Debates of May 6th, 2021

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, apparently things here are extremely sensitive, so I apologize and retract that part of my discussion.

The problem with people having to get jobs and work longer is that it squeezes out young people. I would ask my colleague how he feels about that. The response from the government is to cut back more people versus providing better supports, and that has a consequence for young people. Seniors or people wanting to retire cannot because they cannot afford it, so there are fewer jobs for youth.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments.

First, I believe that our colleague from Kingston and the Islands should have appreciated the impromptu promotion he was just offered.

I want to say that I find it quite odd to hear the government speak of making cuts so that the increases are fair, rather than just making the increases fair, especially when it has spent billions of dollars—quite recklessly, some might say—to help just about everyone and every business. The government likes to brag about that, and perhaps it just has a hard time treating all seniors 65 and up fairly.

It is not a matter of making cuts. They just need to treat our seniors fairly.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to continue with what my friend was talking about, which is how the budget is created and why the Liberals continue to structure endless amounts of deficit spending around the COVID pandemic.

The member spoke to programs that are now being created. Even though the government is continuing to fail on a number of files, including clean water for first nations, veterans and the list goes on, it is entering provincial jurisdictions with structural deficits that will continue well into the future, whereas it should be encouraging provinces to have competition within themselves, rather than conformity with an “Ottawa knows best” approach. I would like the member's thoughts on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that my colleague knows full well what we think of federal interference in provincial jurisdictions.

I also believe that money should not be doled out left, right and centre as an election promise. I believe that the money that was promised for programs to help businesses and sectors that urgently need it should not be promises that will be kicked down the road. I was speaking about tourism and culture. I could continue in that vein by talking about health transfers, which once more are non-existent.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to address the House of Commons, and this is a special time in that we are once again debating very important legislation. I am feeling very positive and encouraged because we presented, for the very first time in Canada by a female Minister of Finance, plan of action that would have a profoundly positive impact in every region of our country.

It is with pleasure that I encourage my colleagues across the way to recognize the true value in this legislation. As I suspect there is a chance a good number of opposition members will be supporting the legislation, we need to try to get it through the House of Commons in an appropriate and timely fashion, and not go through the same process we did with Bill C-14, given the very nature of the limited time frame we have to get government agenda items through the House of Commons. I encourage the House to deal with the legislation accordingly.

It is an exciting budget, therefore it is a solid and exciting budget implementation bill. Before I comment on that, I wanted to give a bit of a personal update on why I think Canadians should be feeling more positive and have a sense of hope. In the news in recent days and weeks, we have heard a lot about the coronavirus and how it is affecting our country, particularly some of those hard-hit areas, in this third wave. I am thinking of the province of Ontario and many of my Ontario colleagues, who are very strong advocates and who are expressing their concerns to make sure the Prime Minister and the House of Commons understand the severity of what is taking place in the province.

Last night we held an emergency debate regarding the hardships and impacts of the third wave in Alberta. No matter the area or region of the country, the Government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister, is doing everything it can to ensure we minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus. As I have said on many occasions in the past, we have been there since day one on this issue.

The Winnipeg Free Press ran a wonderful story that reads something to the effect that bookings for the second dose of the vaccine could begin as early May 22. Vaccines are a major part of the recovery, and I am feeling very optimistic because of the numbers. Not only have we been able to, as a national government, secure the vaccine doses so critically important for our recovery, but we have also exceeded the numbers we told the provinces they would be receiving.

For example, for the first quarter, we said to Canadians before December that we were looking at getting six million doses. I think it was closer to nine million. Recently, we heard very good news about the total number of vaccines we will have before the end of June. We anticipate receiving somewhere in the range of 48 million to 50 million doses before the end of June. Keep in mind that we have a population base of 37.5 million.

We are on track and the numbers show that. Today's headlines regarding the number of doses in the province of Manitoba and the second dose reinforce that. For example, today we have had more than 14.5 million vaccine doses administered in Canada. We have actually received over 16.8 million doses, which have been circulated to provinces and territories. I believe we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Contrary to what many of my Conservative friends would try to leave with Canadians, misinformation is not what we want. What we want to do is send a very simple message to Canadians today on ways they could continue to help and make a difference in fighting this pandemic.

The first and most important thing is to get the vaccine. When the opportunity is there to get the vaccine, Canadians should take advantage of it and get the shot. People ask which vaccine is the best one. As the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and a litany of other leaders throughout this country have said, the best shot is the first available shot. I believe the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health got the AstraZeneca shot, because that was the first shot available to them.

