As a result, single individuals who benefited from this tax cut paid on average $330 less in taxes each year, and couples who received it paid on average $540 less in taxes each year.

Last year, we proposed to amend the Income Tax Act to lower taxes for the middle class and those working hard to join it by increasing the basic personal amount to $15,000 by 2023.

When we talk about the middle class, we are talking about the people in Gatineau, my riding, whose average income is slightly higher than the Canadian average. Measures to help the middle class are aimed directly at the people of Gatineau, and I am proud to be part of a government that puts the economic and other needs of the middle class first.

Increasing the basic personal exemption would mean that Canadians would pay no federal tax on the first $15,000 they earn. Almost 20 million Canadians would pay less taxes thanks to this measure, which would be phased in over four years, starting in 2020. It would put $3 billion in the pockets of Canadian households in 2020, rising to $6 billion by 2023.

Unlike what is being proposed in the motion we are debating today, here is a concrete, feasible, achievable measure, even in the context of a pandemic, that we can propose to middle-class Canadians and that we will implement.

In 2015, our government committed to investing to grow our economy, to strengthen the middle class and to help hard-working people become part of it. We also committed to providing more direct assistance to those who need it most. Five years later, our commitment still stands and is even more important than ever. We are all in this together, and that is why the government has introduced many programs and enhanced existing ones.

Through Canada's COVID‑19 economic response plan, these programs are providing assistance to Canadians, to Canadian businesses, and to those who need it the most, particularly seniors. This year has been difficult for Canada's many seniors. During the COVID‑19 pandemic, a number of them unfortunately had to deal with health challenges, as well as with economic and social impacts. The disease has disproportionately affected seniors, particularly those living in long-term care facilities. Incidentally, if the people in the Chartwell Cité-Jardin residence, in Campus 3, or in long-term care homes in my riding are watching right now, I want to assure them that we are here every day fighting to make their lives better and to provide additional assistance to seniors in Gatineau and across Canada.

That is why, this spring, we announced $2.5 billion in additional financial support for a one‑time tax-free payment of $300 for seniors eligible for the old age security pension and an additional $200 for seniors eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.

In Canada, like everywhere else in the world, the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted certain flaws in how our societies are organized and what they prioritize, especially with regard to income inequality. The measures I mentioned earlier have made a real difference in the lives of Canadians, and we must continue to prioritize Canadians if we wish to ensure a lasting, resilient recovery. For that reason, in September, we stated our intention to strengthen the middle class, build resiliency and generate growth through targeted investments.

We will also identify additional ways to tax extreme wealth inequalities, including by concluding work to limit the stock option deduction for wealthy individuals at large and established corporations, and addressing tax avoidance by multinational companies.

Together, we can build a fairer, more resilient world where everyone has an equal chance to succeed. We must remember that the pandemic is the most serious public health crisis Canada has ever faced. Canadians of all ages across the country have been hit hard. COVID-19 has taken the lives of over 10,000 Canadians. Our government is there for Canadians. We will make it through this crisis together. We can and will do everything in our power to limit job losses and the impact of COVID-19 on Canadians. When this crisis finally comes to an end, we will be better positioned to recover and build a safer and fairer future for everyone, together.

[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, the motion we have before us calls upon the government to do things that, it appears, have not been costed out in any fashion whatsoever. It is almost like a wish list, and I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how he interprets the motion.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. Too often proposals coming from over there, notably from the New Democratic Party, come without a price tag.

We know there is only one taxpayer. We know things must be costed and paid for. I will take, as an example, the PBO report that NDP members often talk about to justify a wealth tax. The PBO said, and I am not quoting directly, that it was functionally impossible to implement a tax like that because of the many difficulties in collecting the said tax.

Often what we see coming from across the aisle are ill-defined, certainly non-costed proposals that cannot be entertained all at once.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's speech was intriguing.

I was having a conversation with a chief in my riding. He said that one of the challenges of working with Canada was that it believed in only incremental justice for indigenous people. He talked about his concern with housing and the significant lack of it in indigenous communities.

Another community in my riding, Kingcome Inlet, is seeing a lot of changes to the area, which increases flooding. They are building their houses higher and higher. They do not have a safe route out of their community. There are multiple challenges with housing and it is becoming very unsafe.

Could the member talk about the government's promise to have an indigenous housing strategy, a national housing strategy for indigenous communities, both urban and rural, which still has not been put in place? How long do indigenous people have to wait? Does the member agree that incremental justice is the only way forward for indigenous communities?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's question and want to make it very clear that the government has every intention of delivering on its promises to indigenous people.

On the promises we made, a $55 billion national housing strategy over 10 years will get the federal government back in the housing business generally and specifically target the needs of indigenous peoples throughout Canada. I am very confident that our response on indigenous housing will be comprehensive.

The member mentioned flooding. I know something about that, living in Gatineau, Quebec. It has had two 100-year floods in the last two years. I want to assure the member that she has a fellow soldier in the fight to build more durable and resilient communities, indigenous and indeed all communities, as we combat climate change.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is some irony in the Liberals' calling out the NDP members for not costing this properly, that the math does not work out.

I am looking at a report from the C.D. Howe Institute in relation to the Liberals' tax hike on high income earners. It said that the government actually lost revenue. There were $1.3 billion raised for the federal government, but then there was a $1.4 billion loss for provincial governments.

I wonder if the member could comment on how the the Liberals' tax policies did not have the math right.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always find it very interesting to hear Conservative members discuss fiscal measures. They always complain about taxes, but they never talk about the devastating cuts that they would propose, whether it be to indigenous housing, which we were just discussing. The member and I serve on the government operations committee, where the spectre of cuts to the public service is always bandied about in veiled terms.

The Conservatives never get specific about what they would cut. I would encourage the member to encourage his party to be a little more transparent about that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be splitting my time tonight with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Just over a year ago, I was elected to the House. I earned the trust of the people of London—Fanshawe to represent them. Over that campaign and every single day, I heard from them. They feel disheartened. They feel that ultimately those with the most power continue to use it to protect those who have the most money. They have seen it in tax cuts, subsidies and handouts that go to the well-connected while they, the workers, are asked to do more with less.

It is hard to blame them for thinking and feeling that way. There was a time in the country, admittedly before my generation, when people could find jobs that would become a career. They could count on a workplace pension and workplace benefits that included coverage for medications and dental care.

There was a time when the federal government built affordable housing and made sure that everyone could afford a place to live. It was not that long ago that the wealthy and large corporations paid their fair share for the benefit of all Canadians. There was a sense that we were all in it together. In the summer, I truly believed there was a greater sense of that, that we were all in it together, at least the Prime Minister said so, but he says a lot of things.

There are many reasons and ways we got here today. Changes have happened over the years because of the choices made, such as trade policies that hollowed out our manufacturing sector, something that the people in southwestern Ontario see whenever they drive by large empty factory sites like Ford Talbotville. Good well-paying jobs have been replaced by minimum wage precarious employment. Those now entering the workforce with massive student debt have no job security and are jumping from job to job in the 2020 gig economy.

Liberal and Conservative governments have both rigged the system to favour their corporate friends and the richest of Canadians, who take full advantage of tax havens, while our governments turn a blind eye.

When I ran for office, it was on the idea that we needed to tip the scales back in favour of everyday Canadians. That is why we are calling for a wealth tax on the richest Canadians as well as creating a World War II-style excess profits tax on companies that are making a killing off the pandemic to pay for the services on which Canadian families count.

While families struggle, the super rich and the biggest corporations make billions off this pandemic. While people struggle to pay their bills, Canadian billionaires are $37 billion richer. I have no concept of what that would even look like, and most other Canadians cannot either. These billionaires are not struggling; they are profiting.

Of course, we know this pandemic is not over and we have to make important choices on how we define our future. Instead of cutting services that people need, the government needs to make the wealthiest and the pandemic profiteers pay their fair share so we can ensure people, businesses and families that need that help get it.

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 profiteered from this pandemic. We must reinvest billions of dollars gained from these measures to meet the needs of the most vulnerable Canadians.

In the last election, the New Democrats had the courage to put big ideas on the table. We committed to a pilot on a guaranteed livable basic income that could pave the way to ensuring that no one in Canada would live in poverty. I consistently hear from people in London who are stuck in those cycles of poverty. They are constantly struggling and working to break free, but the systems are built to police poverty. Poverty reduction strategies across Canada have largely failed in their objective of lifting people up, if that was ever truly their purpose.