Another thing that everyone could do is encourage others to get vaccinated. We have to appreciate that there are people who have concerns. For those who have concerns, we need to talk to them and explain in the best way we can how their concerns could be dealt with and how important it is that people get vaccinated, including those individuals who have concerns.

We need to listen to what our health experts are saying and what science is telling us. The best way, the healthiest way for Canada to recover and build back better is to build confidence in our communities, get people vaccinated and ensure that we continue to do whatever else we can. For example, in the meantime, we still need to maintain physical distancing. We need to continue to wash our hands and wear masks. All of these things are important, and every one of us could practise that, along with the promotion of getting vaccinated.

I believe that if Canadians look at the budget document being debated today, they will see that it fits with what the Prime Minister indicated 12-plus months ago. The first priority is indeed the coronavirus, and being there for Canadians in that very real and tangible way. I will get into that shortly. That was the first priority, and we need to remain focused on that. The second is not to forget all the other responsibilities that we have as legislators, cabinet and others who are feeding into the decisions, and the importance of dealing with all other aspects of governance at the national level.

I am very proud of the fact that this budget reflects those types of priorities. It takes into consideration the extension of programs that have been absolutely essential to support Canadians through this very difficult time over the last number of months. It does that by ensuring that there are extensions. The legislation we are debating today is going to be there to support those types of extensions of critical programs: the Canada emergency wage program, the Canada emergency rent support program, and the recovery benefits program, which is a takeoff from the CERB program.

When we go back to the origins of the programs, we find that the direct payments to individual Canadians have been an overwhelming success. Yes, there may have been some problems here and there that crept in, but the overriding concern of getting money into the pockets of Canadians was achieved by these programs. We are talking about just under nine million people. Members should think about that. Out of 37.5 million people, nine million were affected directly through a program of that nature. We can think about the jobs and the wage subsidy program, and how this legislation would enable the extension of that program. Do members know how many people it kept in the workforce during this very difficult time for companies? Tens of thousands, going into millions, of jobs were allowed to continue in good part because of this program.

I remember when the Prime Minister held a virtual meeting with some of the ethnic diversity of the province of Manitoba. The Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg was one of them. The council talked about the importance of the wage subsidy program and how it has allowed it to keep its doors open. The impact of the Folk Arts Council for the city of Winnipeg is tremendous. We need the folk arts. That is Folklorama, where we can talk about the arts and celebrate diversity. That is what Folklorama is all about. Not only did the wage subsidy program help employees in manufacturing and many other jobs, but it also helped in the area of arts and culture and non-profit organizations. We have many non-profit organizations that stepped up to the plate to support Canadians throughout the many different regions and communities within Canada.

The pandemic is not over. We need to ensure that those programs, at least in some fashion, continue on, and we see a government that, through this legislation and the budget, maintains that commitment. How many businesses are receiving the rent support program? Some businesses would say that had it not been for the rent subsidy program, it is questionable whether or not they would be able to open their doors.

Here is the problem with the Conservative approach to the last 12 months. The first couple of months, the Conservatives wanted to be part of team Canada, but toward the end of June of last year they forgot that and put on the political partisanship hat. I do not care what any of them say; that is the reality. The Conservatives are more concerned about getting a political advantage than they are about contributing in a healthy way. I can demonstrate many examples of that.

I found it interesting listening to the Conservatives today. What are they talking about? They are talking about the debt, how much money we are spending, and how it is so much money. How many times did they support us unanimously in order for us to spend some of the money they are criticizing us for spending today? On the one hand, they talk about deficits, but I think they have some hard-right Conservatives in there. We have to look at the background of the Conservatives. There is a very strong reform element to the Conservative Party. It is not the same Progressive Conservative Party of the 1980s. There are a lot of hard-right personalities, going back to Stephen Harper himself. It is funny that they talk about caring for seniors. What did they do for the CPP? They did nothing. One of Stephen Harper's goals in life was to suggest the dismantling of the CPP.

The far-right Conservatives and their reform mentality are no friends to progressive policies that are helping Canadians today and will continue to help them into the future. Hobbes means a lot to them, the whole dog-eat-dog world type of thing. I do not believe for a moment that they would develop the same types of programs that we have put forward. There is a certain element within the Conservative rank and file that seems to be dominating the debates recently, which is on the far right with that reform mentality.

I believe, at the end of the day, that we needed to be able to borrow the monies to support Canadians. The Conservatives would have rather seen more bankruptcies, more personal debts. Where would the support have come from if people could not pay their mortgage or buy the groceries for their family? What would have happened because they could not work? That is why it was critical that we develop these programs. There is a progressive element within the Conservative Party that I believe recognizes that, but it seems to be a little more quiet nowadays and we rather tend to hear the others.