Some current social assistance programs are focused around employment readiness and training initiatives under the assumption that incentives are needed to compel people to work.

In my province, those on Ontario works and Ontario disability are asked to constantly jump through hoops and file reports, but are not offered a chance to achieve a liveable income. That is why we need a guaranteed livable basic income system that offers a predictable payment provided unconditionally by the government to all individuals in Canada who need it. This will afford all persons in Canada the respect, dignity, security and human rights affirmed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that no one should live in poverty and that everyone who needs it should have a liveable income. The New Democrats have been saying for so long that we need to end poverty in Canada once and for all.

In 1989, the House unanimously passed the motion put forward by former NDP leader, Ed Broadbent, to end child poverty by 2000. It is 31 years later, well past that 2000 date, and we are still seeing alarming child poverty rates across Canada. Canadians need a government that will take serious action to ensure that we do not have yet another generation of children suffering the pain of growing up in poverty.

Canada's housing crisis is something that families feel every day as well, and it is rooted in the Liberal's cancellation of the national affordable housing program in 1993. Everyone should have the right to a safe and affordable place to call home, but for far too many families, affordable housing is increasingly out of reach. The average cost of a two bedroom apartment in London—Fanshawe is over $1,500 a month, and that is well over 30% of the average median household income of a family in my riding. There is also a waiting list of more than 5,000 households in need of affordable housing right now.

While the city is doing good work in trying to fill the gap in funding, it needs federal leadership. The government must adopt an NDP plan to build 500,000 units of quality, affordable housing, including the construction of co-ops, social and not-for-profit housing.

Three years ago, the Liberals' plan was to reduce homelessness by 50% but failed to acknowledge that this did not meaningfully implement the right to housing. In the throne speech, they had a recent change of heart and used pretty words to say that they were looking to eliminate chronic homelessness but within an unknown timeline.

The cost of housing has only increased under the Liberals and it is currently at record high levels. The housing crisis is getting worse and encampments are growing in communities across the country, including in London, Ontario. The Prime Minister is failing to live up to his 2017 declaration that adequate housing is a basic human right.

I support the motion today because it provides a way forward to truly tackle the housing crisis and to ensure everyone can afford a place he or she can call home.

I have constituents come into my office consistently who also cannot afford the necessary medications they need. I think of the many people who are on ODSP and are stuck. If they make too much money, then they are cut off support. Therefore, they have to stay in poverty or risk losing their medications. It is an impossible choice that we force thousands of people to make every day.

That is why the establishment of a universal pharmacare program is so vital. New Democrats have always understood that health care must be a right in Canada, not a privilege, and we have been calling for universal public drug coverage since our founding convention in 1961.

On clinical, ethical and economic grounds, universal public drug coverage has been recommended by commissions, committees and advisory councils dating as far back as the 1940s. Health policy experts are clear. The U.S.-style private patchwork approach costs far more and delivers far less access to prescription drugs.

Today, Canada is the only wealthy country in the world with a universal health care system that lacks universal prescription coverage, and we pay the third highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. We force people to deal with a patchwork of programs and coverage, if they are lucky enough to have coverage at all.

When we consider the average median household income in London—Fanshawe is under $60,000 a year, well below the Ontario average, this would be a huge boost to people in my riding. I think of the many seniors in my riding who tell me daily how the cost of those everyday items are increasing while their incomes remain the same. The cost of drugs continues to be the fastest growing of those expenses and the average drug costs are increasing by 4% every year.

On average, Canadian households spend $450 a year on prescription drugs and $550 on private health care premiums. Private premiums have risen rapidly in years, thanks largely to escalating drug prices, and they are taking a growing bite out of seniors' fixed incomes and workers' take-home pay.

I said this before, but it bears repeating. Now is the time to decide how we wish to move forward in this pandemic. The finance minister has already hinted at a retreat to more cuts and austerity. As parliamentarians, there are always choices that we have to make, and sometimes they are hard choices but we need to do the right thing.

Does the government continue to help well-connected billionaires and millionaires or do we actually invest in our people? Do we cut direct income supports for the most vulnerable or do we commit to establishing a livable income? Do we continue to let families struggle or do we build housing to avoid this affordability crisis? Do we let big pharma continue to make record profits while seniors cut their bills in half? These are the choices that we need to make and we need to make the right ones now.