We see that in terms of the Conservatives' approach to the coronavirus. It is truly amazing. We can just look at some of the debate that took place last night about Alberta. All the Conservative speakers could do is think about how to blame Ottawa. This is all about blaming Ottawa.

Ottawa has been working with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, stakeholders and so many others throughout this process, including many of those comments incorporated into the budget itself. When the Prime Minister said that we can learn from this experience and we can build back better, that is exactly what is taking place in this budget.

We can think of child care. Quebec has, over the years, developed a wonderful child care program. We are looking at ways in which we can expand that. Not only does the individual family benefit, but so does the economy. We know that. Economists tell us that if we can expand the economy by increasing the workforce, the contribution to the GDP will be enhanced. It is a progressive policy.

We could talk about other initiatives. We recognize that there were serious problems, for example, with long-term care facilities, so the Government of Canada listened to what Canadians in all regions of our country were saying about long-term care and the concerns they had, especially in the first six months or so of the pandemic, when there were some serious problems, to the degree that we had to bring in the Canadian Forces and the Red Cross to assist in our care home facilities. One thing that has come out of it is that we needed to ensure that there are some national standards dealing with long-term care.

My Bloc friends are really offended by that. I would tell them that even people in Quebec recognize the value of national standards for long-term care. That is something we need to see and, as a government, we are committed. Every Liberal member wants to see our seniors being taken care of properly and recognizes that Ottawa does have a role to play—

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

On those words, we will go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of my friends said that was probably the longest 20 minutes they have ever spent, but I thank the member for bringing that forward.

I want to ask a question for this member specifically, because I know he thoroughly knows what is going on in this debate. One thing that is really missing in this is anything that is for new business owners. I have a list of new businesses that started operating, a lot of them at the end of 2019, that are folding right now. The owners have not been able to find any supports at the provincial, federal or municipal governments because everything is not taking into consideration prior to the COVID pandemic.

What is the government going to do to help all of those flailing business owners who just do not have the eligibility requirements that the current government has put forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know and I can appreciate that there is a genuine interest from all sides of the House in regard to small businesses. I have witnessed that in listening to a lot of the debate. We recognize from a government perspective that small businesses are a backbone to our economy.

In fact, about a week ago, the Minister of Finance met with some of my constituents who were business women of Filipino heritage. One of the businesses was Jeepney's, a beautiful little restaurant that started up back in January last year. We are listening to what business owners have to say. There are going to be some opportunities for us to look at ways in which we can improve and support business owners.

I cannot think of the name, but I know the Minister of Finance cited the specific program and I will try to get the name of the program that might be of assistance to the small business owners that the member might be referencing.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech; as the previous speaker mentioned, it did seem fairly long.

I would like to hear what he thinks about the speech that my colleague from Drummond gave about the non-existent Netflix tax and the income opportunities that the government is depriving itself of. I am thinking of regional media, such as Le Canada Français, which is distributed in my riding and which is about to celebrate its 160th anniversary. There are no real support measures for that newspaper in the budget.

What does my colleague think about the importance of supporting regional media that provide good local media coverage?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member and other Bloc members continue to talk about the issue of the government supporting seniors. The Government of Canada, during the pandemic, gave one-time payment increases to people on GIS and OAS. We also gave a substantial permanent increase to GIS shortly after getting elected back in 2015. There are many other initiatives that we have taken.

In regard to the 75-plus, that was an election promise. In the 2019 election, we made a promise. We said that we would give a 10% increase to seniors aged 75 and older, and that is exactly what we have done. We have given an—

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

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I note that the hon. member for Winnipeg North said the government members feel that they have done everything they could possibly do. I just want to let him know that the people in the tourism sector in my riding, particularly sport and recreational fisheries, just do not believe that is true.

The minister of fisheries has been sitting on a proposal for over a month that would have allowed limited openings for salmon fishing for April, and notice we are not in April anymore, and May, which would have helped the industry recover at least a bit of its business. Now that we are going to miss that limited opening, which would have had limited or no impact salmon stocks, this bill would allow the beginning of phasing out the CERB, cutting the CERB back, phasing out aid to small business owners, and phasing out the wage subsidy. How does this member respond to those people in tourism, and in particular sport and recreational fisheries, that this is everything the government could possibly do?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I only got to about point three on my speech and I probably had a dozen or so points to get to. One of the points that I wanted to highlight was that the NDP members want a home for everyone, universal child care, a more comprehensive health care system, a guaranteed annual income, no pipelines, billions more on infrastructure and they are going to get it by taxing the ultrarich. I think the NDP members at times do not live in the real world.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, unlike the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, I thought that the speech went extremely fast. By far the worst part of it was when you cut him off at the end.

In any event, I thought I heard the member for Windsor West earlier say that seniors were taking away jobs from younger people. I do not think that is the case at all. If anything, seniors are being asked to stay on for a couple of years longer. Certainly when my mother was a teacher, she was asked if she wanted to stay on. A lot of seniors are looking for opportunities to go back in their retirement to do part-time jobs quite often.

Would the member agree with the member for Windsor West that seniors would be taking away jobs from younger Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and the question is excellent. I love our seniors, as we all do. Pre-pandemic, I used to go to the local McDonald's every Saturday and a few seniors worked there. The owner said to me, “how much I appreciate them, I cannot enough young people and I love having seniors work for me”.

At the end of the day, I cannot ever see myself retiring per se. I think there are a lot of seniors who want to continue to work and I do not think we should be telling seniors that they have to retire. We have an economy that is healthy, that we will build back better and that there will be enough jobs for those who want—

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

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my friend from London and disagree with my friend from Kingston. That was a pretty long speech and I am glad you did step in.

However, I want to talk about the conversation around anything that actually disagrees with the Liberal narrative and of course, the member opposite was making comments that if we disagree with the Liberals, they are all right and list went on.

However, let us talk about what the Liberals did. The first thing they did after the start of the pandemic, they shut this place down for a number of weeks. The next thing they did was brought in legislation to neuter the opposition of its powers into 2022, giving the government absolute power to tax and spend wherever and whenever they felt like it. The next thing they did was the WE Charity scandal. After that, they prorogued Parliament. The list went on. Now we are seeing allegations of what is going on in the military that we have to look into.

All this stuff is happening and meanwhile the Liberals tabled this budget that structurally includes a deficit well into the future. When the member talks about day care, those kids who may, probably not, see this national day care program, they will be paying for that bill well into the future, but the services will not be there unless there are cuts or massive tax increases to pay for it.

Is the member opposite not concerned that they are setting future generations up for failure on this spending plan?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is no, I am not concerned because we are building a country. We are making a healthier nation because of the investments that we are making today.

The member talked about last summer's prorogation and things of this nature. Tell me when the government sat in the summer prior to last summer? It is well over 30 years ago.

Tell me when it is that the government made itself available for thousands of questions to be asked of it over a summer period in a format sitting inside the House of Commons. I would have loved to have had that opportunity in my 20 years in opposition.

This is a government that believes in accountability and transparency. It is a government that believes in investing in Canada and Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

It took the government two years to table a budget, this in the midst of a social, health and economic crisis that this country has not experienced in generations. In the face of that, one would have expected the government to put forward a comprehensive economic plan to get Canada out of this crisis and on the road to recovery.

This budget is a long budget. It is a 739-page budget. Despite its length, when it comes to the fundamentals of getting Canada's economy back on track, it is, to put it generously, wanting. This budget has no plan to get Canadians vaccinated, no plan to get Canada's economy safely reopened and no plan to encourage innovation. There is no plan to address Canada's lagging competitiveness or attract investment to Canada. Simply put, when it comes to growing Canada's economy, when it comes to getting Canadians back to work and when it comes to sending a message to the rest of the world that yes, indeed, Canada is once again open for business, this budget misses the mark.

What this budget does do is usher in a sea of red ink, the likes of which this country has never seen. This budget provides for, last year, a deficit of $354 billion. To put that in some context, the deficit for last year is three and a half times the size of the total debt that the government accumulated of $100 billion prior to COVID.

It is hardly as though the government had a record of being good fiscal stewards prior to COVID. Indeed, the government left the cupboard bare during the good times, leaving Canada in a fiscally vulnerable position to weather the COVID storm. That is why, within months of COVID after the first tranche of COVID-related spending, Canada's credit rating was downgraded by Fitch and S&P threatened to do the same unless the government reversed course and got back on track with a fiscally responsible approach.

This budget does not provide any confidence in that regard. This budget will result in the national debt rising to $1.4 trillion by the end of this year, which is double the national debt from a little more than a year ago. That is truly staggering.

This budget will put the Prime Minister in the history books, but for all the wrong reasons. The Prime Minister will go down in history as the Prime Minister who accumulated more debt in the span of seven years than all Canadian prime ministers combined going back to Canada's founding in 1867. Again, that is hardly a record to be proud of.

In the face of all of this red ink, it is no surprise that there was no plan to get Canada's fiscal house in order and no plan to eventually see a return to a balanced budget, which the government inherited from the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper, and completely missing from the budget was any meaningful fiscal anchor.

The only plan this budget provided is for spending, spending and more spending, burdening future generations like never before, with no end to deficits. This budget lays the framework for forever deficits.

The government likes to say that as we are in a pandemic, we have no choice and these are unprecedented times. That is true, and the COVID pandemic has necessitated some significant spending to help Canadians and businesses get through it, because Canadians are out of work and businesses are unable to operate in the way they were prior to COVID. At every step of the way, we in the official opposition have tried to work constructively with the government to see that there is targeted support and that it is delivered in a timely way to Canadians and Canadian businesses that need help. However, the government's excuse that all of its spending, deficit and debt are attributable to COVID can only go so far.

Under this budget, total program spending for the fiscal year 2021-22 is projected to be $475.6 billion. Of that $475.6 billion, only about 12% is related to COVID. In other words, 88% or so of the government's total program spending is unrelated to COVID. When we consider the $475.6 billion in program spending, that is an increase of a staggering 40.5% from 2019-20 levels.

What this budget contains is massive spending, including billions and billions of dollars of new permanent program spending, despite the fact that the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Finance called on the minister not to include any new permanent spending. It turns out that the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the minister was not worth the paper it was written on.

The government hangs its hat on and touts the $101.4 billion in so-called stimulus spending. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer notes that only $36.8 billion of that so-called stimulus spending is related to COVID, leaving $69.2 billion in so-called stimulus spending. The catch, however, is that, of the $69.2 billion in so-called stimulus spending, some $52.1 billion does not go out the door until 2022 and all the way to 2024. In other words, it will have no immediate impact, which is the very purpose of stimulus spending. It is no wonder that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, with respect to the government's so-called stimulus spending, that the government has “miscalibrated”.

With all of the spending, massive deficits and debt, where are Canadians as a result of the government's approach? Canada has among the slowest economic growth rates in the G7; one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7, a full 25% above the G7 average; and the highest level of debt, save for Japan. On top of that—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech, although I disagree with some of the facts that he has presented.

The Conservatives often make the remark in the House that Canada has the highest debt. However, what they do not tell Canadians is that they factor in provincial debt as well. In fact, Canada has a much lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the U.K., France, Italy, Japan and the U.S. It is just a fact.

I have a question about a theme that has been developing on our side. The Conservatives continue to say that Canada is spending too much. Will they, for once, identify just one area where they would cut?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a starting point, the government should abolish the wasteful Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is very helpful to the Chinese Communist regime but very unhelpful to Canadians.

As for all of this spending, this budget projects $40 billion in interest payments on the debt by 2026, which is significantly more than the government spends on EI and the Canada child benefit. There is a very real cost to all of this government spending.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He clearly indicated how the Liberal budget overestimates the impact of stimulus spending on the economy. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer thinks. He said that there is only $69 billion in economic stimulus.

In my colleague's opinion, could the government have limited itself to that $69 billion or could it have invested the $100 billion that it invested but in a different way? That way, the government could have dedicated $28 billion to health, as per the request of the provinces and Quebec. Which of the two options would my colleague choose?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the member's latter point about health, it is disappointing that we have seen zero dollars in the way of new transfers to the provinces for health, despite the fact that all 10 provinces have been begging and pleading with the government. I note that under the Harper government, health transfers increased by 6% annually.

With respect to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's findings, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects, as the hon. member noted, that growth from the government's so-called stimulus will be half of what the government projects in its budget. As for new jobs, the PBO estimates only 74,000 new jobs, compared with the 344,000 projected in the budget. Without more, the government's so-called stimulus is a total flop.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that millions of people are worried about losing their jobs. At the same time, Canada's richest people have gotten richer. We have seen excess profits for large corporations that have benefited from the pandemic.

The NDP has gone to the PBO and costed out an excess-profits tax. It would get $8 billion from the companies that profited from the pandemic. We would get $9 billion from a 1% wealth tax on people with over $20 million. We could close tax havens, which would generate tens of billions of dollars in taxes.

Does my colleague believe that we should be charging the superwealthy and those who have made a profit on the pandemic, instead of leaving this on the backs of everyday Canadians? We know that paying down the enormous deficits that have been incurred will mean either a tax increase to the middle class or cuts in services. Does my colleague support ensuring that those who can afford to pay for it should pay their share?